Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03_YB_Appx 03-C_Lansing NY Comprehensive Plan
Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................. 11 Community Vision Statement: ........................................................................................................................... 14 History: ................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions and Considerations ............................................................................................ 19 Census Information· ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Population: .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Age Distribution: ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Race: ................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Education: ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 Educational Attainment: ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Employment: ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Income: ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 Poverty: ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 Households: ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 Housing: .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Means of Transportation to Work: ...................................................................................................................... 31 Agriculture: .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 Agriculture Committee Vision: .......................................................................................................................... 34 Agriculture Committee Findings: ....................................................................................................................... 35 Infrastructure: ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Transportation: .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Connecting Road Development: ......................................................................................................................... 3 8 Mass Transportation: .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Current Land Use and Development: ................................................................................................................ 40 Location Based Conditions: ................................................................................................................................ 40 Natural Resources: .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Cayuga Lake: ...................................................................................................................................................... 44 Sustainability: Energy and Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 46 Economic Development: ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Transportation Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 4 7 Strong Agricultural Lands .................................................................................................................................. 48 Proximity to Educational Institutions ................................................................................................................. 48 Broadband Fiber Optic Connectivity .................................................................................................................. 48 Abundance of Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 48 High Quality Public Education ........................................................................................................................... 48 Present Economic Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 49 Major Employers ................................................................................................................................................ 50 Areas of Economic Opportunity ......................................................................................................................... 52 Business Retention .............................................................................................................................................. 52 Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 2 Business Expansion ............................................................................................................................................ 52 Business Attraction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3 New Business and Industry ................................................................................................................................. 53 Re sources ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 Cultural Resources and Hamlets: ...................................................................................................................... 54 Tourism: ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 Tourism as a tool for Economic Development ................................................................................................... 55 The 2020 Tompkins County Strategic Tourism Plan ......................................................................................... 55 Housing and Neighborhoods: ............................................................................................................................. 56 Residential Building Permits Is sued 1999 -2016, Town of Lansing, NY .......................................................... 56 Affordability and Walkability ............................................................................................................................. 58 New Housing ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 Form-Based Tools / Design ................................................................................................................................ 59 Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................................... 59 Senior Housing ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Unique Housing .................................................................................................................................................. 61 Parks and Recreation: ......................................................................................................................................... 62 Parks and Active Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 62 Recreational Facilities and Programs .................................................................................................................. 63 Education ........................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Health ................................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Heavy Industry ................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Chapter 3: Goals and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 66 Agriculture· .......................................................................................................................................................... 66 Infrastructure · ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 Transportation: .................................................................................................................................................... 69 Land Use and Development: ............................................................................................................................... 70 Natural Resources ............................................................................................................. 72 Sustainability: Energy and Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 75 Economic Development: ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Cultural Resources and Hamlets: ...................................................................................................................... 78 Tourism: ............................................................................................................................................................... 79 Housing and Neighborhoods: ............................................................................................................................. 80 Parks and Recreation: ......................................................................................................................................... 83 Parks and Pathways ............................................................................................................................................... 84 Chapter 4: Future Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 85 Form Based Tools : ............................................................................................................................................... 85 Five-Year Capital Plan: ....................................................................................................................................... 86 Area Specific Land Uses: .................................................................................................................................... 87 Future Land Use (FL) Goals and Recommendations: ...................................................................................... 92 Reference Materials: ................................................................................................................................................ 93 Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 3 Appendix A: Goals and Recommendations Matrix ............................................................................................. 1-9 Appendix B: Maps ...................................................................................................................................................... . Map 1 -Tax Parcels w/ Air Photography (2015) ................................................................................................ .. Map 2 -Tax Parcels and Highways (2015) .......................................................................................................... .. Map 3 -Existing Lansing Zoning Map (2003) ...................................................................................................... . Map 4 -Land Use and Land Cover (2015) .......................................................................................................... .. Map 5 -Property Use Classification (2015) .......................................................................................................... . Map 6 -Agricultural Soils Map w/ Tax Parcels (2015) ...................................................................................... .. Map 7 -Tompkins County Ag District (2012) ...................................................................................................... . Map 8 -Agricultural Exemptions (2016) .............................................................................................................. . Map 9 -Water and Sewer Systems Map (2016) .................................................................................................. . Map 10 -Water and Sewer Map Systems Map (2016) Sheet 2 .......................................................................... . Map 11-Traffic Volumes & % Volume Over Capacity (VOC) (2016) ............................................................ .. Map 12 -Residential By Year Built (1900 -2015) ................................................................................................ . Map 13 -Population Density and Infrastructure (2015) .................................................................................... .. Map 14 -Economic Development (2013) .............................................................................................................. . Map 15 -Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (2015) .............................................................................. . Map 16 -Myers Park Master Plan Map (2017) .................................................................................................. .. Map 17 -Open Space (2017) .................................................................................................................................. . Map 18 -Watersheds and Hydrography with Topography (2013) .................................................................... . Map 19 -Streams, Wetlands and Flood Zones (2015) ........................................................................................ .. Map 20 -Existing and Proposed Future Roads (2016) ........................................................................................ . Map 21 -Preliminary Conceptual Development Plan -2016 for the Town Center Lands ...................... . Map 22 -Future Land Uses -Adopted May 2, 2018 .......................................................................................... .. Appendix C: Community Survey .............................................................................................................................. . Appendix D: Transportation Issue Assessment and Best Practice Guide ............................................................ .. Appendix E: Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan ....................................................................................... . Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page4 Index of Tables Table 1-Percentage Growth in Population, 1980 -2015 ........................................................................................... 19 Table 2 -Change in Age, 2000 -2015 ....................................................................................................................... 20 Table 3 -Census Population and Housing Data 2000-2010 ....................................................................................... 20 Table 4 -Age Groups Summary 2015 ....................................................................................................................... 22 Table 5 -Changes in Race, 2000 -2015 .................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6 -Changes in Nativity , 2000 -2015 ............................................................................................................... 23 Table 7 -School Enrollment, 2000 -2015 ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 8 -Lansing CSD Enrollment 2010 -2015 ....................................................................................................... 24 Table 9 -Change in Lansing CSD Enrollment, 2010 -2015 .................................................................................... 25 Table 10 -Educational Attainment 2000 -2015 ........................................................................................................ 26 Table 11 -Major Employment Sectors, Town of Lansing (Outside of the Village) 2015 ........................................ 27 Table 12 -Change in Household Income .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 13 -Change in Number of Households, 2000 -2015 ...................................................................................... 30 Table 14 -Tompkins County Means to Work 2010 .................................................................................................. 32 Table 15 -Tompkins County Means to Work, 2015 ................................................................................................. 32 Table 16 -Town of Lansing (Outside of Village) Means to Work 2010 ................................................................... 33 Table 17 -Town of Lansing (Outside of Village) Means to Work 2015 ................................................................... 33 Table 18 -Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) Analysis ..................................................... 50 Table 19 -Residential Building Permits, 1999 -2016 ............................................................................................... 57 Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 5 Industry: Within the Town of Lansing, several long-established businesses continue to thrive. • The Cargill Salt Company has operated for over 100 years and continues to mine road salt from beneath the town and Cayuga Lake though excavations 1000 to 3000 feet below the surface. • The Cayuga Operating Company (COC) Plant purchased by HEOROT Power, formerly owned and operated by New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) has recently been purchased and the new owners are evaluating the use of a coal fuel source • The Borg Warner Plant -one of the region's largest employers -has also had a long-term relationship with Lansing and one of the oldest businesses. Located at the southernmost part of the town adjacent to the Ithaca and Tompkins County Airport, the plant is near the Cornell University Business Park. Potential for Future Growth of Business and Industry There is a great deal of future growth potential within the southern region of the town. Exploration into the conceivability of the expansion of sanitary sewers is a high priority for the southernmost section of town. Through the utilization of a Planned Development Area (PDA) Zone, the Dutch Mill Road area was developed as a Business Park and is home to several Tompkins County Industrial Development Association (IDA) businesses; including the recently expanding Envisage and Kaida / Global Phoenix Computers. Additionally, undeveloped lands are available to the north where the capability to expand the sewer system presently exists, and there is the potential for the development of a business park, a recommendation of this Comprehensive Plan. Residential Development Potential Adequacy of Transportation: In 2014, the Cornell Design Connect studio completed a Traffic Impact Analysis utilizing data and information gathered from the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). The analysis reflects that the current highway road system is being utilized at levels that range from between 50-60% of their capacities. Included within this report (See Appendix D) is the complete study for further detailed investigations . The recommendations by Cornell Design Connect, made as a part of the Traffic Impact Analysis, have been considered by the Comprehensive Planning Committee and have been included within this document. Among the recommendations is the establishment of multi-use trails for bikers and pedestrians , the generation of a bicycle and pedestrian oriented design, enhancements such as crosswalks , lighting improvements, and bus shelters , and transit-oriented development. Available Land: Another major influence on the Town of Lansing is the continued need for the development ofregional housing. Educational institutions such as Cornell University, Ithaca College and Lansing Public Schools continue to be one of the largest segments of employment within Tompkins County and their continued expansion and success has been the basis for continued residential growth within the Town. Over the last several decades, the primary method of residential development has been the transformation of large vacant former farmlands that have transitioned into residential subdivisions. Within proximity to Cayuga Lake (on water and scenic view shed) coupled with easy access to Ithaca and the Town of Lansing has become an attractive residential location for students, university faculty and staff, and young professionals. During the years 1980-2010, there has been a 42.2% increase in the population of Lansing residents, with 11,033 residents living in the Town of Lansing as of the 2010 Census. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 8 Potential for Higher Density Development: The "Village Solars" project has created higher density development through a series of three story residential buildings. Additionally, Cayuga Farms has been granted site plan approval on Triphammer Road to build a 102-unit residential apartment complex with a series of 4-6-unit buildings. This type of development is needed within the town, highlighting the need for the expansion of sanitary sewers that would allow this level of density to occur. Currently, the Town suffers from a lack of this type of comprehensive sewer system, resulting in the need for larger residential lots because of septic system requirements combined with poor soil and a shallow depth to bedrock. Approved Plans for Future Development: To outline the above-mentioned development patterns within the community, and to express locations where sewage expansion would be most beneficial, a decade-by- decade investigation of where housing development has taken place is included within this Comprehensive Plan. Currently, approximately over 100 residential subdivided lots have been approved within the Town of Lansing but have not yet been sold or developed. Recently, development site plans presented have included the Village Circle/ Village Solars apartments, Cayuga Way, Cayuga Orchard Apartments, and Whispering Pines V and Whispering Pines Phase VI (Asbury Hill), Lake Circle Drive, Nova Lane, and Sun Path are residential subdivisions that have been approved during the recent Planning Board review process. Expressed needs for housing: The community has expressed a desire for mixed-use residential developments, in combination with small-scale commercial uses. Additionally, the opportunity for "elderly residential care" has sparked an interest in this multi-use concept, along with a growing need for entry-level housing, as young people that grew up in Lansing are no longer able to afford a house within the town due to rising residential costs. These concerns point to the need to create more housing type options that should be developed in the future. Consideration must be given to building smaller size housing for the seasonal housing and retirees that wish to maintain a connection with Lansing but do not necessarily want the upkeep and costs of maintaining larger home during their retirement years. Cultural Resources The town of Lansing has not fully developed the cultural resources of the community. Rogues Harbor, a restaurant and "Bed and Breakfast" site that offers visitors an opportunity to take advantage of the natural resources of the Finger Lakes region, experience regional wineries and breweries, along with many state and regional parks, is currently the only property within the Town listed on the "National Register of Historic Places. A complete inventory of the town would identify historic properties that should be included within a comprehensive survey. With over 100 existing historic "Out Houses" throughout the town, there should be several Historic Homes that would be available to be placed within an inventory of cultural resources. It is recommended that Cornell University be utilized to create a Historic Resources Inventory and begin to list these properties on the National Register of Historic Places. Once this inventory is complete and local homes and buildings are placed upon the registry many funding opportunities begin to become available, such as Investment Tax Credits through both the Federal and State for those properties listed upon the State or National Register. The Town of Lansing recreation department has been an area Lansing that residents have strongly supported, as exemplified with growing active participation in baseball, softball, soccer, football, swimming, tennis, hockey, skiing and other youth activities. The town is very fortunate to have facilities such as the 31-acre Myers Park, which is located directly on Cayuga Lake and offers boat docks, pavilions, camping, playgrounds and other recreational activities. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 9 Lansing Town Board Members: Kathryn Miller, Robert Cree, Edward La Vigne, Ruth Hopkins, and Doug Dake , Katrina Binkewicz, Andra Benson and Joseph Wetmore. Planning Board Members: Thomas Ellis, N. Lin Davidson, Al Fiorille , Gerald Caward, Jr., Larry Sharpsteen, Richard Prybyl, Raymond Farkas, Deborah Trumbull, Sandra Dennis Conlon, Dean Shea and Tom Butler. Comprehensive Planning Committee Members: Kathy Miller, Committee Chair-Lansing Town Supervisor (Until December 2015) Jase Baese Larry Beck Katrina Binkewicz Maureen Cowen -Pathways Committee N. Lin Davidson -Planning Board Jeremy Dietrich J. David Ferris Gerald Friedman Ruth Hopkins -Lansing Town Board Lynn Leopold Richard Prybyl -Planning Board Phillip Snyder Amanda Steinhardt Susan Miller, MD Susan Tabrizi Sarah Thompson Connie Wilcox, Committee Chair (starting January 2016) Duane R. Smith Christopher Williams Tom Butler Gerald Caward, Planning Board Sandra Dennis Conlon, Planning Board Larry Sharpsteen, Planning Board Dennis Mogil Thomas LiVigne Joseph Wetmore Photographic Credits -Diane Duthie (As Labeled), Michael Long (As Labeled), others from web sites. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 12 Support Assistance: Michael H. Long, AICP-(Beginning Fall 2014) Finger Lakes Planning and Development Joseph Sheppard, CGW -(Beginning Fall 2014) Finger Lakes Planning and Development Guy Krogh -Lansing Town Attorney Jonathan Kanter-Planning Consultant (Until Spring 2014) Sharon Heller -Tompkins County Planning Department -GIS Map Generation David Herrick-T.G. Miller and Associates Sue Munson, Rachel Jacobson and Lynn Day -Code Enforcement and Planning Office Diane Duthie -Diane Duthie Designs, LLC Photography. Andrew Sciarabba, Sr. -Economic Development Daniel Adinolphi -Lansing Water and Sewer Committee Louise Bement -Town of Lansing Historian -Lansing History Section Sharon Bowman -Lansing Assistant Town Supervisor Monika Roth -Cornell Cooperative Extension Skip Hardie -Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan George Franz -Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan Gay Nicholson -Sustainability Nick Goldsmith-Town of Ithaca Sustainability Steve Lipinski -Real Estate David Moore -Real Estate Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) Cornell University "Design Connect Studio"-Fall 2014 Transportation Report Cornell University "Design Connect Studio"-Fall 2015 Form Based Codes Report '\~--· ~~'i'\. ~-~ AJl~~fj....__., ~ ult OlU '1 ~ -,----,._ r ~~ ... ,__~ -J ,,_ Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 13 The vision of this community is that residents of all income levels and backgrounds should have a choice in affordable housing and transportation options, which include access to various methods of transit, walkways, accessible parks, and trails. The Town of Lansing will support the development of safe and affordable housing for low, middle and high-income residents, and encourage this development to occur in an environmentally sound way. Dedication to the preservation of this community's natural areas and resources is of the utmost importance to the town, and the community will proactively seek methods that prevent the degradation of these resources as the town grows by exploring opportunities that support the use of renewable energy technologies, providing support to both this and surrounding communities. Additionally, through community support of small businesses, industry that utilizes safe and responsible practices, as well as both large and small-scale agricultural operations that exhibit sound agricultural practices, the Town of Lansing will continue to be an attractive locale for both residents and visitors, whilst also attracting both local entrepreneurs and the creation of small-scale commercial activities. This can all be made possible by using sound planning and zoning practices, which should encourage responsible growth that will not negatively influence the overall character of the town. Finally, it is necessary to engage in positive interactions that exhibit a sense of cooperation with the Village of Lansing, further strengthening the community character of the town. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 15 1921 Frank Bolton founded the Cayuga Rock Salt Company there, which Cargill purchased the mining rights to in 1970. In 1955, Milliken Station began generating electricity at Reddens' Point at Lake Ridge. These companies changed the character of the rural landscape and crowded schools with more students. When International Salt came into town, the Ludlowville District School had to build an extra wing and hire another teacher. In 1813 Richard Townley, as school commissioner, divided the town into twenty-two district schools (one more, Sage , was added later), sold the public-school lots, and gave deeds for them. By 1948, all the District Schools had centralized to form the Lansing Central School System. As the century, changed demand for improved transportation between Ithaca and Auburn increased. There had been several attempts to build railroads and Lansing had two viable roads in the Lehigh Valley running along the lakeshore, including the New York, Auburn & Lansing Railroad, commonly known as the Ithaca-Auburn Short Line, traveling through South Lansing. In 2014, the train still operates along the lake to Milliken Station, delivering coal to the generating station and carrying salt from the Cargill mine. The Short Line was unable to cover the costs of its overhead because it did not have the power to carry enough freight up the steep hill from Ithaca to South Lansing and ceased running in 1923. As Cornell University continued to grow during the 1950's and 1960's, automobile centered development began to migrate to the Town of Lansing. Additionally, the continued development along Route 13 and the NYS Arterial Highway system of 1960 has resulted in a change of the availability of land to develop. The "Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board was created in 1958, which included the City and Town oflthaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights and the Town of Lansing as contributing members. A plan was unveiled in October of 1959, which described the regional growth pattern that anticipated migration away from the City of Ithaca and towards the Town of Lansing. By 1964, three of the four comers of Rt. 13 at Triphammer road had been developed. A private water and sewer system extension was built by one of the developers and the need for the municipal utilities of water and sewer was recognized as critical to the expansion and continued success of the community. At about this time growth had become an issue for the community. Petitions were circulated demanding the creation of a Planning Board to begin the process of developing zoning regulations and to establish restrictions meant to assist with proper growth in accordance with the community wishes. In 1960, the Town Board voted to create a Planning Board. However, they took no action until March of 1961 when Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 17 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions and Considerations Census Information: The basis for updating a Comprehensive Plan typically utilizes the data provided by the U.S. Department of Census. Generated every 10 years, this information can provide the various trends that affect a community, illustrating how the community is changing. Originally, the census data began as a number count with the head of the household (typically a male) and the listing of the number of persons (male and female) that were living within that household. Today, a much more detailed questionnaire is used that may describe many more items such as age distribution, race , employment, income, poverty, households, housing, education, transportation methods, etc. Table 1 -Population Growth 1940-2010. % TOMPKINS COUNTY Change 1940- 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Increase 2010 General Total Population 42 ,340 59 ,122 69 ,837 76 ,879 87 ,085 94 ,097 96 ,501 101 ,564 59,224 139 .9% TOWN OF LANSING 2,786 3,195 4 ,221 5,972 8,317 9 ,296 10 ,521 11 ,033 8,247 296 .0% TOWN OF DRYDEN 3,947 5,006 7,353 9,770 12,156 13 ,251 13,532 14 ,435 10 ,488 265 .7% TOWN OF ITHACA 3,821 7,282 9,072 15 ,620 16 ,022 17 ,797 18 ,918 19 ,930 16 ,109 421 .6% VILLAGE OF LANSING 3,039 3,281 3,417 3,529 3,529 16 .1% Source: U.S. Census Data -Village of Lansing was formed in 197 4 and is part of the Town of Lansing. In the interim years between the decennial censuses, the Census Bureau generates data utilizing a survey tool. The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year. This survey tool is the federally recognized standard for data collection and is utilized to determine eligibility for various grant and benefit programs at both the federal and state level. It should be noted that ACS data are estimates and may vary from the Census for the same parameter. For example, total population in 2010 for the Town of Lansing (outside Village) is 7,504 as per Census 2010 . The same figure is 7,473 in the 2007 -2011 ACS 5-year estimate. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 19 Population: Town of Lansing (outside Village) population was 5,278 in 1980 3 and grew to 7,630 by 2015 (44.6% increase). Village of Lansing's 1980 population was 3,039 and grew to 3,629 (19.4% increase). Tompkins County's population grew from 87,085 in 1980 to 103,855 in 2015 (19.3% increase). In 2015, the Town of Lansing's (outside Village) population was approximately 7.3% of the County's population. Table 2-Census Population and Housing Data Population and Housing Change: 2000 ~2010 Total Population Total Housing nits 2000* 2010 Change 2000 2010 Change Tompkins County 96 ,501 10 1,564 + 5,0 63 38,625 4 1,674 + 3,049 Town of Caroline 2,910 3,282 + 372 1,254 1,495 +241 Town of Dan by 3,007 3 ,3 29 +322 1,2 64 1,480 + 216 Town of Dryden 13 ,532 14 ,4 35 + 903 5,7 81 6,4 18 + 637 Village of Dryden 1,832 1,890 + 58 811 867 + 56 Village of Freeville 505 520 + 15 224 224 +o Town of Enfield 3,369 3 ,512 + 143 1,432 1,567 + 135 Town of Groton 5,794 5,950 + 156 2,287 2,448 + 161 V illage of Groton 2,47 0 2 ,363 -1 07 1,028 1,0 15 -1 3 City of Ithaca 28,775 30 ,014 + 1,239 10,736 10,950 + 214 Town oflthaca 18 ,7 10 19,930 + 1,220 6,836 7,526 + 690 Village of Cayuga Heights 3,738 3 ,729 -9 1,584 1,663 + 79 Town of Lansing 10,521 11,033 + 512 4,634 5,130 +496 Village of Lansing 3,4 17 3 ,529 + 112 1,70 5 1,788 + 83 Town ofNev.,iield 5,108 5,17 9 + 7 1 2,203 2,277 + 74 Town of Ulysses 4,775 4,900 + 125 2,198 2,3 83 + 185 Vi llage of Trumansburg 1,581 1,7 97 + 216 715 883 + 168 • IMPORTAN T NOTE: The original po pulation figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau we re challenged through the Bureau 's County Question Resolution (CQR) Progra m The CQR Program han dled chal lenges lo particula r offic ia l Census 2000 counts of housing un its and group quarte rs population. Based on a challeng e by Tompkins County , the offic ial popu la t io n figures for the City of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca , and the V ill age of Cayuga Hei gh ts were revis ed to reflect the distribution of un ivers ity-related group quarte rs population. On ly the to tal popu lation figures were revise d and not the characte rist ics of the re-a ll ocated popu la tion. 3 The Village of Lansing was incorporated in 1974 and therefore the Town's (outside Village) population can be calculated. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 20 Age Distribution: In general, between the years 2000 and 2015 the average age of area residents has increased. The age category that has seen the largest gains is that of residents between 60 -64 years of age. Within this category, Tompkins County has seen an increase of 106.9%, while the Town of Lansing (outside of the village) has seen an increase of 148.6% over the same time-period. Additionally, the number ofresidents' 85-years and over have increased by 158.6% within the Town (outside of the village). Conversely, the group with the largest decline are those who are 15-19 and 35-44. In both of these categories, the Town of Lansing (outside of the village) has felt a 26.8% and 27.4% decrease respectively. Table 3 - Change in Age, 2000 -2015 Tompkins County Village of Town of Lansing Percentage Town of Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) Age Category Change{2000-Percentage Change Percentage Percentage Change (2000-2015) Change 2015} (2000-2015) (2000-2015} Population 7.6% 7.9% 6.2% 8.6% Under 5 years 1.8% 13.1% 12.4% 13.4% 5 to 9 years -12.0% 6.0% 9 .8% 4.9% 10 to 14 years -22.3% -12.4% 24.0% -21.3% 15 to 19 years 9.8% -32.1% -54.1% -26.8% 20 to 24 years 9 .9% 16.0% 3.2% 30.6% 25 to 34 years 3.7% 0.5% -1.7% 2.9% 35 to 44 years -17.5% -17.3% 6.6% -27.4% 45 to 54 years -4.2% 4 .0% -5.0% 7.2% 55 to 59 56.9% 29 .9% 2.7% 40.7% 60 to 64 years 106.9% 129.0% 70.8% 148.6% 65 to 74 years 52.3% 85.8% 82.5% 87.0% 75 to 84 years 1.8% 0 .8% 11.2% -5.0% 85 years and over 41.0% 98.6% -19.4% 158.6% Data Sources: -U.S. Census Data -2000 and 2010, 2011 -2015 ACS 5-Year Surveys Additionally, as can be seen in the chart below, the category with the largest estimated distribution for the Town (outside of the Village) was residents who were between the ages of 45-54 years of age (16.4%). The smallest category was those who were greater than 85 years of age. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 21 Table 4 -Age Groups Summary 2015 8.1% 6 .9% Town of Lansing (outside Village) 2015 Age Distribution 2.8~.8% 5.4% 7.1% 6.6% 6 .5% 4 .9% 16.4% 11.3% Data Sources : 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates . Race: ■ Under 5 ■ 5 to 9 ■ 10 to 14 15 to 19 ■ 20 to 24 ■ 25 to 34 ■ 35 to 44 ■ 45 to 54 In the Town of Lansing (outside Village) 6,523 (91.8% of total population) people identified themselves as White alone in 2000 and 6,761 (87.6% of total population) in 2015. Persons identifying as Black or African American alone were 255 (3.6%) and 73 (.9%) in 2000 and 2015 respectively. People identifying themselves as Asian alone were 163 (2.3%) in 2000 and 447 (5.8%) in 2015, an increase of 174.2%. Table 5 -Changes in Race, 2000 -2015 Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing County Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) % Change % Change % Change % Change Total 7.6% 7.9% 6.2% 8.6% White alone 2.3% 3.8% 4.1% 3.6% Black or African American alone 23.0% -56.0% -33.7% -71.4% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 35.3% 205.0% 275.0% 158.3% Asian alone 50.3% 49.7% 23.3% 174.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone -97.2% -75.0% -100.0% -50 .0% Some other race alone -13.5% 0 .0% -77.1% 127.6% Population of two or more races 57.4% 110.4% 15.4% 182.5% Sources: Data Sources : US Censu s 2000 and 200 7 -2011 & 2011 -2015 Am eri can Community Survey 5-year es timate. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 22 NativiO, and Birth: The Town of Lansing's (outside Village) Native Population (born in the United States) was 6,982 in 2000 and 7,317 in 2015. In the Village of Lansing the native population increased from 2,013 to 2,326 (15.5% increase), and at the County level , the same increased from 86,335 to 90,619 (5.0% increase).-Foreign- born population increased from 353 in 2000 to 401 in 2015 (13.6% increase) in the Town of Lansing (outside Village). The Village of Lansing saw foreign-born persons increasing from 952 in 2000 to 1,303 in 2015 (36.9% increase) and Tompkins County saw an increase from 10 ,166 to 13 ,236 in this category (30.2% increase). Among the Town of Lansing's (outside Village) foreign born population, there was higher increase in the number of people born in Asia (80%: 170 to 306) than that of any other region. The estimated number of those born in Africa declined 100% (14 in 2000 to 0 in 2015) and both Latin America and European births declined 37.1 % and 44% respectively. Table 6 -Changes in Nativity, 2000 -2015 Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing County Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) Nativity and Birth % Change %Change % Change % Change Total population 7.6% 10.2% 22.4% 5.2% Native 5.0% 7.2% 15.5% 4.8% Born in United States 4.9% 6.0% 11.4% 4.4% State of residence 3.5% 7.7% 24.4% 4.1% Different state 7.6% 2.3% -3.6% 5.2% Foreign born 30.2% 30 .6% 36.9% 13.6% Naturalized citizen 41.2% 86 .6% 85.6% 87.7% Not a citizen 25.9% 5.0% 22.1% -69.9% Region of Birth of Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing Foreign Born County Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) % Change % Change % Change % Change Total (excluding born at sea) 30.2% 30 .6% 36.9% 13.6% Europe -1.8% 58 .0% 103 .6% -44.0% Asia 64.9% 40 .0% 29.6% 80.0% Africa -30 .6% -58.1% -37.9% -100.0% Oceania 112.3% -100.0% -100 .0% - Latin America -3.6% -20.8% -12.1% -37.1% Northern America -2.4% -14.5% 66.7% - Data Sources: US Census 2000 and 2007 -2011 & 2011 -2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 23 Education: In the Town of Lansing (outside Village) 2,527 people 3 years or older were enrolled in school in 2000. This figure dropped by 23.9% to 1,992 in 2015, with the highest drop in nursery school / preschool (57.6%: 205 to 87) and kindergarten enrollments (36 .6%: 142 to 90)4. This trend was reflected in almost all of Tompkins County for 2000 to 2010, except for nursery, preschool and elementary school enrollments in the Village of Lansing which increased by 76.5%: 34 to 60 , and 122%: 127 to 282 respectively. Additionally, college or graduate school enrollments within Tompkins County increased by 7.6%: 27,205 to 29 ,272 and both the Town of Lansing ( outside of the Village) and the Village of Lansing has a decrease in those registered for college or graduate school (31.8% and 26.9% respectively). 5 Table 7 -School Enrollment, 2000 -2015 School Enrollment Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing County Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) Population 3 years and over enrolled in school -1.9% -17.1% 1.0% -23.9% Nursery school, preschool -21.6% -38.5% 76.5% -57.6% Kindergarten -26.4% -29.4% -2 .6% -36 .6% Elementary school (grades 1-8) -19.2% 8.3% 122.0% -6.2% High school (grades 9-12) -14.3% -26.0% 1.6% -31.2% College or graduate school 7.6% -29.1% -26.9% -31.8% Data Sourc es: US Census 2000, 2007 -2011 & 2011 -2015 Ameri can Community Surv ey 5-year estimate Table 8 -Lansing CSD Enrollment 2010 -2015 2010 -2015 Lansing CSD Enrollment 1500 1167 1154 1000 602 632 500 0 K-12th K-6th ■ 2010 ■ 2015* Data Sou rce : Corn ell Program on Applied Demographics & NYS D ept. of Ed. 4 Data based on Census not School District information 565 522 I I 7th-12th * NYS Dept of Ed Data 5 American Community Survey estimates are based on data from a sample of housing units and people in the population, not the full population. For this reason, ACS estimates have a degree of uncertainty associated with them, called sampling error. In general, the larger the sample , the smaller the level of sampling error that exists Please refer to the following link for more information : http ://www.census .gov/acs /www/methodology/sample size definitions/ Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 24 As seen from Figure 2, population enrolled in the Lansing Central School District (Kindergarten to grade 12) stayed relatively stable during the time period of2010 to 2015 (1167 to 1154). Several grade levels saw significant increases in enrollment during this period including both third and fifth, which saw increases of 40.6% and 23.1 % respectively. Additionally, there was a substantial decrease in those enrolling in the eighth grade (27 .8%). Table 9 - Change in Lansing CSD Enrolment, 2010 -2015 2010 2015* % Change Kindergarten 76 77 1.3% pt grade 88 88 0.0% 2nd grade 90 96 6.7% 3rd grade 69 97 40.6% 4th grade 94 88 -6.4% 5th grade 78 96 23.1% 6th grade 104 90 -13.5% 7th grade 84 93 10.7% 8th grade 97 70 -27.8% 9th grade 94 94 0 .0% 10th grade 92 93 1.1% 11 th grade 107 89 -16.8% 12 th grade 91 83 -8.8% Data Source: Cornell Program on Applied D emographics & NYS Dept. of Ed. Educational Attainment: There was a 36.1 % drop in high school graduations in the Town of Lansing ( outside Village) from 2000 to 2015, from 1,201 to 767. On the other hand, there were increases in the number of people attaining Associates Degrees (59.7%: 382 to 610), Bachelor's degree (89.8%: 755 to 1,433) and Graduate or Professional degrees (31 %: 1,223 to 1,603) in the same period and geography. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 25 Table 10 -Educational Attainment 2000 -2015 Educational Attainment Tompkins County Town of Village of Town of Lansing Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) Population 25 years and over 11.8% 16.5% 20.8% 14.6% Less than 9th grade -28.4% -19.4% -100 .0% 14.9% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma -24.4% -35.5% -50.0% -32.3% High school graduate (includes equivalency) -0.5% -24.5% 49.7% -36.1% Some college, no degree 11.2% -0.5% 37.3% -9.4% Associate's degree 40.6% 74.7% 142 .9% 59.7% Bachelor's degree 19.3% 60.4% 17.4% 89.8% Graduate or professional degree 20.1% 22.2% 12.2% 31.1% Data Sources: US Census 2000, 2007 -2011 & 2011 -2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate Employment: Labor force in the Town of Lansing (outside Village) increased by 9.9% from 3,922 in 2000 to 4,309 in 2015. During the same period, labor force in the Village of Lansing increased by 30.2% (1,663 to 2,166) and 2.4% (51,187 to 52,441) in Tompkins County. Unemployment rate in the Town of Lansing (outside Village) has decreased 62.7% since 2010, dropping from 4.8% to 1.8%. The 2015 unemployment rate for Tompkins County was 5.9% (5.6% in 2010) and 3.6% (5.1 % in 2010) for the Village of Lansing. In 2015, major employment sectors in the Town of Lansing ( outside Village) were Education, Health and Social Services (1,643), Manufacturing (404), Retail Trade (318), Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing (381) and Arts, entertainment, recreation , accommodation and food services (305). Please refer to Figure 3 for additional information on major employment sectors in the Town of Lansing ( outside Village). Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 26 The Village of Lansing's major employers (in 2015) were Education, Health and Social Services (1,144), Manufacturing (224), Retail Trade (110), Construction (121), Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing (193) and Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (212). For Tompkins County, major employment sectors in 2015 were Education, Health and Social Services (22,827), Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services (4,461), Arts , Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services (4,762), Retail Trade (4 ,269) and Manufacturing (2,872). Of the 2015, employed workforce (4,232) in the Town of Lansing (outside Village) maJonty were employed, as private wage and salary workers (76 .11%), 14.3% were government workers and the rest (9.6%) were self-employed6 . In the Village of Lansing 87.5% of the 2015 employed workforce (2,087) were private wage and salary workers, 5.7% were government workers and 4.2% were self-employed. For Tompkins County, figures were 78.4% private wage and salary workers, 13.7% government workers and 7.8% self-employed. Total number of employed people in the County's employed labor force was 49,291. Income: From 2000 to 2015, Median Household Income 7 for the Town of Lansing (including Village of Lansing)8 increased from $48,250 to $67,721, an increase of 40.4%. The Village of Lansing saw an increase of 60.4% for this parameter, from $38,185 in 2000 to $61,232 in 2010 . Tompkins County's Median Household Income increased 41.2%, from $37,272 in 2000 to $52,624 in 2015. With respect to Family9 and Per Capita Income, Town of Lansing's (including Village of Lansing) Median Family Income rose from$ 59,758 to$$ 92,985 (55.6% increase). Per Capita Income for the same period rose from $25 ,634 to $46,299 (80.6% increase). In the Village of Lansing Median Family Income rose from $48,167 in 2000 to $71,004 in 2015 (47.4% increase), and Per Capita Income increased from $29,047 to $46 ,161 (58.9% increase). Tompkins County's Median Family Income increased from $53,041 in 2000 to $74 ,524 in 2015 (40.5% increase). The County's per capita income increased from $19,659 in 2000 to $28,460 in 2015 (44.8% increase). 6 Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding up to one decimal place. 7 Please note that 2000 data is in 1999 dollars (not adjusted for inflation), 2010 data is in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars , and 2015 data is in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars. US Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator indicates approximately 69.44% inflationary increase between 1999 and 2015 . The calculator is available on: http ://www .b ls.gov/data/inflation calculator .htm 8 Median income data unavailable for Town of Lansing (outside Village) 9 As per the US Census Household Income includes the income of the householder and all other individuals 15 years old and over in the household, irrespective of relation to the hous eholder. Since many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. A family consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth , marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 28 Table 12 - Change in Household Income Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing County Lansing Lansing (Outside Village) Household Income % Change % Change % Change % Change Number of Households 5.5% 11.3% 17.4% 7.6% Income less than $10,000 -8.6% -18.4% 43.1% -9.5% $10,000 to $14,999 -26.0% -43.4% 18.8% -43.3% $15,000 to $24,999 -31.7% -33.3% -34.6% -59.5% $25,000 to $34,999 -15.8% -38.9% -26.5% -13.3% $35,000 to $49,999 -14.6% -10.0% -23.5% 15.5% $50,000 to $74,999 -1.3% -0.3% 30.0% -29.4% $75,000 to $99,999 45.6% 12.5% 105.2% -7.5% $100,000 to $149,999 86.2% 96.0% 82.4% 158.4% $150,000 to $199,999 249.3% 202.4% 254 .8% 120.0% $200,000 or more 186.4% 291.6% 107.4% 253.5% Median household income 41.2% 40.4% 60.4% - Family Income 0.0% Families 5.1% 14.5% 20.5% 3.6% Less than $10,000 16.9% 12.3% 63.0% 23.3% $10,000 to $14,999 -34.1% -20.0% 73.3% -37.1% $15,000 to $24,999 -38.8% -41.3% -56.1% -79.9% $25,000 to $34,999 -37.0% -27.9% -22.6% -49.4% $35,000 to $49,999 -26.7% -30.6% -21.1% -16.1% $50,000 to $74,999 -22.3% -20.2% 52.2% -44.5% $75,000 to $99,999 34.5% 9.2% 147.8% -24.0% $100,000 to $149,999 66.0% 77.6% 54.2% 156.3% $150,000 to $199,999 242.8% 159.2% 29.0% 134.8% Data Sources: US Census 2000, 2007 -2011 & 2011 -2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate Poverty: From 2010 to 2015 in the Town of Lansing (outside Village) the number of people below 50% of the poverty level 10 decreased from 264 to 218 (17.4% decrease). The number of people below the 125 percent level increased from 638 to 817 (28.1 % increase), while the number of people below the 150 percent level increased from 831 to 893 (7 .5% increase). The number of people below the 200 percent poverty level decreased from 1,359 to 1, 122 (17.4 % decrease). 10 The US Census -using nation-wide thresholds -determines poverty leve ls. These thresholds are defined depending on a combination of some or many factors . Some of these factors could be age of an individual, number of people in a household , age of the householder or number ofrelated children under 18 years. For poverty level threshold data please refer to: http://www.census .gov/hhes /www/poverty/data/threshld/ Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 29 In the Village of Lansing the number of people below 50% of the poverty level decreased from 152 to 136 (10.5% decrease). The number of people below the 125 percent level increased from 401 to 483 (20.4% increased) and the number of people below the 150 and 200 percent levels increased from 483 to 812 ( 68.1 % increase) and from 705 to 917 (30.1 % increase) respectively. Within Tompkins County, the number of persons in the 50 percent or below level increased from 11 ,383 to 12 ,309 (8.1% increase). For the 125 percent or below level the number of persons increased from 20,590 to 21 ,427 (4 .1% increase and those below 150 percent and 200 percent were 23,153 to 24 ,560 (6.1% increase) and 31 ,036 to 30 ,993 ( a marginal .1 % decrease) respectively. Households: Total number of households in the Town of Lansing ( outside Village) increased slightly from 2,754 to 3,009 (9.3% increase) from 2000 to 2015. Of these family households grew by 14 .7% to 2,134 and non-family households decreased by 2.1 % to 87 5 households . In the Village of Lansing total number of households increased from 1,620 to 1,770 (9 .3% increase) during 2000 to 2015 . The number of family households increased from 809 to 841 (4.0% increase) and non-family from 811 to 929 (14.5% increase). Tompkins County 's households increased from 36,420 to 38 ,460 (5.6% increase). Of these , family households increased from 19 ,120 to 20 ,250 (5 .9% increase) and non-family households from 17,300 to 18,210 (5.3% increase). During 2000-2015 , average household size in Tompkins County increased by 1.3% (2.32 to 2.35), and average family size decreased by .7% (2.93 to 2.91). In the Town of Lansing (including Village) average household size increased by .4% (2 .33 to 2.34) and average family size decreased by .3% (2.95 to 2.94). Table 13 - Change in Number of Households, 2000 -2015 Tompkins Town of Village of Town of Lansing County Lansing Lansing (outside Village) % Change % Change % Change % Change Total households 5.6% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% Family households 5.9% 11.5% 4 .0% 14.7% Nonfamily households 5.3% 5.8% 14.5% -2.1% Living alone 136.6% 123.2% 133.8% 113.3% Average household size 1.3% 0.4% -2.9% - Married-couple families 5.2% 13.5% -3 .0% 20.8% Average family size -0 .7% -0.3% -1.8% - Da ta Sources: US Censu s 2000, 200 7 -2011 & 2011 -2015 A meri ca n Commun ity Survey 5-year estima te Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 30 Housing: In the Town of Lansing ( outside Village) the total number of housing units increased from 2,981 in 2000 to 3,422 in 2015 (14.8% increase). Vacancy rate increased from 7.6% in 2000 versus 12.1 % in 2015. In the Village of Lansing the total number of housing units increased from 1,666 in 2000 to 2,046 in 2015 (22.8% increase). Vacancy rate increased from 2.8% in 2000 to 13.5% in 2015. In Tompkins County the total number of housing units increased from 38,625 in 2000 to 41,983 in 2015 (8.7% increase). Vacancy rate increased from 5.7% in 2000 to 8.4% in 2015. Median value of houses in the Town of Lansing 11 increased from $127,800 in 2000 to $293 ,300 in 2015 (51.5% increase). For the Village of Lansing this value increased from $188,400 in 2000 to $315 ,200 in 2015 (67.3% increase), and Tompkins County saw an increase from $101,600 to $176,500 (63 .3% increase) during the same period. With respect to renter affordability in the Town of Lansing (outside Village), the overall number ofrenters paying over 30% of their annual income 12 for rent decreased from 275 (36.9% of total renter-occupied units) to 211 (31.4% of total renter-occupied units) during the period of 2000 to 2015. Additionally, within the Village of Lansing the number of renters paying over 30% of their annual income increased from 430 (37.9% of total renter-occupied units) to 593 (50 .6% of total renter-occupied units) during the same period. Finally, in Tompkins County, these levels increased from 8,276 (49.8% of total renter-occupied units) 8,964 (52.4% of total renter-occupied units). Means of Transportation to Work: In the Town of Lansing ( outside Village) means of transportation to work was estimated for 3,929 people in 2010 and 4,192 people in 2015. Of these people, the majority (90.1 % in 2010 and 87 .8% in 2015) drove to work using a car, truck or van . The number of people using public transportation, bicycle or other means was 40 (1%) in 2010 and 68 (1.9%) in 2015. The number of people working from home was 275 (7%) in 2010 and 343 (8 .2%) in 2015 . In Tompkins County means of transportation to work was estimated for 48,800 people in 2010 and 47 ,735 in 2015. Of these people, 68.6% (33,485) in 2010 and 71.5% (34,126) in 2015 drove to work using a car, truck or van . The number of people using public transportation, bicycle or other means in 2010 was 4,068 (8.3%) and 3,895 (8.2%) in 2015. The number of people working from home was 3,412 (7%) in 2010 and 2,743 (5.7%) in 2015 . 11 M edian value unavailable for Town of Lansing (outsid e Village) 12 Households paying rent or incurring owner costs more than 30% of their annual income are considered housing cost burdened. US Housing and Urban Development definition available on : http:/ /portal.hud.gov/hudporta l/HUD?src=/program _ office s/comm _planning/affordablehousing/ Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 31 The major limitation of the TCAT system is the lack of routes available to the Residents of the Town of Lansing needing to travel to various points south. Presently, there are only two offered routes in the morning and two in the evening, with no mid-day or late night service options available. This deficiency requires a commuter to remain at their destination for the entire day and greatly hinders those who might otherwise use this system. As dense development occurs within the town, the demand for transit ridership may be increased due to the difficulty in parking on college campuses in the area and near downtown Ithaca businesses. These issues currently hinder bus transportation as a viable alternative to car travel. In addition to TCAT, there are other mass transit opportunities available mainly to elderly area residents. One such program, the "Gadabout" Non-profit transportation service, offers small bus services by scheduled appointment to Tompkins County Residents who are over 60 years of age for medical/dental appointments, working, shopping, volunteering, personal errands and social events. The Gadabout service also provides the TCAT Paratransit program for individuals with ADA accessibility issues. An application is required to receive these transit services and fees are required for both programs. Current Land Use and Development: Town government needs to continue to strike a balance between competing interests: expanding residential and commercial development vs. agriculture and open space. The results of a past survey conducted by the Research Institute at Cornell, which polled residents of the Town of Lansing (both town and village), reflect a strong level of support for the continued maintenance and stewardship of agricultural lands, which benefit both the community and area visitors (See Town Survey results in APPENDIX C). Additionally, survey results reflect that over 95% ofrespondents are satisfied living in Lansing and cite the rural character of the Town as one of the top reasons for their continued residency. The Town of Lansing has a finite amount of development area and as a populous we must seek to protect the most valuable of natural areas, while simultaneously controlling the expansion of the built area of our community to appropriate places. Ifwe continue to replace open space and natural areas with built out areas, we will eventually eliminate the overall rural nature of our community. The purpose of land use and development practices is to provide the foundation for how a town grows, maintains open spaces, monitors the changes made to them, and has a very direct impact upon the quality of life for all Town residents. However, a strong emphasis must be placed upon increasing the economic base within the Town to support the population, without increasing the burden on Town services. Location Based Conditions: The Town of Lansing is multifaceted, and land-use goals should vary in different parts of the town: Agricultural Districts: Agriculture is a significant part of the Town's economy and land use. A clear majority of the highest quality soils found in Tompkins County is in North Lansing and represents a major natural resource for the Town. Development within the Town, resulting in an increase in traffic, rising land prices and taxes, issues with rural neighbors unfamiliar with farming practices, and increased difficulty for farmers to find land to rent or buy, has had a direct impact upon farming lands and practices. To mitigate the negative impacts caused by increased development the town should carefully consider the actions proposed within the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (see APPENDIX E) that seek to protect Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 40 these important active agricultural areas. Though large farms are less common in areas south of Rt. 34 / 34B , southern Lansing is appropriate for smaller area / organic farming oriented at direct marketing. The town should continue to take active measures to shield farmlands from development pressure ( specific goals and recommendations for which can be found in the Agriculture section of the plan). Additionally, while the development of more renewable energy in the Town is certainly encouraged (see Sustainability: Energy and Climate Change), it is possible that the development of "solar farms" at the expense of prime soils and tillable agricultural land would be a misuse of a valuable resource. Southern Areas of Lansing: Much of the Town of Lansing bordering the Village of Lansing consists mainly of existing residential and vacant open space, with only limited commercial development. At present, this area is the most developed part of the Town -outside of the Village -and has the potential for further growth. The development within this area has been focused within subdivisions with some individual homes located along the main roads. Additionally, there are several large parcels of undeveloped land with scenic vistas currently enjoyed by the residents who reside within this section of Town. Higher density is unlikely to occur unless it becomes economically feasible to build a sewage system that will support this increased high-density development (See section on Municipal Services and Infrastructure). This part of Lansing is also home to several important wetlands, some of which have been designated as such by the Army Corps of Engineers and others that need to be preserved to control storm water damage and to maintain the current perennial streams in this area. In addition, these wetland areas are generally not suited to practical residential development. Roads, and areas nearby, are need of attention and an effort should be made to encourage the addition of non-motorized pathways that could connect to destinations, schools, and neighborhoods . Such infrastructure would benefit both residents and visitors to the area, but would place an additional responsibility on the town for maintenance and non-municipal entities should be encouraged to take the responsibility of maintaining these areas. Maintaining the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) bus lines along with encouraging the use of mass transit in these areas is also an important consideration (See Transportation Section). Lakefront and slopes to lakefront: Both lakefront property, and the sloping lands that face the lake , are very important to the Town of Lansing and our neighboring communities. Shorelines and steep slopes are sensitive areas that require protection. Runoff, both surface runoff and that emanating from septic systems, can be a threat to the health of the lake and area residents. Lansing is presently a registered Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems unit (NYS DEC MS4) and as such requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for any proposed development. It is imperative that the Town of Lansing continues to ensure that runoff from the Town does not degrade the quality not only of Cayuga Lake, but also of the creeks ( e.g. Salmon Creek) and streams that run both into and out of it. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 41 Myers Park and Salt Point: These are the only public access points to the lake for our community and the public at large located within the Town. They are also critical for wildlife, as they are some of the few areas where the east side of the lake does not slope steeply upwards from the lakeshore. The shallow areas near the shoreline are a feature that attracts much of the waterfowl to our area. These critical lakefront properties need to be conserved for future generations, specific goals and recommendations for which can be found within the Natural resources section of this plan. "Bell Station": This approximately 490-acre parcel of property north of the Cayuga Operating Company (COC) Power Plant, features over a 1/2 mile of prime wildlife lake frontage below a mature forest stand, includes 300 acres of active farmland and represents the largest undeveloped privately-owned parcel ofland in the Finger Lakes Region. Presently, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) and its parent company, Iberdrola, own this parcel. However, control of this parcel has been noted in the past as a priority for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and it has been discussed the possibility that it could be converted into a state forest or wildlife management area, while also maintaining the upper parcel for continued 300 acres of agricultural use. The Finger Lakes Land Trust may be interested in acquiring some of this land, although this would have an impact on the overall taxable properties, as this is currently zoned as an industrial area. The Lansing Town Board discussed supporting the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) acquiring this parcel and establishing a DEC managed conservation area and adopted Town Board Resolution #13 -133. The Planning Board Members felt strongly about the potential of a State Park facility while anticipating the continued utilization of the upper portion of the parcel to continue in Agricultural use. As with Myers Park and Salt Point, this land is a critical lakefront property that needs to be conserved for present and future generations. These areas are also attractive to tourists and require careful planning for supporting infrastructure so that the natural characteristics are maintained. Presently this land is not open for public access. Salmon Creek Valley: The valley's flat bottom, which is home to high quality soils, provides excellent farmland. Also important are the bottomland riparian (near stream), and the upland forests of the valley, which are designated as a Unique Natural Area (UNA) by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council (EMC). These important undisturbed natural features are threatened by development pressure and the Town of Lansing should discourage development within them, along with any further deforestation of the valley. The National Audubon Society has designated the contiguous forests of the valley as one of only a few Important Bird Areas in Tompkins County, and the Finger Lakes Land Trust maintains a 33-acre Salmon Creek Bird Sanctuary within this area. Given that the valley's unusual contiguous forest has garnered attention from the National Audubon Society and the EMC, development within these sensitive areas is currently reviewed through the building department and the Storm water Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 42 Management Officer (SMO). The Town should explore the requirement of "Site Plan Approval" for any residential or commercial development within these areas that have a 15% or greater slope, as well as on floodplains areas. Environmental groups, and private intervention agencies, that are interested in preserving these areas in their natural state, such as the Nature Conservancy, should be encouraged to purchase such parcels or the "development rights", or establish conservation easements for the purpose of natural conservation. Industrial Zones: The Town of Lansing has a sizable amount of heavy industry spread throughout the town; including: the Cargill Inc. Salt Mine; the 300 Megawatt Cayuga Operating Company (COC) Power Plant; and the Borg Warner Morse Tee facility. Additionally, the Dutch Mill Road area has a business park located in the southern portion of the Town near the Ithaca Airport. The Town of Lansing should continue to require that any additional industrial development be situated within designated zones that allow for industry and are regulated in such a way as to reduce any negative environmental impacts on the surrounding community. Major Road convergence area (NYS Rt. 34, NYS Rt. 34B and Triphammer Rd):_This area represents the face of the Town and all efforts should be made to create both a welcoming and attractive area that includes trees, paths, consistent signage, and compatible architectural standards. This location may be a prime area to introduce the use of form based design tools (discussed further below). At present, this mixed-use area is composed of various municipal services -The Lansing Town Hall, Community Center, Lansing Public Library, and the Lansing Highway Department -in addition to a few key businesses such as gas stations, banks, grocery markets, restaurants, recreational facilities, and some residential dwellings. Additionally, there is an area with extensive recreational trails, which are regularly utilized by Town residents. The corridor should be studied utilizing the "Complete Streets" Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) rural design standards to evaluate the traffic flows, intersection designs, pedestrian and bike safety, landscaping, lighting and ADA Handicap (HC) Accessibility. This would be an ideal design project to include within the NYS Department of Transportation (DOT) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and 5-year capital plan to implement. This area is presently served by public transportation and it is unlikely that high-density housing will be developed without the addition of a public sewage system or package plant. The town should continue to focus upon residential development in the area between NYS Route 34 B corridor and the Village of Lansing. This area has a greater concentration of the necessary infrastructure to support properly planned residential growth (water, sewer, roads and public transit) and is the most likely to benefit from the possible expansion of the existing sewage service. An emphasis upon development Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 43 within this area will relieve pressure and help the Town encourage appropriate land use and conserve valuable open land in other areas of the Town. To encourage denser development within targeted areas, it may be necessary to discourage development in other areas, such as near prime agricultural land, by limiting the creation or expansion of water and sewer districts to specific areas. Linear development along roadsides is also not desirable, but the concept of "Complete Streets" is encouraged ( e.g. roadways that are safe for both bicycles and pedestrians, in addition to motor vehicles). The Town Survey indicates that many respondents would like to see a commercial district within the Town that offers amenities such as bookstores, coffee shops, etc. However, the population concentration within the Town is not currently sufficient to support those types of businesses now, nor is it projected to be soon. Other types of businesses that require large areas of land for parking and storage, or require substantial square footage to allow for the establishment of retail space, while possible, are not the best use of the land in the Town, even where infrastructure can support their existence. Development of businesses such as those already in place in the Dutch Mill Road and airport commercial parks can provide the concentrations of people necessary to support service amenities, and allow for the development of viable commercial uses within the mixed-use area of the Town. This Comprehensive Plan can encourage and direct this type of development by utilizing zoning practices such as those found within form based design standards along with land use analysis (see APPENDIX F). This approach would allow mixed-use areas to become more desirable to the community, and to businesses, the public wants to attract. Natural Resources: The Town of Lansing is committed to the preservation and growth of diverse natural areas throughout the Town. The Town recognizes that natural areas need to be identified, designated, and conserved with an eye towards richness and variety in native animal and plant life, as well as ecological communities. It is imperative that sufficient land be set aside to allow for the range of needs required by the native species that live within that ecosystem. Additionally, there must be well-planned, interconnecting natural corridors to allow for the natural migration of the local flora and fauna. In developing these natural areas, priority should be given to the needs of the plants and animals that inhabit them. We must ensure that the legacy of the Town's natural areas, which was an initial attractant for many of the Town's residents, are also available for future generations to enjoy. The ecological integrity of the Town of Lansing's natural resources including Cayuga Lake (see below), groundwater, streams and wetlands, rich soils, trees and woodlands, steep slopes, and areas rich in biodiversity should be maintained and protected as new development occurs. Planning allows for the preservation of natural resources more effectively than a reactive environmental review would, because natural resources rarely exist on only a single site and cumulative impacts are difficult to gauge through an individual project. Cayuga Lake: The abundance of woods, waterfalls, gorges, open fields and meadows, along with the lakeshore, contribute greatly to the quality oflife for the people within the Town and serve as an important habitat for both plants and wildlife. As indicated within the results of a 2013 survey that polled residents of the Town of Lansing, (See APPENDIX C) residents highly value the Town's natural areas and scenic resources. Natural features are not only valuable as a part of Lansing's character, but also provide important ecosystem services, including water purification, and as such, contribute significantly to the area's quality oflife. Cayuga Lake is the most visible, and important, geological feature within our community. It is clearer with each passing Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 44 year that this most precious resource soon will be -and in many places already is -the main source of clean, fresh water. Currently, the Town of Lansing, as well as most of Tompkins County has an abundance of clean water, available for free or at minimal cost. However, as other communities have discovered, this resource can quickly become rare and precious and it is necessary for governmental bodies to serve as the trustees of this precious commodity with a fiduciary obligation to safeguard natural resources on behalf of the public, safeguarding it for both present and future generations. Our natural heritage is challenged by developmental changes to the landscape that affect the viability of the natural areas, water quality, and the Town's scenic beauty. It is then necessary that the Town identify and target natural elements for preservation and protection. Land use regulations and development strategies should be written, and in-tum implemented, with the conservation and protection of our natural heritage as a high priority. It is then important for Town officials to remember that decisions affecting natural areas and wildlife are integral to decisions made in regard to other important issues facing our community. The preservation of the lake, as well as the watershed that nourishes it, is vital for our community's long-term viability. All of Ithaca's waters and most of Tompkins County's drain into Cayuga Lake, and thence to Lake Ontario, making us part of the Great Lakes Basin. Within the three counties (Cayuga, Seneca and Tompkins) that have a lakeshore border with Cayuga Lake, there are numerous municipalities. Additionally, the four counties (Cortland, Ontario, Schuyler, and Tioga) located within the uplands of the watershed contain an even greater number of cities and towns. While each Town within this vast area individually implements its own plans and goals, it is not prudent for our community to make reasonable planning decisions without a clear understanding of what is occurring both upstream and downstream of the Town. Thus, it is suggested that all seven Counties, and their respective towns and cities, work together to establish best practices under DEC guidance to maintain the quality of Cayuga Lake. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) has classified the southern end of Cayuga Lake as an impaired water body due, in part, to elevated levels of phosphorus. As one of the stewards of the southern end of Cayuga Lake, the Town should continue to be concerned regarding this, and a coordinated effort to rebuild Cayuga Lake's health is important and necessary. Some continuing threats to Cayuga Lake's good health are: • Sediment from stream and road bank erosion • Phosphorus pollution from animal wastes, poorly maintained septic systems and sewage treatment • Heavy metal concentrations ( chromium and lead) • Coliform bacteria from sewage systems and wild and domestic animals • Agricultural chemicals, including phosphate and nitrate fertilizers in the lake and tributaries Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 45 • Invasive species (Eurasian water milfoil, spiny water fleas, zebra and quagga mussels, and more recently, "hydrilla" or "water thyme") • Micro-bead pollution from consumer products • Large-scale commercial water withdrawal • Harmful Algae Bloom Additionally, the town needs to be cognizant of the manner in which industrial operations can negatively affect the lake. The Town should always maintain awareness with regard to threats to the physical integrity of Cargill's salt mine, and its potential impact on the Lake. For example, the Cargill mine can possibly affect lake quality through effects on water salinity, and with the presence of large salt piles near the shoreline, there is the potential for both, run-off in heavy storms and salt blowing from the piles during instances of high winds and storms. NYS DEC regularly monitors the salt operation to ensure compliance with all existing regulations. We should take a proactive approach to avoid exploration of our water resources especially Cayuga Lake. Similarly, discharges emanating from the smokestack at the Heorot Power Plant, in addition to blow-off and run-off from ash piles may add to the potential for additional contamination of the lake. While both these industries are largely regulated by State and Federal Agencies, it is necessary for the Town to be vigilant in alerting the appropriate regulatory body to potential problems as soon as they develop. Sustainability: Ener~ and Climate Chan1:e Energy and climate change are two of the most pressing issues to face all of humanity. The Town of Lansing can continue to make a significant difference with regard to sustainability issues through the way it regulates and shapes development within the town borders. -This is an issue that we cannot afford to ignore if we are going meet the challenge of greatly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, to have a hope of stabilizing our climate. When outside developers seek locations for new construction for either commercial or residential areas they should be encouraged to develop in locations where residential populations are located within proximity to work, shopping and recreational facilities to minimize transportation issues. Agriculture is immensely important to building a more sustainable future for the Town of Lansing, as well as the entire Finger Lakes Region. It is imperative that prime soil types and farmland receive the protection it most certainly needs. This concept is explored at length in both the Agriculture and Land Use sections of this Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, it is important to recognize that diversifying agriculture and fostering more production for local consumption will reduce the carbon footprint for food transport and strengthen our local economy, concepts also explored within the agricultural section of this plan. Energy conservation is a key part of future planning initiatives and provides a tangible benefit for citizens. The clear majority of the Town's residential and governmental energy expenditures -be it for heat, electricity, transportation, etc. -is purchased from locations outside of our region. These expenditures could instead be made to benefit our own region by altering some of the means of power production from regional to local. The Town of Lansing should continue to support and foster alternative energy production, which is made affordable through existing and planned governmental incentive programs. Newly enacted NY State energy conservation codes are in place within local building codes that significantly tighten community construction standards to help lower energy consumption and the local carbon footprint. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 46 Strong Agricultural Lands Active farming continues in Lansing today because high quality soils are a critical asset for viable farming (See Agriculture, Land Use and Development, and Sustainability Sections). With high quality soils , farms produce greater yields resulting in higher returns per acre. Capital investments on farms over the past 7 years , as reported in the Agriculture District Survey (2011 ), ranged from many farms with investments less than $10 ,000 to several farms with over $1 ,000 ,000 invested. The fact that farms are investing in their businesses displays farm viability, modernization, and that farmers are optimistic about the future of farming. ProximifJ' to Educational Institutions Future economic prosperity will become more and more about the transfer of ideas, rather than physical objects. The industry of knowledge encompasses the training of minds through education, leading to the creation of new products or services that have profound effects upon our daily lives. With education as the largest employer in the region (Cornell University, Ithaca College and Tompkins County Community College), Lansing is a very short distance from an abundant natural resource, the human imagination. Broadband Fiber Optic ConnectivifJ' Knowledge travels across town and around the world at the speed of light through high-speed fiber optic networks. Major broadband infrastructure currently exists within the Lansing area and should be made accessible to businesses who need high-speed connectivity. Industry standards continually need to be upgraded as technology changes to meet the speed requirements of users (See Infrastructure and Transportation Section). Wi-Fi internet connectivity is a challenge within the rural nature of the hills, valley and lakes of the region and must be improved to promote and increase work from home , and home-based businesses , to meet the changing needs of an evolving workforce. Abundance ofRecreation The Town of Lansing has capitalized on its natural beauty, its location on Cayuga Lake, and its attention to its residents' recreational needs in the development of its Park and Recreational programs and activities. These are most noticeable at Myers Park, Salt Point , Ludlowville and the Lansing recreational and municipal campus. The active recreational programs and strong school systems available to Lansing residents are some of the major influences to attract new residents. High QualifJ' Public Education The Lansing Central School District is a K-12 public education school district with an average total enrollment of 1150 students. Lansing Central School District's 97% graduation rate is higher than the NY state average of 87%. Additionally, the student-teacher ratio of 11 : 1 is lower than the NY average of 14 : 1, making this an extremely attractive incentive for businesses and families to locate to the Town . Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 48 Present Economic Conditions During the ten-year period of 2005-2014, the Ithaca / Tompkins County region gained 7,000 new jobs, a 12.7% increase, as reported by the New York State Department of Labor. While most other communities in the area all showed signs of significant decreases in jobs, Binghamton (-5.1 %), Elmira (-2.4%), Syracuse (-3.0%, Utica (- 2.7%), the Ithaca Region posted an 8% increase in private sector jobs and the State of New York average was 4.3%. Of the new jobs in Ithaca / Tompkins County, 4,700 jobs added were in the Education and Health Services sector, with Cornell University and Ithaca College accounting for 3,900 additional positions or 83% of the total, nearly two out of every three new jobs in the region. Even manufacturing has regained the remaining 500 jobs lost during the 2008-2009 recession , returning to the level of 3,500 jobs that existed in 2008. Among the sectors gaining in Ithaca since the (2008) recession were leisure and hospitality, which added 300 positions, and retail , which added 200 13 . The Town of Lansing is currently home to over 150 businesses employing approximately 2,700 workers . Most of these jobs (76%) create goods or services that are consumed outside of the Town. Businesses leading this category of employment include Borg-Warner (manufacturing 55%), Cargill (mining 9%), and the Cayuga Operating Company Power Plant (utilities 6%). The remaining 30% of these jobs produce goods or services used by Lansing residents . This includes Educational Services (Lansing Central School District), Construction, Professional /Technical Services, and Retail Trade 14 . 13 Source Ithaca Journal March 7, 2015 14 Source s: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 Am eri can Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; JobsEQ ~ p rovided by Tompkin s County Area D evelopment Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 49 Table 18 -Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) Analysis Strengths Weaknesses • Outstanding Public School System • Small town atmosphere • Good location, close to maJor roads, airport, and shopping • The Town's reputation as being fiscally responsible • Independent small businesses that support the community • Access to recreation: Cayuga waterfront, cycling, hunting & fishing and Town sponsored recreation programs through the year • Strong agricultural community • Recreational Field Complex • • • • • • The Town's lack of identity as a business location Lack of employment opportunities to keep younger generations in the area with new employment Limited natural gas supply Lack of affordable housing focused for first time home buyers Lack of senior and middle-class housing Limited access to broadband internet in areas of the Town • Lack of Public Waste Water Treatment processes • Lack of investment in job creation • Lack of Trades Programs Opportunities Threats • Evaluate the tools found in the "Form Based Codes" concept to promote mixed use development • Special events or festivals to promote and "sell" the Town to visitors • Regional interest in promoting small towns and historic resources • Market what is already here by developing a business and tourism directory. • Scenic beauty and increased access to Cayuga Lake • Create smaller sized housing options • Potential Closure of Cayuga Power Plant • Development on active agricultural land • Competition with malls and big box stores • High Taxes • High Utilities Cost • Lack of venture capital Maior Employers • • • Borg Warner, a manufacturer of chains and transmission components , has been a major community employer for over 100 years and is one of the few remaining skilled labor assembly plants in the region. Located on the southern border of the Town and the Village, the plant is very close to the Ithaca Tompkins County Airport and NYS Rt. 13 . The Cargill Salt mine has operated for over 100 years and continues to mine road salt from beneath the Town and Cayuga Lake though excavations several thousand feet below the surface. They continue to be one of the largest salt producers in the State of New York and offer their product to many municipalities throughout the region . Cayuga Operating Plant owned by Heorot Power currently operates as a coal fired electric generation station providing power to the New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) utility system . A proposal had been under consideration to refuel the power plant with natural gas; however, the Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 50 Areas ofEconomic Opportunity Local job creation and economic development initiatives are available through a variety of state programs that provide financial support. Leading this effort in our area is the Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD) and the Southern Tier Regional Economic Development Councils (STREDC), Cornell Cooperative Extension, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. These organizations and others provide a framework to promote economic development and financial investments with a focus on increasing the size and diversity of the region's workforce through new business creation. Connections between education, technology transfer and other entrepreneurial activities further enhance the opportunity for economic advancement. The objectives of these programs can strengthen and diversify the Lansing economy in the following areas. Business Retention Existing businesses are the foundation of any economic growth strategy. By building on what already exists, Lansing can support local businesses and create a strong foundation on which to attract new employment and investment. Initiatives to support existing businesses include: • Adding or Improving Infrastructure (See Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Section) - This can include water, sanitary sewer, electric and natural gas, highway transportation and broadband to accommodate planned development and infrastructure improvements . • Providing Information About Economic Incentive Programs -The town can link/ coordinate to create partnerships among government agencies, educational institutions and the private sector to increase job opportunities, strengthen the tax base and improve the quality of life. • Preservation of Open and Agricultural Space -Protect agricultural lands, preserve rural character, provide a voice for farmers, and encourage agriculture-based businesses. • Advocating for Reliable Energy Resources -Currently, NYSEG has issued a moratorium, beginning Feb. 9, 2015, which restricts additional natural gas services from being installed throughout the Town of Lansing north of NYS Route 13 throughout the town. This will continue to impact economic decisions about building in the area. An alternate system is to utilize refillable propane tanks. Until the completion of a proposed Natural Gas Line Expansion Project through the Town of Dryden, NYSEG is unable to accept additional applications for gas service from new or existing customers in portions of the Ithaca franchise area 16 . Business Expansion Business owners who live within the community tend to spend more on local business services and keep more of their earnings in the local economy. Additionally, they have a stake in the community and are less likely to move elsewhere in response to incentives offered by other towns. Lansing can help local businesses expand by: 16 Source: correspondence -New York State Department of Public Service Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 52 • Encouraging the transfer of technology between businesses and Cornell University, Ithaca College, SUNY Cortland and Tompkins County Community College. • Encouraging Local Production of Goods and Services. This can include culinary and beverage production, home based businesses, and direct-to-consumer farm products. • Expanding opportunities for tourism promotion and destination development. Business Attraction The perception of a pro-business environment is immensely important to existing businesses within the Town of Lansing and for attracting new businesses . Economic growth in the 21st century will be driven by our nation's ability to both generate ideas and translate them into innovative products and services. As the Town of Lansing looks for the best strategies to strengthen local economic performance, it is important to focus on STEM (Science, Technology, and Engineering & Math) occupations because they are among the highest paying, fastest growing and most influential in driving economic growth and innovation. Individuals employed in STEM fields enjoy low unemployment , prosperity and career flexibility. Additionally, skilled building trades should be encouraged and supported at the (Electricians , Carpenters , Plumbers , Masons, etc.) New Business and Industry Like most communities, the Town of Lansing would welcome economic opportunities that do not sacrifice the character of the community nor require a disproportionate level of services per taxes gained. The Town of Lansing welcomes all new businesses and entrepreneurs but the types of business and industry that would be of the most interest to the community include: • Business and industry that preserves the rural character and look of the community while capitalizing upon community strengths. • Business and industry that utilizes high quality, and attractive , building and landscape des igns that incorporate and enhance the surrounding areas look and feel. • Home based businesses that blend seamlessly with residential land uses. • Business and industry that fills a unique niche within the Finger Lakes region. Resources Numerous economic development organizations in the Southern Tier Region offer opportunities to plan, promote, and implement economic development and are available for use by the Lansing business community. The Town of Lansing is supportive of the Southern Tier -Regional Economic Development Council and supports the growth agenda of job creation and retention. Other regional agencie s designated to support economic growth include: • Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD) • Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency (TCIDA) • Ithaca / Tompkins County Convention and Visitors Bureau • Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County • Center for Regional Economic Advancement • Startup NY • LaunchNY • NYSERDA • New York State Broadband Program Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 53 Table 19 -Residential Building Permits 1999 -2016 , New Houses Built North of Peruville Road South of Peruville Road Total Year Mobile Multi-Single Mobile Multi-Single Building Homes Family Family Homes Family Family Permits Per Year 1999 13 1 12 1 0 25 52 2000 10 0 9 0 2 23 44 2001 18 1 15 1 2 24 61 2002 9 0 18 0 0 30 57 2003 10 0 20 0 0 24 54 2004 6 0 28 0 0 14 48 2005 3 2 11 2 0 19 37 2006 4 0 16 0 0 18 38 2007 3 1 17 1 1 13 36 2008 8 1 13 1 1 9 33 2009 5 0 11 0 1 3 20 2010 1 0 10 0 3 5 19 2011 3 0 12 0 0 5 20 2012 1 0 9 0 1 12 23 2013 3 0 3 0 5 16 27 2014 1 0 13 0 3 9 26 2015 3 0 12 0 4 8 27 2016 2 0 7 0 3 13 25 Total 103 6 236 6 26 270 647 % 15.92% .93% 36.48% .93% 4.02% 41.73% Data Source: Codes and Inspections Office, Town of Lansing As seen from the above chart the highest numbers of residential new house building permits were issued in 2001 (61) and lowest in 2010 (19) and the annual average for 1999 to 2016 was approximately 36 . 18 Additionally, the highest numbers of residential building permits were issued to construct single-family residences in southern Lansing (257 or 41.32% ). This was followed by single-family residence construction in Lansing north of Peruville Road (229 or 36.82%) from 1999 -2016. 18 Rounded up from 35 .94 Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 57 Affordability and Walkability The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) states that, "Families who pay more than 30% of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households now pay more than 50 percent of their annual incomes for housing."19 Many cost burdened individuals and families may find it difficult to afford transportation costs. Transportation costs are often the second largest household expense and the further away from work, shopping, and recreational activities most people live, the greater the burden. It is important then that both housing and transportation costs be factored together to provide a more comprehensive way of thinking about the true affordability of housing, as we plan. The area of northern Lansing has a "housing cost as a % of income" range of 27-36% with an average of 31 %, and southern Lansing 23-60% and average of 44%. The higher housing costs in southern Lansing is due mostly to the several large high-end developments, south of Peru ville Road neighborhoods, for example the Lakeview and Lakewatch neighborhoods that contain homes with assessed values ranging from $400,000 to over $1,200,000. The median home value for these communities combined is $589,500 and the average home value is $607,515. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the years 2010-2014 show the median annual household income for the Town of Lansing to be $71,067. To be considered affordable, the median annual housing cost should be no more than $21,320. Additionally, Census Records for this same period show the median annual owner costs with a mortgage to be $20,244 and the median annual cost for renters to be $13,284.,_ Housing Sales Data from the Ithaca Board of REALTORS® for the Town of Lansing shows home sales from 2010-2015 beginning to trend slightly upward but mostly still falling in the $125,000-$225,000 price range. New Housing The 2013 Lansing Survey prepared by the Survey Research Institute (SRI) at Cornell (See Appendix C), shows that most residents who responded to this survey and reside within the Town of Lansing favor the encouragement of housing created for moderate-income residents within the Town. Considering the goal to preserve the agricultural areas in northern Lansing and expanding housing in southern Lansing, the town should study ideas such as Planned Development Areas (PDA). PDA's incorporate both housing and retail business in an area that would be most attractive for the development of a future community hub, along with the use of form based tools. Other areas of southern Lansing, either on or around Triphammer and East Shore Drive would make sense for Cluster Developments that are residential in nature differing from conventional subdivisions such as Lakeview and Lakewatch in that the residential properties would be grouped closer together and utilize the remainder of the land for open space, recreation or agriculture. The closer proximity to the village of Lansing and the sewer system would allow the town to begin bringing sewer to Lansing incrementally allowing for more cluster development and 19 https :I/portal. hud.gov/hudportal/HUD? src= /program_ offices/comm _ylanning/ajfordablehousing/ Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 58 increasing the tax base. In considering cluster development, inclusionary housing should also be considered to help promote affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning or housing refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. Form-Based Tools /Design Conventional zoning is based upon use, and we often see business-use areas separated from residential. In addition, there is usually no cohesiveness to style, other than in a subdivision where using a type of form- based design in deed restrictions is common. The definition of a form-based code from the Form-Based Code Institute is: " ... a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation. " The use of form-based tools would allow for the incorporation of mixed uses, while keeping the cohesiveness in the form of the structures and other features of the neighborhoods. For more information on Form Based Tools see Appendix F. Infrastructure When considering housing, it is important to consider the availability of -or potential for -municipal infrastructure (i.e. roads, water, and sewer) and other utilities such as natural gas and electric service (See Municipal Services and Infrastructure). Currently, sections of the Town of Lansing do not have town wide municipal sewer services and therefore housing must rely on building lots of about an acre or more, to allow for the installation of appropriately sized septic systems. Additionally, municipal water is available in some areas of southern Lansing and along the Route 34B corridor from Rogues' Harbor north to the power plant. For cluster development or Planned Development Area (PDA's) to be possible, the infrastructure of municipal water and sewer needs to be expanded. The most logical way for this to occur is to tie in and gradually expand outward from areas where it currently exists, presently in areas of southern Lansing. Natural gas is currently at capacity and to be able to support new development in Lansing, NYSEG would need to bring in new distribution pipelines. They are currently at an impasse with the Town of Dryden and Tompkins County, but are exploring other options to meet future requests. Housing expansion in the form of new developments and PDA's will result in increased traffic and there will be a need to evaluate roads and/or mass transit to accommodate the resulting increase in population. As with municipal water and sewer, the logical choice would be to expand outward from the Village and into the area of southern Lansing. Senior Housing Across America, the baby boomer generation of the 1950s are hitting or nearing retirement age. With the aging population, new concerns arise within the housing market; people wanting to downsize due to children aging out of family homes and/or reduced fixed income. The Town of Lansing is no exception to this phenomenon as many of their residents look for smaller, more affordable housing in their twilight years. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 59 Health: A critical aspect of planning is health. A community's plan for housing, transportation, land use, parks, and economic development impacts -these environments are the largest contributors to our health. The Town of Lansing Recreation Department encourages physical activity. Development of these areas can be aided by determining the environmental barriers and facilitators that affect activity levels; designing, constructing, and maintaining community environments to help ensure safety and accessibility; and developing programs to encourage people to use improved community environments to increase their activity levels . Lansing aspires to create more trails bike paths and green spaces into our community for many reasons, including promoting a more healthy population. It is vital that the town take measures to ensure clean drinking water for the current residents and for generations to come . Heavy Industry: The Town of Lansing should revise zoning code to provide a significant buffer between any industrial zones and housing, farmland and critical environmental areas . Current codes allow for buildings to be as close as 15 feet from a property line. Issues the town should consider in order to protect the residents from problems that "Heavy Industry" may bring to the Town: The protection of roadways and regulation of traffic impacts The protection of aquifers, wellheads, drinking water The protection of surface air and waters Identification and consideration of scenic areas Preservation of lake views and viewscapes Study and designation of critical environmental areas Protection of agriculture Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 65 AG-IC Add information pertaining to farming to the Town's website and newsletters. AG-ID Promote farm direct marketers and encourage residents to buy local. AG-IE Gather data about farming in town (i.e. economic impact & trends). AG-IG Encourage farm tours for Town officials , school staff, neighbors, youth, and public. AG-IH Encourage classroom education about farming (i.e. 4-H Agriculture Clubs , Community & School gardens). Goal AG-2: Create a supportive environment for farming. Recommendations : AG-2A Establ ish Infrastructure improvements and policies which are important to farming (i.e. bridge improvements , high-speed internet access , traffic signage , trespass controls, utilities , and renewable energy development). AG-2B Limit development not compatible with farming within agricultural areas. AG-2C Create a new Agricultural Zoning district in dominant agricultural areas AG-2D Create incentives to direct development away from agricultural areas. AG-2E Recommend tax policies that make owning farmland more affordable. Goal AG-3: Protect and promote the best farmland and encourage environmental stewardship. Recommendations : AG-3A Investigate options for short term easements, Town support for State Purchase of Developmental Rights (PDR) funding , the co-holding of easements by the Town of farms awarded State PDR funding, the investigation into the establishment of Town PDR funding, and the education of landowners about the benefits of renting/ selling to town farmers . Goal AG-4: Create an Agricultural Zoning District that gives priority to farming and related enterprises. R ecommendations: AG-4A Change most of the current "RA" district in North Lansing to a new Ag Zone . AG-4B Allow smaller AG enterprises in "R3 ", "RA", and Ag Zones (farmers markets , Agritourism , Microbreweries, Wineries, etc.). AG-4C Recommend developers maintain buffer between housing and farmland in the Ag zone. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 67 Goal AG-5: Strengthen the farm economy, future viability of farming, and Agricultural Economic Development. Recommendations : AG-5A Encourage energy conservation and renewable energy development. AG-5B Promote farm direct marketing opportunities and options. AG-5C Encourage new farming enterprises and promote new opportunities. AG-5D Enhance the recruitment of future farmers and the promotion of available opportumt1es for farming labor, through increasing the awareness about the viability of farming opportunities amongst high school students and their guidance counselors, the development of training programs and internships, employment postings on the Town website. Infrastructure: Infrastructure (I) Goals and Recommendations: Goal 1-1: Increase the capacity of municipal services, allowing for the continuance of both housing and business development within targeted areas of growth and density. Recommendations : I-IA Work with New York Stage Electric and Gas (NYSEG) to enhance (not necessarily expand) the Electrical and Natural Gas distribution systems to increase capacities, while encouraging the transition to alternative forms of energy. I-IB Expand the municipal sewer system to areas where development is desired and steer the expansion from areas where it is not. This should include the exploration of a "Public / Private Partnership" between the Town of Lansing and developers who have proposed potential strategies to expand the existing sanitary sewer system to mixed use / commercial, higher-density, and residential developments . I-1 C Expand access to the Internet and Wireless infrastructure to include a Wireless Wide Area Network (WW AN) to provide far-reaching WI/FI Public access and cell phone technology. I-1D Formally adopt a (5) Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to document the current, and anticipated building and capital needs , with an eye towards the development of a "Master Plan " to inform the enhancement of community resources such as Myers Park. I-1 E Encourage the expansion of water districts to areas based upon the desires of area residents and to direct development towards those areas. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 68 Transportation: Transportation (T) Goals and Recommendations: Goal Tl: Establish long-term strategies to improve major thoroughfares that run through the Town of Lansing. Recommendations : Tl-A: Propose a 'Highway Transportation Corridor Study and Improvement Project" to NYSDOT for a Federal Highway Project along NYS Route 34 from The Town Barn Road to Lansing Schools and from Rogues Harbor to Asbury Rd. This area is the major intersection of two New York State Highways and the survey indicated strong community support for a "Complete Streets" study and approach for this area to include safe travel, pedestrian and bicycle access. Once the study is completed, submit these recommendations to the NYSDOT Five Year Transportation (STP) for consideration. Goal T2: Resolve prior development issues, allowing for the removal of inconveniences and improving Public Health and Safety; encouraging the development of safe and convenient roadways in the future. Recommendations : T2-A Update the future road map to discover, realistically, where improvements can take place. T2-B Require developers to implement/ plan for future connection strategies, continuing to improve circulation through isolated neighborhoods during Planning Board Review. Goal T3: Provide support to a transportation system that is sustainable, inclusive and well performing through the adoption of new planning practices. Recommendations: T3-A Channel the expressed and reasonable concerns of the community regarding transportation safety and accessibility. T3-B Look to other cities and towns with strong, diverse transportation networks for inspiration. T3-C Promote the public benefits of a healthy transportation system in interpreting and applying zoning and subdivision review regulations. T3-D Maintain open communication with state and regional agencies whose policies influence transportation conditions in Lansing . Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 69 T3-E Pursue resources and funding options that could improve transportation at reduced cost to the community. Goal T4: Create and enhance transportation infrastructure to alleviate priority issues that have been expressed by the community, such as deterrents to alternative forms of transportation and safety concerns. Recommendations: T4-A Actively pursue planning and adoption of master plans for multi-use trails for bikers and pedestrians, connecting schools, and neighborhoods to each other and to goods and services and key destinations. Appoint task forces composed of citizens with expertise and skills to provide research, best practices, and advice to the Planning and Town Boards as they pursue this goal. T4-B Incorporate best practices for Bicycle and Pedestrian Oriented Design through the provision of wider shoulders for cyclists , appropriate signage, traffic calming devices, and crosswalks or signals for pedestrians to improve safety. T4-C Generate transit-oriented developments in areas currently served by TCAT that could make community transit service more viable. T4-D Where appropriate, construct kiosks and signage systems at area bus stops and park and ride locations that inform riders of schedules , route options, and wait times. T4-E Explore grant opportunities to allow for the adoption of current technologies. Land Use and Development: Land Use and Development (LU) Goals and Recommendations: Goal LU-1: Improve and shape the quality of the built environment by focusing growth to provide for the needs of Town residents. Foster a balanced mix of agricultural, open space and recreational, residential, commercial, institutional, and office/light industrial uses. Recommendations : LU-lA Focus and promote development to areas where adequate infrastructure and services already exist or are envisioned. Specifically, to areas south of the 34B corridor, to minimize impact on prime agricultural land. LU-lB Continue to use the existing Tompkins County inventory of Unique Natural Areas , promoting conservation and protection of these lands. LU-lC Guide development to take the form of cluster and /or conservation subdivisions in environmentally and visually sensitive areas, such as those that offer scenic views . Likewise, Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 70 encourage commercial /light industrial development in concentrated areas with enough space for successful business operations, while controlling commercial development by encouraging reverse frontage practices. LU-ID Provide incentives for the redevelopment or retrofitting of aging or abandoned industrial or commercial sites to avoid abandoned buildings. LU-IE Locate mixed uses in pre-designated areas and in suitable building types using Form Based Zoning practices, with sufficient levels of representative citizen input. Use site-planning guidelines to encourage a mix of uses and recreation spaces that support the needs of current and future residents. LU-IF Continue to require that builders utilize design practices and construction guidelines that place an emphasis upon sustainability, such as the observance of minimal standards set forth in the international family of codes while encouraging the adherence to practices leading to LEED certification, and the installation of alternative energy services. LU-IG Continue to develop a Master Street Plan and encourage roadways that are safe for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as motor vehicles (see Transportation section). LU-IH Utilize Overlay Districts to enhance and harmonize the natural and built environments, and to protect certain resources (see Chapter 4, Future Land Use, and Land Use Map and goals sections). Goal LU-2: Create, reinforce, and respect a unique sense of place and make the Town of Lansing distinct from surrounding communities through the form of the built environment. Recommendations : LU-2A Consider architectural design guidelines (e .g. Form Based tools). LU-2B Encourage the construction of efficient and environmentally sustainable pedestrian-oriented development. LU-2C Utilize the existing sign ordinance to protect the Town from visual pollution, while still allowing businesses to advertise appropriately. Goal LU-3: Enhance the established character and sense of community of existing neighborhoods and hamlets. Recommendations : LU-3A Ensure that new development in existing neighborhoods and hamlets is compatible with the established character and scale of existing development. LU-3B Foster infill development and redevelopment opportunities that take full advantage of existing infrastructure, yet respects the established character and scale of the existing built environment. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 71 Goal NR-1: Continue to take into consideration both Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas (UNA's) and State and Federal Wetlands during site plan reviews and development for the protection of our natural resources. Goal NR-2: Protect open space with appropriate land use regulations and development strategies. Recommendations: NR-2A Focus development to within targeted areas that will support higher density. NR-2B Provide incentives for maintaining healthy, diverse species of trees. Request new development to include a tree inventory, replacement/planting plans , and construction standards to protect retained trees. NR-2C Continue to foster and encourage open spaces in larger developments through such methods as cluster housing or PDA's. NR-2D Encourage funding mechanisms such as the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or fee simple land purchase to acquire or preserve important natural areas or open space . NR-2E Encourage private property owners to establish conservation easements to protect environmentally sensitive lands and open space. Goal NR-3: Comply with state and federal regulations to support and actively engage in efforts to control the threat of invasive species. Goal NR-4: Support the efforts of Tompkins County and surrounding Municipalities to continue to protect ground water resources and seek to improve the region's water quality. Goal NR-5: Preserve scenic resources that contribute to the Town's unique character. Recommendations : NR-5A Utilize the existing Tompkins County's Scenic Resource Inventory, which identifies, catalogs , and provides analyses of the Town's significant scenic areas. NR-5B Develop scenic overlooks and educational signage in parks , neighborhoods , and public spaces . Construct overlooks and signage in such a way that they are an enhancement and amenity to neighborhoods and other locations . Goal NR-6: Protect existing air resources and maintain the air quality for the health and safety of Town residents. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 74 Recommendations: NR-6A Comply with existing State and Federal regulations aimed at limiting cumulative air quality impacts from industrial, diesel, or other similar operations. Goal NR-7: Conservation Advisory Counsel and Future Working Groups. Recommendations: NR-7 A The Town of Lansing should continue and expand its efforts to protect and enhance environmental quality through creation of a Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) composed of a diverse group of residents. One goal of the CAC would be to complete an open-space inventory (OSI) prioritizing open areas in Lansing for conservation based on natural, scenic, and cultural values. NR-7B Use the CAC and its work as a basis to consider future working groups, and the Town Board may designate the CAC as a conservation board. If established a conservation board should: establish good working relationships with other local agency members by regularly attending their meetings; take a collaborative, constructive approach; maintain a scientific, objective perspective; build expertise by attending educational trainings; engage from the start of a project; and provide reviews and recommendations in a timely fashion. Sustainability: Ener,;:y and Climate Chan1:e Sustainability (S) Goals and Recommendations: Goal S-1: Reduce energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas emissions in municipal operations. 20 Recommendations: S-lA Continue to use recommendations made during recent NYSERDA energy audits of municipal structures. Require compliance with the updated 2016 NYS Energy Code along with NY State Fire Prevention and Building Codes. S-lB Implement NYSERDA recommendations to increase energy efficiency. S-1 C Explore the use of alternative energy sources for the operation of town buildings such as geothermal or air source heat pump systems for heating town buildings. S-lD Promote the use of fuel-efficient vehicles for the town. S-lE Continue to promote recycling in all municipal and commercial facilities in compliance with Tompkins County recycling laws. 20 NB: Tompkins County has a goal ofreducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (50% reduction by reducing demand and increasing efficiency, 30% by implementing renewable energy generation . Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 75 Goal S-2: Foster residential use of solar, wind, water and geothermal renewable energy sources through education and incentives. Recommendations : S-2A Promote education about the cost and efficiency of alternative energy sources . Continue to promote and support both county and state solar efforts. S-2B Continue "Site Plan Review" approval to assure buffering requirements between users for commercial ground-mounted, solar panel installations. S-2C Create design guidelines that would promote alternative energy sources, such as tower height and noise standards, setbacks for ground mounted solar panels, allowing for the generation of permits and reducing setbacks. Goal S-3: Build a resilient community by continuing to support the ongoing development and evolution of the Town's emergency plan. Recommendations : S-3A Develop a town-wide adaptation effort to allow for severe weather events that would include: 1) As bridges are replaced, increase road culverts sizes to provide for greater expected storm water flows . 2) Install storm water runoff and infiltration areas in expectation of larger storm potentials. Assure compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) regulations ofNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 3) Investigate back-up power systems to mitigate longer-term power outages from extreme events such as widespread ice storm damage. Economic Development: Economic Development (ED) Goals and Recommendations: Goal ED-1: Foster job creation and retention through business growth. Recommendations: ED-lA Use the Town website as a tool for economic development. ED-lB Enhance and support the efforts of Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD) for businesses seeking information regarding development within the town. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 76 ED-1 C Ensure that land use regulations continue to provide sufficient flexibility to meet the demand for business and employment-based activities. Goal ED-2: Enhance the diversity of the local economy to achieve economic stability and reduce economic dependence on a single sector. Recommendations : ED-2A Promote the development of a strong land-based rural economy by maintaining economically productive rural lands. ED-2B Work with economic development agencies and institutions of higher education to diversify and expand locally produced goods and services. ED-2C Continue to support the expansion of infrastructure that supports both industrial and commercial facilities. Goal ED-3: Increase tourism's role as a viable local economic engine. Recommendations : ED-3A Work with regional partners to promote tourism , not only as a source of revenue but to promote Lansing. Goal ED-4: Better align the town and local businesses with regional economic development councils and authorities (TCAD, STREDC, NYSERDA, etc.) to assist emerging entrepreneurs and established businesses with expansion and start-up. Goal ED-5: Using incentives and education encourage businesses that utilize Town resources effectively. R ecommendation : ED-5A Encourage infill and redevelopment of underutilized properties . ED-5B Ensure that Lansing has reliable access to energy resources . Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 77 Cultural Resources and Hamlets: Cultural Resources (CR) Goals and Recommendations: Goal CR-1: Preserve, maintain and enhance the small neighborhood, historical and natural character of the existing hamlets within the town. Recommendations : CR-IA Conduct an inventory/survey of cultural and historical structures throughout the town. Utilize the resources of Cornell University's Historic Preservation Program and potential grants from the Preservation League of New York State. CR-1 B Promote the preservation and restoration of significant historical resources. CR-IC Prepare nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. CR-ID Promote the current Historic Preservation Tax Credits for residential and commercial buildings through the State of New York and Federal IRS programs. CR-IE Consider "Form Based Tools" in areas that include the historic hamlets to provide appropriate design infill projects. CR-IF Develop safe pathways between the hamlets, schools, parks, and shopping areas. CR-lG Add sidewalks in appropriate areas of dense development and hamlets. CR-lH Improve access to public transportation. CR-11 Preserve and improve Myers and Ludlowville parks in ways that enhance the park experience, while retaining its natural beauty and minimizing impacts on the neighborhoods . Goal CR-2: Develop a long-term strategy to enhance town recreational opportunities including both active and passive activities located throughout the town. Recommendations: CR-2A Complete a park "Master Plan" for Myers Park that would include both long and short-term goals . CR-2B Prioritize recreational activities and programs together with solicitation of matching grant opportunities, through the utilization of a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 78 Tourism: Tourism (T) Goals and Recommendations: Goal T-1: Foster tourism initiatives that increase multi-day stays and experiences within the Town of Lansing region. Recommendations : T-lA Promote Agritourism : onsite tours, farmers' market, and other related opportunities . T-lB Explore the creation of a trail network/ greenway within the town . T-1 C Optimize exposure for tourism businesses on the Town of Lansing website T-1 D Promote tourism journalist connections outside of Tompkins County T-lE Foster the creation and promotion of alternative camping facilities : additional camper and tent camping sites. T-lF Create and attract special events . When possible these events should link with other events in neighboring towns that draw large amounts of participation, such as Mackenzie-Childs sales weekend. T-1 G Encourage the creation of appropriate vacation housing and lake front rentals through the utilization of updated land-use ordinances. Goal T-2: Work with Tompkins County and Chamber of Commerce tourism functions to increase the ability of the Town of Lansing to encourage tourism activities. Recommendations: T-2A Increase the efforts being made to research , apply and manage grants to support development of tourism initiatives and marketing expenditures to support development within these areas. T-2B Increase expenditures on marketing to bring more tourists into the area (i.e. radio, television, and print ads , brochures , etc .) T-2C Integrate existing maps and data outlining present locations of tourist-oriented services into the Town's website. Utilize any existing data to establish locations where future services are desired. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 79 Goal T-3: Increase local support for cooperative tourism initiatives that are defined, coordinated, and advertised at the County level. Programs such as: 1. Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway. 2 . Tompkins County "Blue Way Trail" Plan. 3. Tompkins County hiking trail map that lists local spurs, as well as links to the larger Finger Lakes Trail network. 4. Tompkins County bicycle trail map-on and off-road opportunities. 5 . Tompkins County list of waterfalls of note. 6. 'Cayuga's East Shore' catalogues businesses of interest between Ithaca and Montezuma Wildlife Refuge. Business categories include Wineries, breweries , distilleries, farms, CSA's, Hotel's, Bed and Breakfasts, garden centers, dining, shopping, and recreation services. Recommendations: T-3A Support existing committees that are devoted solely to the subject of Tourism. T-3B Participate in the Tompkins County Tourism Initiative feedback sessions. T-3C Apply for grants and assistance geared towards creating and expanding local tourism initiatives that mesh with the goals of Tompkins County. Goal T-4: Establish cultural tourism as a part of the overall town-wide efforts to attract visitors, establish, and expand businesses that relate to the overall strategy. T-4A Support coordination efforts with the Tompkins County Tourism office linking various area Inns, various area Bed and Breakfasts, Lake Cottage rentals, Agricultural Tourism and Farm Days efforts, together with area restaurants and town wide cultural activities currently housed at the Lansing Town Hall, etc. T-4B Develop a prioritized approach to Tourism and apply to participate in the Tompkins County grant programs when appropriate . Housing and Neighborhoods: Housing and Neighborhoods (HN) Goals and Recommendations: Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 80 GOAL HN-1: Create compact and dynamic, mixed-use neighborhoods in areas within the central portion of the Town of Lansing. Recommendations : HN-lA Investigate options to add affordable housing in new and proposed developments using Ef-E~~ incentives to developers. HN-lB Open discussion with Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services to promote affordable housing in southern Lansing HN-1 C Partner with TCA T to explore expansion of transportation services to southern Lansing GOAL HN-2: Increase the level of housing developments with walkable streets and access to jobs, transit, and a wide variety of businesses. Recommendations : HN-2A Research grant opportunities for the implementation of sidewalks in and around the central portion of the Town and Town Hall expanding into nearby residential neighborhoods. HN-2B Consider the use of form-based tools in future development to allow for mixed-use neighborhoods. GOAL HN-3: Expand existing infrastructure to support the growing housing needs of Lansing. Recommendations : HN-3A Work with the Village of Lansing and Village of Cayuga Heights on plans to expand the sewer system to allow new higher density development within the southern and south central portions of the Town of Lansing. HN-3B Work with NYSEG, the Town of Dryden and Tompkins County on the means of enhancing capacity of natural gas to serve industrial or commercial uses in the Town of Lansing . HN-3C Discuss with TCAT the fea sibility of expanding bus routes further into the Town in locations where it currently does not exist. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 81 HN-3D Encourage denser residential development in the central portion of the Town where access to municipal water is currently available and the potential for municipal sewer is more likely to exist. GOAL HN-4: Provide additional housing options for seniors to remain residents of Lansing. Recommendations : HN-4A Provide an adequate supply of affordable housing options for aging populations ; including seniors who wish to remain in their home, persons requiring healthcare, custodial care or support services. HN-4B Consider expanding senior /elderly housing options, such as Woodsedge , and other housing options such as patio homes, small single family, apartments, etc. HN-4C Encourage developers to consider elderly housing options when building developments in the Lansing area through uniform incentives, such as PILOT agreements or variances. HN-4D Provide references to County information options regarding services available to seniors such as home repairs and medical services. HN-4E Encourage the utilization of Aging-In-Place guidelines to promote single level construction and elderly accessibility . GOAL HN-5: Provide additional housing options for the residents of Lansing. R ecommendations : HN-5A Keep abreast of new housing trends /options across the country and address unique housing requirements as the need arises . HN-5B Investigate legislation regarding non-traditional types of homes . Additionally, determine what the town's responsibilities are regarding permitting , taxes , etc . GOAL HN-6 : Evaluate new laws/ordinances -as needed -in the Town of Lansing to cover existing and new concepts in housing. GOAL HN-7: Evaluate new laws and ordinances to protect both property owners and renters. Recommendations : HN-7 A Consider residents within an area where the short-term rental of property is occurring , as it may negatively affect the dynamic of a neighborhood. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 82 R-4A Work with developers to ensure that new higher density areas provide for parks, open space, and recreational areas through the site plan review process. R-4B Review requirements of new developments within the Town to either include lands for recreation / parks / trails OR provide funding to support existing programs/parks/trails in lieu of land. Parks and Paths (PP) Goals and Recommendations: Goal PP-1: Explore the establishment of an appropriate vehicle to generate a long-range plan for Town trails that seeks the coordination of neighboring communities and utilizes both public and private funds along with the efforts of volunteer groups to maintain them. Recommendations PP-IA Continue to work with developers during the planning and review of any new projects to establish open spaces and trails, where practical. PP-lB Continue to keep a clear line of communication with volunteer and community groups, to coordinate work with the Town Parks and Recreation. PP-IC Complete an analysis of potential major trail connections in the southern portion of the Town that establishes corridors connecting major destinations . PP-ID Create a legal groundwork for the Town of Lansing to seek easements for additional trails or open spaces that would cover maintenance and liability and indemnify the Town and affected property owners from future lawsuits . Goal PP-2: Establish relationships with groups such as the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy to designate potential trails on former railroad beds that have been abandoned or have the potential to be abandoned, to ensure the Town of Lansing could have the right of first refusal. Goal PP-3: Use the extensive existing recreational facilities as a marketing tool in coordination with the tourism board, realtors and developers. Goal PP-4: Explore the expansion ofleasing and development partnerships such as concession stands, and equipment rental facilities. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 84 Traditional zoning practices emphasize regulating the built area by focusing upon the allowed uses of the land. The community is then broken into zones so that housing is in one place, shopping another, and manufacturing in yet another. While traditional zoning regulates the buildings themselves, it is usually limited to setting maximum standards, without minimums. As such, it sets limits on what a developer can do, without telling the developer what the community would like to see built. Form based tools address quality of life issues and significant public input ensures that the impacted community is getting what it desires. Based upon community input, various ordinances would be put into place, such as noise ordinances that limit decibel levels of car stereos and establish area quiet times, or health and safety ordinances that would apply to odors, garbage, yard maintenance, etc. If developers are aware of community expectations, and what they are allowed, there is a greater level of motivation to cooperate with the Town during the development process. Additionally, these tools allow the development process to be made simpler for both the planning staffs and developers, as they have already been made aware of the limitations and community desires. At present, the planning board encourages pre-development conferences prior to applying, in order to steer development in the directions that are desired, and this practice should continue. Tompkins County's municipalities have led the way in inter-municipal cooperation over issues such as water management, municipal health insurance, fire protection, public transportation, recreation, and youth services. The best way to plan for the long-term future of the Town of Lansing is to decide regionally where the major commercial, educational, shopping, recreational, health care, agricultural, manufacturing and residential sectors will be located. The reality is that our municipalities are not in competition with each other; rather they survive in symbiotic relationships. We should build upon these cooperative relationships in land-use decisions as well, while respecting a town's right to home rule. New York State Law delegates planning decisions to the town and city levels but does not forbid a more coordinated process. Five-Year Capital Plan: The Town Board should take an aggressive approach to requiring appropriate transportation connection when possible, ensuring that future opportunities are addressed through a ( 5) Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to provide the town with the resources necessary to complete projects . This will allow the Town Board to prioritize where to invest its municipal resources, to complete feasibility studies and cost estimates that would be required to submit for potential grant funded opportunities. It is recommended that the Town of Lansing submit a request to the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) through the State of New York/ Federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to develop a "Complete Streets" concept center on the Rt. 34 and Rt. 34B area that includes the major transportation routes through the heart of the town. These concepts include street trees, sidewalks, lighting, signage, etc . and now it is appropriate to start a Federal Highway Design project to be included within the Tompkins County TIP Program's Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The overall highway system for planned and future roads throughout the Town of Lansing will be featured within a 5-year capital plan. This will include connections from Warren Road to Route 34/ 34B and other locations where roads were not fully developed and connections completed. See 2006 Transportation Map that has been updated as part of this strategic planning process . Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 86 Area Specific Land Uses: Over the past several years , many small changes have been made to the 2003 Land Use Ordinance Zoning Map to keep it up to date. There have been several Planned Development Areas (PDA's) adopted by the Lansing Town Board and they are noted on the attached Future Land Use Map. As noted in previous sections, the Town has had a long-standing concern regarding Agricultural Uses in zoning. In 1995 , a whole town zoning land use ordinance was adopted. This ordinance included a Rural Agriculture (RA) use-zoning plan with permitted zoning districts allowing for various uses. Over the last nine (9) years, the Town has established a working Agricultural Committee charged with the task of completing a New York State Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan, which was formally adopted by the Town of Lansing Board in September of 2015. • Agriculture -The potential changes to the current zoning map that were proposed as a part of the "AG Plan" included the creation of a new "Agriculture (A) Zone" that would be specifically geared towards more appropriate Non-Agricultural uses within agricultural areas, while limiting non- agricultural uses. This is a recommendation of the Ag Plan that will be reviewed by the recently appointed Agriculture Committee that will make formal recommendations to establish this Agricultural Zone . • Rural Agriculture -The portions of the Town where current water districts exist along NYS Rt. 34B (Ridge Road) and the balance of the existing RA Zone were maintained within the future Rural Agriculture (RA) Zone to provide additional areas for more flexible development to occur in the future . This will effectively split the former RA Zone into two related uses of Agriculture and Rural Agriculture. • Residential Areas -The Town utilizes three (3) different residential development patterns: Low Density, Moderate Density and High Density Residential. In addition, form based tools and mixed use offers an opportunity to incorporate High Density Residential together with small scale related commercial activities creating mixed-use development like the current Commercial Mixed Use or Planned Development Area (PDA) that the town uses. With the Town 's proximity to Cornell University and Ithaca College, quality of Lansing school and recreational programs, the Lansing housing market continues to be one of the strongest within Tompkins County (See Housing and Neighborhoods). There exists, however, the need for more mixed-use housing; elderly transitional housing that allows elderly residents to remain within the Lansing community, has been specifically sought after and is of great interest. Additionally, affordable housing that allows young persons to purchase , or rent, property and establish roots within the community would be very helpful , especially as businesses expand, and employment opportunities are created aimed at keeping the next generation ofresidents within the town . Density levels need to be reviewed and established based upon the needs of each area and changes in infrastructure. • Residential/ Mixed Use -Currently, there is a land use zone between the Rural Agriculture (RA) land uses and the developed residential areas. These areas should be evaluated to identify appropriate density levels as part of an update to the Land Use Ordinance . The Village Solar / Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 87 Village Circles project is an example of residential development with sewer services within the southern portion of the Town and should be used as a model for appropriate density. This development occurred due to the access of existing municipal water and sewer system, resulting in a much higher density of mixed-use land development and as soon as adequate sewer is developed elsewhere within the town, additional development will be able to occur. Pedestrian access, landscaping, adequate parking, mass transit connections and sensitive site design elements should be included within the site-plan approval requirements. • Transitional Areas -In the past, Lansing has utilized a transitional area designation to incorporate land uses between the RA (Rural Agricultural) Zone to the Residential Zones. The primary emphasis has been mixed use that covers both agricultural use and higher density residential construction. Often when new residents enter the area they are surprised by the impact of agricultural operations, i.e. manure spreading. Lansing has historically used agriculture as their primary land use and as new houses are constructed care should be given as to the transition between these land uses. • Residential Moderate Density -The Residential Moderate Density Zone should consist of mixed- use but primarily residential dwelling units. It has a wide range of building types: single family, two-family, and attached (i.e. row houses, condominiums, and apartments). Setbacks and landscaping are variable . Streets typically define interconnecting roadways with medium-sized development blocks. Infill and redevelopment sites should be developed at a density that takes full advantage of existing infrastructure yet remains sensitive to the established character of its setting. Related commercial uses should be permitted when appropriate. Sidewalks may be considered for areas where there is significant pedestrian traffic in competition with other modes of transportation. Bicycle lanes or shared lane markings should be considered on arterial and collector streets where topography allows. Expansion of streets with limited or no interconnectivity is strongly discouraged. This zone is recommended to restrict development over 15% slopes and have an overall density target like the recently approved Cayuga Farms residential development project. As the Town of Lansing develops infrastructure to include expanded water and sewer systems, then the minimum lot area requirements can be reduced. The Transportation Impacts will be analyzed in detail before any zoning amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan are adopted. • Residential Low-Density -The Residential Low Density Zone should consist of low density residential areas, allowing for single-family residential primary uses along with accessory home- based businesses, in a semi-rural setting, while preserving the open character of the surrounding countryside. Planting is naturalistic with setback distances relatively short and interconnected neighborhoods with roads that accommodate natural conditions. Desired development forms include large lot development with significant preservation of open space; and clustered development with a variety of detached and semi-detached housing where municipal utilities do not currently include municipal sewers requiring septic systems. Development should be integrated into the surrounding agricultural and natural landscape and sited to have a low visual impact from arterial and collector roads and view-scape corridors. Large Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 88 contiguous parcels of agricultural, forest and/or environmentally sensitive land in a development area should be preserved. Acreage lot development should be discouraged, and frontage subdivision greatly restricted. Public sewer and water service should be limited to cluster development close to urbanizing and developed areas, where their availability will not encourage or exacerbate acreage or frontage development. This zone is recommended to restrict development on slopes greater than 15% and have an overall density consistent with the current minimum 40,000 square foot lot size. • Lakeshore -Currently this area is configured as a distance setback from Cayuga Lake. The land- use ordinance currently permits higher density development to occur than other parts of the town. Due to the environmental concerns, it is recommended to create two distinct areas within this zone -a High Density area with direct access on the water primarily where small camps and year-round houses were constructed (currently 20,000 square foot minimum lots) and a Low-Density area established further from the shoreline. Within the Low-Density area, it is recommended that larger building lots be required due to limitations established by Tompkins County Health Department and State of New York Septic System requirements and the proximity to Cayuga Lake. Additionally, there are many areas of greater than 15% steep rock and cliff overlooks, which should prevent the spread of future development within these areas all to protect natural resources. • Lake Shore Low Density -This area includes much of the steep slopes near the lakeshore . Regulations and development standards should be aimed at minimizing environmental damage to natural resources, preventing erosion and responding to potential problems related to steep slopes and inadequate water and sewer services. Within this area, larger building lots should be required due to the limitations established by septic system requirements and the proximity to Cayuga Lake. Additionally, there are many areas of steep rock and cliff overlooks where development should be restricted. Site-plan review is recommended to be required for any new development in this zone. This zone is recommended to permit in certain situations and with site plan approval, development in locations where the slope is greater than 15% and an overall density minimum of 40,000 square foot / parcel. • Lake Shore High Density -This includes most of the densely built up areas along the lakeshore. Building size should be small in relation to the underlying lot, and clustered or grouped where appropriate to preserve contiguous open lands and scenic views. The existing zone was not limited to the built-up areas where higher density currently exists. Tompkins County has very specific requirements for septic systems and should be consulted prior to any development project that increases density. The septic system challenges of the long-term development especially along Cayuga Lake should be factored into any proposed new regulations. Consideration should be given to areas that include steep slopes which have been designated at Unique Natural Areas; further development in these steep slopes should be kept to a minimum. Site plan review is recommended for any development within this zone. Additionally, it is recommended to permit, in certain situations, development in locations where the slope is greater than 15% and with an overall density minimum of 20,000 square foot/ parcel • Form Based / Overlay Zone -Due to the varying usages within this region of town, 1t 1s recommended that the utilization of form based tools be embraced going forward with the proposed updated Zoning Ordinance. Form based tools offer building envelope requirements and try to Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 89 encourage mixed uses, as opposed to the typical Euclidian Zoning principles, which are often used to separate incompatible uses (i.e. Residential and Industrial). The larger undeveloped tracts ofland such as the "former Town Center" and several southern area former farms are proposed to be included within this new land use. Most uses in this area would be residential however a small percentage of small scale complementary commercial uses would be permitted. This would hopefully create a more complete "live / work environment" and reduce the dependency on individual automobiles. Over the course of the next year it is recommended that the town consider utilizing form-based codes to encourage mixed use development within the appropriate parts of the town. • Commercial Mixed Use-This area serves as the convergence point for major transportation routes and governmental resources. This area , along NYS Rt. 34 and NYS Rt. 34B, has continued to transform over the years, developing a strong mixture of uses comprising of gas stations, convenience stores, Inns, restaurants, several small-scale businesses and various operations, including a late '60s era strip mall development, elderly housing, car sales lot, several small-scale manufacturing buildings, professional offices, auto repair shops, restaurants, churches and several single family residential homes. • Low Impact Mixed Use - A small area surrounding the current Michale en's Florist and Garden Center should be designated to create smaller commercial activity nodes along the major transportation routes such as Triphammer Road, NYS Rt. 34 (East Shore Drive) and NYS Rt. 34B (Ridge Road). The Planning Board recommends that a reverse frontage concept is generated for these areas that would include low vehicular activity, commercial , and mixed-use residential. Examples could be small professional offices with residential mixed-uses providing services to neighbors. • Industrial / Business / Research Development -Lansing is composed predominantly of agricultural and residential use properties. There have been several businesses that have been steadfast as community institutions such as Borg Warner, Cargill Salt, and the AES / Cayuga Generation Plant, all of which are designated as Industrial. The development of The Dutch Mill Business Park several years ago has resulted in the establishment of several newer manufacturing and business operations in the southernmost part of the town. The long-term stability of these major industries should be protected with any updates to the future Land Use Ordinance and Zoning modifications . Often the PDA has been utilized within the Town of Lansing to encourage mixed use development and density that is greater than the minimums within the Land Use ordinance. The proximity to Cornell University's Business Park and the Ithaca Tompkins County Regional Airport make it critical that Lansing should develop additional land to be made available allowing for additional growth. The Form based tools designation could also be utilized for the business park development concept with housing as an overall mixed use. With Cornell University as a major resource and asset, new startup companies should be encouraged and promoted, especially in the technology fields . It is recommended that the town encourage the expansion of start-ups, whose growth should be stimulated, leading to opportunities for greater employment. The Town of Lansing should grasp every opportunity to expand the land available for mixed business development uses, and to maximize the views of Cayuga Lake, creating a contemporary technology business park setting . Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 90 • Recreation - A major resource within the community is Myers Park and the adjacent Marina. Additionally, the town has access to the adjacent Salt Point Reserve and should work to develop a long-term Master Plan to prepare a 5 Year Capital needs assessment. There has been a strong community interest in recreational activity and the Town of Lansing presently has superior facilities; including that of traditional team sports such as soccer, baseball, football, hockey, etc. and more nature oriented activities such as hiking, biking, viewing scenic waterfalls and various lake shore parks and marinas. The opportunity to develop additional parks and natural areas may arise. Programs, such as the "Rails -to -Trails" programs of the 1980's, has created a network of opportunities for the development of new parks and outdoor spaces. The town has strongly encouraged new residential developments to explore these opportunities and to include multi-use paths within their overall project scope, which someday may lead to an overall town linkage system. There currently may be underutilized lands that should be considered for recreational development should they become available . It is noted that the Recreational area denoted over the Bell Station land on the future land use map is not intended to be a suggestion for or against, nor indicative of, any future change in zoning or use. It is there to indicate assent; to denote that the Town of Lansing and its residents are and remain in favor of New York State ( or another agency) acquiring such land for forest, parkland, or recreational purposes." • Community Facilities -There are several municipal and not-for profit / tax exempt properties that are identified on the Future Land Use Map. The Finger Lakes Residential Center is a large 109 bed residential institution that employs many area residents and is operated by the New York State Division of Juvenile and Opportunities for Youth. The former Lansing Residential Center was last a Woman's Juvenile Facility originally built as the Kingdom Farm complex and was purchased by the State of New York in the 1930's. It is currently vacant; however, there may be an opportunity to adaptively reuse this complex of buildings for other compatible uses. The Lansing Town Hall , Lansing Highway Department, Lansing Library, and the various Lansing Fire Houses are all designated as Community Facilities. • Planned Development Area (PDA) -The Town of Lansing has utilized in the past a Land Use Ordinance that permits specialized site plans and overlay with mixed compatible uses. These are established by Planning Board review and recommendation to the Town Board to create a special site specific local law to develop these sites. The existing PDA's are required to be identified on the Land Use Zoning Map and are indicated as cross hatched areas on this Proposed Future Land Uses Map. The Lansing Town Board has recently reaffirmed several of these PDA's follow the current town regulations. These PDA's should include plans for flexible cluster development, with tiny homes and the ability for higher density. • Complete Streets Transportation Corridor -Over the last 40 plus years, the planning board has required that new subdivisions must continue to have alternate access points and allow for the interconnection of various neighborhoods streets. The original large farms that were converted to residential subdivisions in the 1970's and 1980's tended to be isolated from each other. With a strong interest in maximizing public safety, continued linkages between neighborhoods are extremely important. The Town of Lansing should explore the Federal Highway "Complete Streets" guidelines for the dense areas of the town. This would include the highway commercial areas such Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 91 as the intersection of Rt. 34 and Rt. 34B through to Triphammer Road and Peruville Roads (see future Land Use Map). Also, the southern portions of the town where there are dense residential developments should also adopt this design criteria. • The Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway -The Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway (the "Byway") runs along Route 34B to Route 34 parallel to the lakeshore near the western edge of Lansing. New York State advertises it as featuring "scenic views of the lake and its shores, rural and woodland landscapes and numerous intrinsic recreational, natural , tourist and cultural attractions." The Byway extends around the entire perimeter of Cayuga Lake and is an important recreational, tourist, and scenic amenity within the Town. Potential impacts to the Byway should be considered in relation to any future planning decisions made within the Town of Lansing. The Town should work with Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway, Inc. in an effort to foster collaboration and cooperation regarding the future of the Byway as an integral part of the success of the Town of Lansing. • Steep Slopes -The intent of this category is to promote the protection of the significant natural resources including steep terrain, riparian areas, streams and gorges, and highly-erodible soils through appropriate regulation that could include overlay zoning, density limitations to minimize the impacts of development through site plan review or other. Future Land Use (FL) Goals and Recommendations: Goal FL-1: Establish zoning practices that are geared toward encouraging future growth in a controlled and responsible manner. FL-IA The "Agricultural Committee" a group of farmers and community members will make formal recommendations to the Town of Lansing Board on what should be included in any proposed Agricultural Land Use laws or regulations and changes to the Zoning Local Land Use Ordinance. FL-lB Consider Form Based tools / Mixed Use & overlay areas and continue the Cornell Design Connect study of "Form Based Codes". It is recommended that the Town of Lansing adopt this concept and include it within the upcoming changes recommended within the Zoning Ordinance . Designate specific areas to utilize such form based tools, which at a minimum should include the Mixed Use -Commercial portion of the town. FL-IC Focus Zoning Changes away from traditional "Euclidian Use Zoning Districts" and encourage appropriate Mixed Use (Compatible with Commercial Zoning and the use of overlay districts). The next version of the Zoning Regulations should focus on form, building sizes, setbacks, buffering, etc. and less on non-compatible uses. FL-ID Encourage additional housing development types that utilize appropriate smaller scale development and more affordable cost options. Focus on continuous living whereby young families and working individuals can afford to purchase housing. Encouraging the development of family-scale residential housing types, graduated to elderly care options. Town of Lansing , NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 92 FL-IE Prepare a Comprehensive 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that outlines the various anticipated short-term and long-term capital needs. Prepare an overall development plan and study for areas such as the highway system and search for grants and local match for projects. FL-1 F Establish a process to rewrite the Town Zoning Ordinance that includes the input of Planning Board. Included should be recommendations to include new Agricultural Regulations and form- based tools / overlay zones which define building setbacks, heights and levels of detail, to create a new level of architectural standards. NY State best practice guidelines should be utilized and public participation should be sought wherever possible. FL-1 G Study the "Complete Streets" approach for highway design and development in the dense areas of the town. This would complement the Form Based Design concepts also being recommended. The initial area to be evaluated would include the NYS Rt. 34, NYS Rt. 34B and Triphammer Road corridor with a focus on the Rogues Harbor intersection area. FL-lH Explore revisions to land use ordinances that would allow for micro farm concepts. Reference Materials: • Lansing at the Crossroads -A Partisan History of the Village of Lansing, NY, -Rita Smidt, 2001. • Development Policy and General Plan, Lansing, New York -Prepared by Egner & Niederkorn Associates, Inc., Ithaca, New York, November 1971. • Report of the Lansing Zoning Commission with the Lansing Planning Board, December 1972. • Town of Lansing New York-Basic Planning Studies, completed by committees in 1968. This data assisted in the 701 Plan project underway by Egner & Niederkorn Associates. • Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan 2006, as prepared by the Town Planning Board and adopted by the Town Board November 15, 2006 • Town of Lansing -2013 Survey Research Institute at Cornell (summary 3/8/2016). • Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan -Town of Lansing August 2015 as completed through a grant with the State of New York Agricultural Markets . • Ithaca Journal Newspaper-"The Long Wait for MORE JOBS Tier's economy sputters and stalls, March 7-8, 2015. • Transportation Issue Assessment and Best Practices Guide, Town of Lansing, New York - Cornell Design Connect Fall 2014. Semester long project evaluating the impacts of planned and future growth patterns with the overall town wide transportation system. • Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan 2015 by Tompkins County Planning Department. Town of Lansing, NY -Comprehensive Plan -Adopted 5/2/2018 Page 93 Town of Lansing, N.Y. Zoning 2003 Commercial Mixed Use (81) __ Commercial (82) CJ Industrial/Research (IR) __ Lakeshore (L 1) CJ Residential -Low Density (R1) CJ Residential -Moderate Density (R2) CJ Residential -Mixed Use (R3) CJ Rural Agricultural (RA) [ __ -~---_-_{ Municipal Boundaries Source: Tompkins County Planning Dept Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance 2003 \ \ \\ \ '\ \ \ \ \ CEDAR -.------· -----" -..,, VIEW RC\...-\\ .. _ .. _ teANSIN~ GEN_9A TOWN LIINE RD . ___ . c9fuNTY LINE RD'--• • • ___ ~--Ci 8%,GREENRD ___ } WEEKS ---_1 --, 5 CJJ I ~ ~ " m ~ ~ 0 asco \ :I: DECAMP RD 1ia LOC • 0 <§ lntlet l EST GROTON ~ \\ '\ \ \ \ '\ ,, "-, ', ', ''\ ,, '-, -,,, -,,, N + '-,, ___ Tompkins County Planning Dept ', ........ -,,, -..... ,, ___ ----, ---~ '-, ',, '-., ',,, ', S108.MRQ \ I \\ \\~P-i. \ -~ 1 I ~ I i BACON RD \ \ l MUNSON RD ' ,\ ► 1C '~ ~ ?5 I OQ__l\,fAf!Rj l EAST L.ANSJt-1.G 8.D lUCERD \ I B.L!CJS.HQ \ l l •:Yi!' ' 11 I '"''2"" --I I \ ~1 I \ \ \ ' \ ''\ \ \ I \\ \ \ \,-1 tot -.. -~ R . ~R ~ I ---I -, __ _J \ t \ \; '\ t \ \ \ ~~ \ ____ , 1 Miles i-iiiiiiiil 0.5 Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Town of Lansi ng, N.Y. Agricultural Property N + Agricultural Exemptions 2016 • ' ' Source: Tompkins County Assessment Dept, 2016 Tompkins County Planning Dept ~!;_NOA LA--"1S ING RD_ CQUNJ:Y lJNE RQ _S_I NG_R_Q LUCERO {~ 0 ::n m ;I 421 PcKhj IU.C rw 1b it , K ~ = ..... n FO>GE~ \ iiiiiiiiiiiiil 0.5 Miles Sources: Esri, Delorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, lntermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esli (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 ~ l LEGEND -xW -· WATER MAIN C=-zj CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT (CW □) D cw □, EXTENSION #2 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Q SEWER MANHOLES GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER C:=J WARREN ROAD SEWER DISTRICT lL_J CHERRY ROAD SEWER DISTRICT ~0L~-,,·.nn1, l Q..HlL L, ci '7!??1~~ ~': -' -BONE PLAIN TANK '--...__ ......_ - ~~ T~~~~~- i t!, ~ ~ ~ ~ E l1r. rn 0~ i! ~ I I !i 8 !I! I D I :,; ! ~u ~ SCAL.£: EIS-01 ~:Qlfflwu r ~10F21! \ ' ~ u \ \ _,....,.-- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ------4.-.~..._.__ 1 ~ l LEGEND -xW --WATER MAIN f \ \ \ \1 ~ \\ \ IR LJ CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT (CWD) ~ CWD, EXTENSION #2 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Q SEWER MANHOLES GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER CJ WARREN ROAD SEWER DISTRICT CJ CHERRY ROAD SEWER DISTRICT ~~ ~ 1~ 1 \~I ,., 1 er~r~" ~fr--1 -I -~ \\_Ll.MJ ' L-b I Bf I \ I I ~--\ \ ~ I ,..;: '~ '2.- ~.· "l_g::L~w I i t)r.:t=~--~ ,,, , ~ ! I I I ~ Ii I ~ ! 0 ~ " m ~ 0 w 0 w en 0.51 . ~ o \-i ~a:, a, ... 0 .. c.n .. PERUVILLE RD (") 0 ' ' z (/) ~ 40 0 0.18 • BONE PLAIN RD ASBURY RD .,.21 184 0 ~ Cayuga Lake 0 0.5 1 fvfiles Prepared by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council -5/11/16 DR "f9 ~ 0 co ,,._ It) It) C") • "f9 0 Town of Lansing Analysis Traffic Volumes and voe (including truc ks) NOTES: "Black" Numbers represent current traffic volumes in pm Peak Hour (5-6 PM) "Red" Numbers represent post-development traffic volumes in pm Peak Hour (5-6 PM) "Purple" Numbers represent current Volume-over-Capacity (5-6 PM) "Green" Numbers represent post-development Volume-over-Capacity (5-6 PM) 184 0.21 NEIMI RD Legend • Areas of New Development -Roads in Travel Demand Model W+E s Inset 1 • . ~TU itil RIDGE~• . . .. . . Town of Lansing, N.Y. Source: Tompkins County Assessment Dept. 2014-2015 • • • 1t 151 • ·, • :1 .. . I \(!) ·r • •r . -• •iZ • (J) ;ti CJ 1t • . 1t • • ·,~ •o .,, iii r CJ • l ;o •• CJ • . . • • • .. .• • ;;:: 0 :x: ► 's-. ~ ... es: t::sn, ueLO'r-~er;m ~ NAVT'EQ, USGS, lntermap, Inset 2 Tompkins County Planning Dept N + elorme, NAVTEQ, us~,. Residential by Year Built • ~ ' Year Built t < 1900 1900-1950 I 1950-1960 t 1960-1970 • 1970-1980 t 1980-1990 t 1990-2000 f 2000-2014 Inset L----~--~---~----- ---, I. ! I I ! I I I I , = I I I I I 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I ---~-'i/liles I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------· 0 0.5 1 !Miles h ii ~- \ 1 I I • See Inset ! ~-----------------------------------' To wn of Lansing, N .Y. Population Density and Infrastructure -Buildings Persons Per Square Mile --Sewer Mains by Census Block -Water Mains >5 D Tax Parcels 2015 5-100 ~ Urbanized Area 1~ 100-1000 ~ Perennial Streams > 1000 Tomp k ins County Planning Dept Source: Census 2010, Bolton Point 2014 , Tom pkins County Plannin o Dee_t 2015 0 -0.25 .... 0.5 --------------~-------------------:----~-. ----------------------------~ 1.5 ···' • • SUCK8.12' A.J~~RD -:··•·•• ~-U,f'\~~_!l~-~ -i-,-_ ~ :~i 122 ~rr -·. • 0 a: •1 z~ ti •O • z J '~ 151 ~! f'AfIB_!:\..1=.·Ro'i, ·~ ~ ~5 -~~~~~ k .•• ,. ·~ )> Village of Lansing . /~(-;:,,"·'.t-":1 :,'+; i I I 2 2.5 ·-,,~ ~: ,, .• "~ I ~"~?•:.-',.~·-· • >;,?;,·.1~~--~ '.~;.,-;1 I Mil es •• I ~::,~,-,;~-•. --1/-;:;,~7'·~1• \ Sources: Esri, Delorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, lntermap, iPC, NRCAN , Esrl Japan, METI , Esri China (F,lpn g I\J,n g). Es" (Tha-~a~ijniT. •. , .. 20·/f' ,,.. ·/,· "l~:=~-------------------------------•-------------------------------------------------i .. l 1--------,l;;~~---.,a;. •• : CD.2155 1 1.5 2 t,/',1------Miles See Inset \ VlllageoJLaflSng Town of Lansing, N .Y. Economic Development Airport Clear Zone -Empire Zones Runway Approach Zone -Airport Runway ~ .. . ' Tompkins County Planning Dept Number of Employees 0-49 • 50-100 ->100 Airport Noise Levels (Db) 55 -----56 -60 -----61 -65 -----66 -70 Source : Tompkins County Area Development, 2005 Tompkins County Airport, 2012 NYSDOT Business Location Analysis Tool 2009 Town of Lansing, N.Y. Inset Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources o.5 Miles N + Source: NYS Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation, 2012 Tompkins County Assessment Dept, 2015 LA@ING GENOA TOWN ~s._!3D ,I: _,~ >tt l'ill'll::n .nv 1c9 0 Rogues Harbor lj Cemetery d Religious [gJ Historic Bridge l. School Trails MU_NSQNRD WEEKS RD cl a i C z m ~ BACON RD § i z c::S::: ;;;. 8 :!I m ~ i J4Jl PERW:ILLC: "'f ,5 -12 1 R\o Parks I See Inset -Buildings ,- Cayuga Lake ~~D Intermittent Streams Perennial Streams Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway 0.5 Tompkins County Planning Dept \ -1 Miles Sources: Esri, Delorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, lntermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 LP3E~Q· 0 ~ 0& --,-- ,,\~vi" -----~ __., / /~ 'P 'BAN'OSTAND . C: AND \.~~ ~-• 0 0 0 ''----"' ., .JI till@ • 0 MYERS PARK • j Vru£/BAll ~ t,.t:;\ 00 ./ ~ 0 I < / = Q \._;~ -,, • f ~ r""' • J A-®_-;?---~ • • ~ ~4-~· --. . n \ 0 -1,-:-"tJ\ ,, g_ 0 ~~ '-r-:!c.P,, ( _. O ."'""""""" ,=-·! , • I r':-,. ~ _ _,_'='4.0.o_J----"- 'ft~lP~rBAITSHOP __,,;-- ,-.,.~ \ ·,~ .... t \ ,~' \''\ \ ~ /-~~ \ -~-•' \ ---~ \ -.....,' \ ' ' ~ .~.\ ACCESS ROAD TO ...-SALTPotNTNYS DECPRESERVE --~ ,\ \ 1 • r -•--~--/ ,~7 1i '~ \ "\<~· \"°" '-._,-- ,,,,t..1u.·,,,0.,... " .. ••. ._ ,, -----~· \. -.... <fl ✓. ') "<. ... & \ ' ~ (., . . \ ' ( I', ' ' v t" ~~ \ ~, "., ..... <--.0 ... ' ,·\ , \ '\\ \ '~ \~~ .. =~\"-\ ~\\ \~----=·---=~,\~ .... \,, .. ' ~ \ ~~,\ \ \' •,·,\'-. -----------·-'. "'\ I '\-· '"' "\ • I \}\~._ • -, ( /,,"\ \ ~\.\ r .. /,, '-··"'·, Ci& \ ·~ ,, D -.,..,__,~ . -.~· ... ~ - -_>\. \~"\ c-7-J~~ , ,.'<~ ~ V -------------, ' •'"<.. \ ---• -----' _.,,,--,1· -------~-------------, . • '--· 1 ,<' \ ,., .. ,.v ::,,1/-~t -••r•• ' ' ~-1-,}Y :...✓-'t \,' -·~_,. ~ ,.~~_/"'(-' ' :,-\ I z ~ \ __ ,,,.., \ ) Q (--y--~ ' \ a::: MEMORIAL LOCATIONS &uNKNOWN A:8EflNDRAY _&e1t18URIN h!:,.ROONEVBURKE &.GUSANONINAISMC&JOHNHICKS &~8t~PEACHV &evoAVIS & HOWARDWAI.RAO .Lilii. KE'JlNOLTZ & ~~ANONCRMA &. FREDSWAOER £01CKSOLOM,\N ~UNKNOWN &_H,t,RRISDATES &sHERMANTOBEY &JOANTRINKLBAARA&JACKPASHLEY IA'IA MYE)?5 PARK MA5IfR PLAN \!:;)~"".:a i;o O '° fro SITE PROGRAM SCHEDULE G) ~!~:~~!~~g~:~gONA~~~oc:E~~~D~C~~~~~~~~ ~=CE,SUNSHA0ESAN0AAREPL.ACE.P0SITI0NTOMAXIMIZElAKE @ :~os;~s:NORESTROOPJJBATHHOUSEFACILmESANDASSOCIATED @~s:i::~~5_ANO'E'FROMLOVILYINGAREAS. ADJUST @PROV1DEPREFA8RICATEOACCESSIBLECOMFORTSTA110N,CONTA>NJNG.:(2) =~~!~~~!:~~=~r~~~;~f~~=~NO~:'~PING. @u~DECAMPAREASEXISTINGELECTRICALSERVICE. @PROVIDESOLARUGHTINGALONGPERIMETEROFPJ.AINDRMNGLOOP. (j)PROVIDERIPRAPEROSIONCONTROLWALLALONGll-iESOUTHBANKOFSALMON CREEK,FILLBEHINOWAlL -~~~~--- © ~:~~t~:i:!~~~~T~ROSlON CONTROL WALL ALONG NORTH SHORELINE AT © ~~~~:~~:6:~:~~~:~YGROONDAREA 'MilLE MAINTAINING @ ~~~~T~~~:~:v:\::!~~~:1:o~~~~o;~~:~wEk @~E=~!::~~~~T~i:::~~:~=~~T ~~~~~~~":~~:i:s:~~-PROV10E @PROVIDENEWPARKCONTACTSTATIONWITHAOtRONOACKAESTI-IETlCS. @NEWTREEPLANTINGSTOINCLUDE:TREEP\.ANTINGTOSCREENCAN.PINGAREA, ~~~]f}~:~tS~{;~;¥o{~Kf~No\~frS::~:~:~~D \ \ .... \ \ ~ \ \ 0 ' \ u \ \ a::: \ \ 0 @--· \ \,~ •>=-•m::::-•~•= _, I-@==-='=.:\"/\':::=::. / ~ @PROVIDEACCES~SALMONCREEKANOW\RINAINUET, ATUGHTHOUSE PARklNG,AfWHALTPAVE ®::!.~~~~GRAVELPARKINGA DPATHANDLANDSCA1'NG @PROVIIJEPt.ATfEASTOFP-SHOP,REA.PROVIDEASPHALTPAVED OAMIDTCAAIPINGAREA. '-----------------------------------------------------------------------------... -. - ~ beardsley architects engineers Master Plan Draft Submission 07.12.2017 z :5 a.. a:: w ~ ~~ ::,,::Z a:::i7i <(z a..:5 V)u. 0:::0 wZ >-~ ~~ MYERS PARK MASTER PLAN L-101 To wn o f La nsi ng , N.Y. ,~----,- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ "', Open Space \ '\ \ ~ Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas 2017 Tompkins County Natural Features Focus Areas C Open Space Agricultural Easements Potential Conservation Easements Hiking Trails Source: Tompkins County Assessment Dept. 2017 Tompkins County Planning Dept. 2017 Environmental Management Committee 2017 -.. .. ' ', '\. .. , ', " ....... , ', ' N + " ~ ...... __ "'-... ''-' ... , , ...... ,, ~~ -i~~3~~ ' '\, "' \ ~. \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ '\ \ \ {\ \ ,,, \.----~ ~ tf"' ~;;.-..;iiii~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii•--• Miles Town of Lansing , N.Y. Watersheds and Hydrography ,,-·--, .. __ _..., Intermittent Streams ~ Perennial Streams C:J East Cayuga Lakeshore No . East Cayuga Lakeshore So. Owasco Inlet Salmon Creek Source: Tompkins County GIS 2002 ~ COUNTY LINE RD . , --------=~:"'!'· ~-.~."~.._,';", --: ..... ~•-a-f'.'7:J,, c . .-II Ji;,.~ 11 s1•t ..,,,.,, ~ ~,~ ... ,, . .., ,.j;;l] ~ ... N + • . ' 1 0.5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii Miles Tompkins County Planning Dept ~ 0. Sources: Esri, Delorme, NAVTEQ, USGS. lntermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, MEFI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Town of La nsi ng , NY Streams, Wetlands and Flood Zones ✓-•-.,, _ __./ Intermittent Streams ~ Perennial Streams ~ NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands -'77 National Wetlands Inventory .. 1% (100-Year) Annual Chance Floodway Source: Tompkins County Assessment Dept. 2015 Tompkins County Planning Dept. 2015 FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Map (digitized from paper maps from paper maps from 1973) New York State Dept. Of Enviornmental Conservation 1989 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981 N + • . . ' Tompkins County Planning Dept GENOA LANSING RD COUNTY LINE RD lcn \ t, -t,_ ("'•--.'-... ~ '-·:) '··-.... 1. @ \, WEEKS RD ... ~ t I .:-~~ • ~ I -~" PB<i:l;r"" 'k ~--J e --&; ,. R ~ 1 0.5 J~ b~ ! ~D · j.....j Miles Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA LEGEND II ♦ • }, ({. ·~.: 0 ~ Q 'Y ~ ~ ZONING BOUNDARY POSSIBLE FUTURE TOWN ROAD EXIST ING TCAT BUS STOPS PER WWW .TCATBUS .C OM PROPOSED FUTURE TCAT BUS STOP TCAT PARK AND RIDE STOPS ~ . ,(~Rig ~~~~y ,~ \ --_ ft_~/'. ~_ 0 _ 1 ~:R--F:i:o INTERSECTION 1 ;I._ ),, ' ~-~:-' f1 t:;'(""·· /--~1Gii1-r .. ~~ T;~~·jl -~'·~ ~ :Id ! tn ~ ; z ~ i ;:§ ~ 1 11 rz. >-~ : t I II= t> l!; o Ea I E-o ~ 1111 :J__ _ __,___ __ _ H I DAH 1 LEGEND • ----• TOWN OWNED LANDS _._,:;;;,;;,;_,:\:£;;, .• ;., WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE ~ WOODS/HEAVY VEGETATION U.S . -. '\1 \\I \,1 \~\U ~ \\\'\,'\ ', \ i. D i ::;:i _.c;,i..Dc~ 11 l ( \\~- '\·\ ,,~ l_t le, i"r= D °n I _;_~--1 qJ -cJ;-~ • Jt .. ~-.--( ..,:;c I 1\ \ ~ ~'-.--.. -~, • -.... tc ~- -i'' ·\·. \'. :~·---~-. \\,. ----\\'.~ {~·+-- ~\ '. \1 ;_ Tu'( I~~-- .l r... ~~ .. 1i" l " 0 ~~ .. :;--- l!~J ll ·::!:ijt '·("!_~-2±-.1~~ .., Bt \z'oji =~-<_!=: )-~----.. .~ I ~ ', NON-"JURISOIC'TlQN :;""J{;)'. RlltiE /, .®-, i. ..1. ;7ft;r!~ ~\:l'f _,. :i;;E,.'<lt,sii ;~:;'."E ~,\l;;.,:-':··(i;''<,:,:J .•,,:I,.· ,t, • . J} h -!•)! [P ~ -N- ~ -----I ,1 p--7 o I --~- ... c ~e&ar:iView- Go lf Course ,.____,,~~·Jt:-: .... ----- NYSEG Cayug a O~ratlng Compa fl0 Po~~r Plant;,,:::,.~ \\a··./·. \ / ' Town of Lansing, N.Y. Proposed Future Land Uses Adopted May 2, 2018 Comprehensive Plan ,f€_~~~a'l0 •·9,'1,,~o ·-" \ \ \ \/t ' \ '\. I ~r~~"'!.. 6rne.1Wnlv C~II ·chard Min~-~ft Ai It -"'\i~-... ., ~ ~-~~ ' Land Use Areas fll!JI Planned Development Area (PDA) "~ "· \ Agriculture Complete Streets Transportation Corridor "'· Rural Agricultural/Transitional Areas Residential Mixed Use Tax Parcels 2017 D Municipal Boundaries Cayuga Lake ~ Salt ~ ",v1a1 "" Residential Moderate Density Residential Low Density Cultural Resources ~ Port1., .... \ Po1n Lakeshore Low Density -Lakeshore High Density -Commercial Mixed Use ,---- Low Impact Mixed Use Industrial/Business/Research Development Recreation -Community Facilities Source: Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance 2003 Tompkins County Assessment 2017 Cemetery Religious Historic Hamlets Slopes Greater than 15% --m Cayuga Lake Scenic Byway N + 11 ,;'i --~~~""""""iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Miles ·•~~L .. --9 \~ Df.~ ... ,ttt Cargill 0 Salt Storage -fit .J!£l'!'"P ,orth .llf'.l,!1"19 sfl . \llt.STIIO !!t_i-,'gi,J~,!!_C.~L!:{0_.., ~!SO'tRD * ~ I ~ ~ti,A.MSI~ •~•LUC('° Revised 5/2/2018 Final 9-20-16 Lansing 2013 Survey Results -prepared by Survey Research Institute (SRI) at Cornell https://www.sri.cornell .edu/sri/ Summary prepared by Tom Butler, Comprehensive Plan Committee. Town and Village of Lansing included 673 randomly sampled survey participants (54% (n=365) from Town, 46% (n=308) from Village . Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for the Town plus Village sampling is+/-4%. The margin of error for the Town only residents (not including the village) sample is+/-5%. These figures are based on the 2010 population census of 11,033 for the entire town and 7,504 for the Town not including the Village. These results are from the staff at the Cornell Survey Research Institute and: 1) file codebook with the written title of 11Town and Village of Lansing Comprehensive Plan Survey 2013 673 cases 8/13/2013" and 2) file Town of Lansing Crosstabulations.pdf with the written title, 11 CROSSTABS Village of Lansing, NY Comprehensive Plan Survey 9/17/2013". Despite the title the data are only for Town of Lansing residents outside of the village (n=365). There is a third file Village of Lansing Crosstabulations.pdf with the written title, "CROSSTABS Village of Lansing, NY Comprehensive Plan Survey 9/17/2013" (which has the same written title as 2) above but includes data only for the Village of Lansing (n=308). North or South Lansing asked only ofTown residents (n= 308), not Village North 45% (n=164) South 55% (n=200) 1 Ala Top reason to live in Town/Village #1 reason V> 30 ..... 25 C ro 0.. 20 ·u ·..:; 15 ... ro 0.. 10 '+- 0 5 cf. 0 Good location, easy to get to places and convenient to everything Quality of public schools Rural nature of town Close to work/school Born and raised here Main reason for living in Lansing II I I .I I I I ~o<::' 2Y-"' ~<::' f...e, (Y' 0 <>"' x:-0 "-o ~e, x:-0 ,o' ,::; c..,'1> 0 ,§ ;,_,e- c.,v ~'-,(j ,o o' . ,,e-"-o -~.:..f o<> <5' ,._e-~ ~ ~.:.. .,,__.;:; o' ~o ::,._'l, \'1>~ 00 <::''1> '1><::' "-o ~ ,c>'I> '1>~ o:= ~ ,._<::' ,,e-~ '<lo ◊o ' ~ ■ Town & Village ■ Town only Town only residents #1 reason Rural nature of town Born and raised here "-o ,,e- ◊o Good location, easy to get to places and convenient to everything Close to my family/friends I am able to afford living in town Quality of public schools* 19% (n=130) 18% (n=124) 16% (n=108) 11% (n=77) 9% (n=56) 28% (n=66) 23% (n=53) 16% (n=38) 11% (n=26) 10% (n=24) *There was no category for "Quality of schools" in the town only data from SRI. 2 Alb 2nd top reason #2 reason Good location, easy to get to places and convenient to everything 18% (n=122) Rural nature of town 16% (n=108) Quality of public schools 12% (n=79) Overall quality of life 11% (n= 77) Close to work/school 11% (n=75) No town only residents information for 2nd top reason 3 A2 In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with living in the Town of Lansing? Very satisfied 49% (n=328) Satisfied 45% (n=304) Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied 6% (n=41) Satisfaction w/ living in Lansing Satisfaction w/ living in Lansing T&V residents Town only residents ■ very satified ■ satisfied dissatisfied ■ very dissatisfied ■ very satified ■ satisfied ■ dissatisfied ■ very dissatisfied Town only residents Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied 4 46% (n=167) 48% (n=175) 6% (n=23) A3 Likelihood of living in Lansing in 5 years Likelyhood of living in Lansing in 5 years T&V residents ■ very likely ■ somewhat likely smewhat unlikely ■ very unlikely Town only residents 5 Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Very unlikely 68% (n=457) 18% (n=122} 8% (n=52) 6% (n=40) Likelyhood of living in Lansing in 5 years Town only residents ■ very likely ■ somewhat likely ■ smewhat unlikely ■ very unlikely Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat likely Very unlikely 76% (n=276) 15% (n=54) 6% (n=20) 4% (n=14) A4 Reason for leaving Town/Village (asked to the 14% (n=92} who said "somewhat unlikely" or very unlikely) Too expensive (includes high taxes) Retiring and want to move to a different place 4% of total (n=26) 3% of total (n=18) Town only residents Too expensive (includes high taxes) Retiring and want to move to a different place 3.3% of 365 (n=12) 2.5% of total (n=9) Bla Should Lansing encourage housing for moderate income residents? Housing for moderate-income residents T&V residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents 6 Strongly encourage 25% (n=166) Encourage 51% (n=345) Discourage 18% (n= 120) Strongly discourage 5% (n= 36) Housing for moderate-income residents Town only residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Strongly encourage 24% (n=85) Encourage 53% (n=191) Discourage 18% (n=65) Strongly discourage 5% (n=20) Blb Should Lansing encourage multi-family housing? T&V resident Multi-family housing ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage • strongly discourage Town only residents 7 Strongly encourage 11% (n=77) Encourage 42% (n=283) Discourage 36% (n= 240) Strongly discourage 9% (n= 59) Town only residents Multi-family housing ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage • discourage • strongly discourage Strongly encourage 9% (n=31) Encourage Discourage 45% (n=163) 36% (n= 131) Strongly discourage 10% (n= 35) Blc Should Lansing encourage Senior housing? Strongly encourage 30% (n=201) Encourage 53% (n=357) Discourage 13% (n= 85) Strongly discourage 3% (n= 17) Senior housing Senior housing T&V residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents 8 Town only residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Strongly encourage 31% (n=112) Encourage 55% (n=198) Discourage 11% (n= 41) Strongly discourage 2% (n= 18) Cla If there was a town center development do you support locally-owned shops? Locally-owned shops in Town Center T&V residents ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 9 Strongly support 34% (n=229) Support 43% (n=290) Oppose 16% (n= 110) Strongly oppose 6% (n= 38) Locally-owned shops in Town Center Town ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 36% (n=131) Support 42% (n=lSl) Oppose 15% (n=S4) Strongly oppose 7% (n= 27) Clb In Town Center, would you support national retail stores? National retail stores in Town Center T&V resident ■ strongly support ■ support oppose • strongly oppose Town only residents 10 Strongly support 9% (n=60) Support 29% (n=195) Oppose 40% (n=271} Strongly oppose 21% (n= 139) National retail stores in Town Center Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 8% (n=29) Support 26% (n=95) Oppose 39% (n=141) Strongly oppose 27% (n= 96) Cle In town center would you support services such as medical and professional offices, banking, restaurants and coffee shops. In T.Center, medical, professional, banking, restaurants, coffee shops T&V residents ■ strongly support ■ support oppose • strongly oppose Town only residents 11 Strongly support 28% (n=185) Support Oppose 47% (n=315) 18% (n=118) Strongly oppose 7% (n= 47) In T. Center, medical, profesional, banking, restaurants, coffee shops Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support • oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 27% (n=99) Support Oppose 47% (n=172) 17% (n=60) Strongly oppose 9% (n= 33) Cld In town center would you support apartments and single family homes? in T. Center support of apartments and single-family homes T&V residents ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 12 Strongly support 20% (n=136) Support Oppose 49% (n=324) 22% (n=149) Strongly oppose 8% (n= 55) in T. Center support of apartments and single-family homes Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 19% (n=70) Support 46% (n=168) Oppose 24% (n=88) Strongly oppose 10% (n= 36) C2a Support of tourism (including ecotourism, agro tourism, bed and breakfast, wine tourism. Tourism {ecotourism, agro tourism, B&B's, wine tourism T&V residen ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents 13 Strongly encourage 34% (n=229) Encourage 51% (n=345) Discourage 11% (n= 73) Strongly discourage 3% (n= 22) Tourism {ecotourism, agro tourism, B&B's, wine tourism Town only residents • strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly encourage 36% (n=131) Encourage 50% (n=181) Discourage 10% (n= 37) Strongly discourage 3% (n= 12) C2b Should the town encourage light industry such as warehouse or storage facilities, research and development and other low impact industries? Light industry (e.g. warehouse or storage facilities, R&D and other low impact activites) T&V residents ■ strongly encourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents 14 Strongly encourage 21% (n=143) Encourage 51% (n=344) Discourage 20% (n=135) Strongly discourage 7% (n= 48) Light industry (e.g. warehouse or storage facilities, R&D and other low impact activities Town only residents l ■ strongly encourage ■ encourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Strongly encourage 22% (n=82) Encourage 50% (n=182) Discourage 20% (n=71) Strongly discourage 8% (n= 29) C2c Should the town encourage heavy industry such as heavy manufacturing and other high impact industrial uses such as Borg Warner and Cargill? Heavy lnsustry such as heavy manufacturing and other high impact industrial uses T&V residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents 15 Strongly encourage 7% (n=46) Encourage 31% (n=208) Discourage 34% (n= 228) Strongly discourage 28% (n=186) Heavy Industry such as heavy manufacturing and other high impact industrial uses Town only residents ■ strongly encourage ■ encourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Strongly encourage 8% (n=31) Encourage 30% (n=107) Discourage 33% (n= 120) Strongly discourage 29% (n=lOS) Natural gas development. This question was asked two different ways to make the least biased as possible {50% of survey participants received only one of the two questions) C2dV1 Should the town encourage natural gas development known as horizontal drilling, high volume hydraulic fracturing commonly known as "hydrofracking" or "tracking"? Natural gas development described as "hydrotracking" or "tracking" T&V residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents Margin of error is+/-7.3% 16 Strongly encourage 4% (n=lS) Encourage 19% (n=65) Discourage 26% (n= 88) Strongly discourage 48% (n=161) Natural gas development described as "hydrotracking" or "tracking" Town only residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Strongly encourage 3% (n=ll) Encourage 18% (n=32) Discourage 28% (n= 50) Strongly discourage 48% (n=84) C2dV2 Should the town encourage shale oil or gas development? Natural gas development described as 11 shale oil or gas development 11 T&V residents • strongly enourage • encourage discourage • strongly discourage Town only residents Margin of error is+/-7.3% 17 Strongly encourage 3% (n=18) Encourage 11% (n=75) Discourage 11% (n= 74) Strongly discourage 25% (n=165) Natural gas development described as 11 shale oil or gas development 11 Town only residents • strongly enourage • encourage • discourage • strongly discourage Strongly encourage 6% (n=ll) Encourage 24% (n=43) Discourage 21% (n= 39) Strongly discourage 49% (n=89) Totals for natural gas development (sum of previous two separate questions) T&V resident Natural Gas Development (2 previous questions combined) Strongly encourage 5% (n=33) Encourage 21% (n=140) Discourage 24% (n= 162) Strongly discourage 48% (n=326) Natural Gas Development (2 previous questions combined) Town only residents ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage ■ strongly enourage ■ encourage discourage ■ strongly discourage ■ discourage ■ strongly discourage Town only residents Strongly encourage 6% (n=22) Encourage 20% (n=75) Discourage 24% (n= 89) Strongly discourage 47% (n=173) No margin of error given 18 These data are also strongly supported in all voting districts by a previous survey of Town voters on election day November 2011. This survey was not a random sample, but consisted of voters who were asked to fill out the survey anonymously outside of all polling places in Lansing. There is no estimate of margin of error, since it was not a random sample. Question 3 of that survey was: Do you oppose gas drilling using HVHF (high volume hydrofracking) and would like to see it banned from the town? 916 -town residents completed the survey (45% of voters that day, 14% of all registered voters). 80% Vote to ban HVHF -results by district 60% ■ Yes 40% ■ No 20% ■ Undecided 0% 1&3 2&8 4 5&7 6 19 Dla Use of tax dollars for adding or improving sidewalks that lead to stores or services in your neighborhood and/or the Town and Village centers. Sidewalks -use of tax dollars T&V resident ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 20 Strongly support 31% (n=207) Support 39% (n=263) Oppose 19% (n=126) Strongly oppose 11% (n= 75) Sidewalks -use of tax dollars residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 24% (n=89) Support 34% (n=124) Oppose 25% (n=91) Strongly oppose 16% (n=60) Dlb Use of tax dollars for adding or improving bike paths and designated bike lanes within and between communities in the Town and Village. Bike paths/lanes -use of tax dollars T&V reside ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 21 Strongly support 38% (n=259) Support 36% (n=244) Oppose 18% (n=119) Strongly oppose 7% (n= 49) Bike paths/lanes -use of tax dollars Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 35% (n=128) Support 34% (n=125) Oppose 21% (n=75) Strongly oppose 10% (n= 35) Dlc Use of tax dollars for improving public transportation including services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Transportation for elderly/disabled -use of tax dollars T&V residents ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 22 Strongly support 46% (n=309) Support 41% (n=276) Oppose 11% (n=75) Strongly oppose 1% (n= 9) Transportation for elderly/disabled - use of tax dollars Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 46% (n=166) Support 44% (n=159) Oppose 9% (n=33) Strongly oppose 1% (n= 5) Dld Use of tax dollars for traffic calming measures such as a roundabout, speed limit reductions, traffic lights etc. Traffic calming measures -use of tax dollars T&V resident ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 23 Strongly support 21% (n=143) Support Oppose 40% (n=271) 27% (n=183) Strongly oppose 10% (n= 70) Traffic calming measures -use of tax dollares Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 17% (n=61) Support 41% (n=148) Oppose 28% (n=102) Strongly oppose 14% (n= 50) D2 Agree or disagree -The roadways and intersections in the Town and Village are safe for pedestrians. Roadways are safe for pedestrians T&V resident s ■ strongly agree ■ agree disagree ■ strongly disagree Town only residents 24 Strongly agree Agree Disagree 7% (n=47) 44% (n=298) 35% (n=233) Strongly disagree 13% (n= 90) Roadways are safe for pedestrians Town only residents ■ strongly agree ■ agree ■ disagree ■ strongly disagree Strongly agree 7% (n=25) Agree 41% (n=150) Disagree 35% (n=127) Strongly disagree 17% (n= 61) Ela Rank ambulance service quality Excellent 20% (n=l31) Good 35% (n=233) Fair 12% (n=80) Poor 5% (n= 31) Ambulance service quality Ambulance service quality T&V Town only resident residents ■ exellent ■ good fair ■ poor ■ exellent ■ good ■ fair ■ poor Town only residents Excellent 20% (n=71) Good 34% (n=126) Fair 14% (n=52) Poor 7% (n= 24) 25 Elb Rank fire service quality T&V residents Fire service quality • exellent • good fair ■ poor Town only residents 26 Excellent 31% Good 39% Fair 7% Poor 2% Town only residents Excellent 34% Good 40% Fair 7% Poor 3% (n=206) (n=263) (n=44) (n= 11) Fire service quality ■ exellent ■ good • fair • poor (n=126) (n=145) (n=24) (n= 10) Elc Rank police service quality T&V residents Police service quality ■ exellent ■ good fair ■ poor Town only residents 27 Excellent 18% (n=121) Good 48% (n=322) Fair 14% (n=92) Poor 4% (n= 26) Police service quality Town only residents ■ exellent ■ good ■ fair ■ poor Excellent 17% (n=61) Good 50% (n=181) Fair Poor 17% (n=63) 4% (n= 16) Fla Is the use of tax dollars for the development of a local "arts scene" important to you? Local arts scene -use of tax dollars T&V residents • very important ■ important not so important ■ not at all important Town only residents 28 Very important Important Not so important 14% (n=97) 34% (n=232) 34% (n=228) Not at all important 17% (n= 113) Local arts scene -use of tax dollars Town only residents ■ very important ■ important • not so important • not at all important Very important 12% (n=44) Important 36% (n=131) Not so important 31% (n=114) Not at all important 21% (n= 75) Flb Is the use of tax dollars for the development of recreational biking/hiking ad walking trails important to you? Biking/hiking/walking trails -use of tax dollars T&V residents ■ very important ■ important not so important • not at all important Town only residents 29 Very important 27% (n=180) Important 40% (n=269) Not so important 23% (n=lSS) Not at all important 10% (n= 67) Biking/hiking/walking trails -use of tax dollars Town only residents ■ very important • important ■ not so important • not at all important Very important 22% (n=82) Important 41% (n=lSO) Not so important 24% (n=86) Not at all important 13% (n= 46) Flc Is the use of tax dollars for supporting lakeside commercial development such as restaurants, lodging, boating, camping etc. important to you? Lakeside commercial development - use of tax dollars T&V residents ■ very important ■ important not so important not at all important Town only residents 30 Very important Important Not so important 17% (n=113) 41% (n=275) 28% (n=185) Not at all important 14% (n= 97) Lakeside commercial development -use of tax dollars Town only residents ■ very important ■ important ■ not so important ■ not at all important Very important 18% (n=67) Important 38% (n=140) Not so important 28% (n=lOO) Not at all important 16% (n=57) Gla To what extent do you support enactment of laws or policies to protect historical sites and structures? Protection of historical sites and structures T&V residents ■ strongly support support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 31 Strongly support 33% (n=221) Support 51% (n=344) Oppose 13% (n=87) Strongly oppose 2% (n= 12) Protection of historical sites and structures Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 33% (n=119) Support 55% (n=199) Oppose 10% (n=36) Strongly oppose 2% (n= 8) Glb To what extent do you support laws or policies that would require new housing developments to include open green spaces, parks or trails? Require new housing developments to include open green spaces, parks or trails T&V residents • strongly support • support oppose • strongly oppose Town only residents 32 Strongly support 34% (n=232) Support Oppose 42% (n=280) 19% (n=126) Strongly oppose 5% (n= 33) Require new housing developments to include open green spaces, parks, or trails Town only residents • strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 29% (n=l07) Support 44% (n=160) Oppose 20% (n=72) Strongly oppose 7% (n= 25) Glc To what extent do you support laws or policies to protect scenic views and natural areas? Support protection of scenic views and natural areas T&V resident ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 33 Strongly support 52% (n=350) Support 38% (n=259) Oppose 8% (n=SS) Strongly oppose 1% (n= 8 Support protection of scenic views and natural areas Town only residents ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 51% (n=187) Support 39% (n=143) Oppose 7% (n=26) Strongly oppose 2% (n= 8) Gld To what extent do you support laws or policies to protect agricultural lands or districts? T&V residents Support of Agriculture ■ strongly support ■ support oppose ■ strongly oppose Town only residents 34 Strongly support 47% (n=318) Support 41% (n=275) Oppose 10% (n=69) Strongly oppose 1% (n= 8) Town only residents Support of Agriculture ■ strongly support ■ support ■ oppose ■ strongly oppose Strongly support 52% (n=187) Support 39% (n=143) Oppose 8% (n=30) Strongly oppose 1% (n= 3) Hla In terms of future growth of Lansing, how important is the development of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar and wind)? The importance of renewables in future growth T&V residents ■ very important ■ important not so important ■ not at all important Town only residents 35 Very important Important Not so important 36% (n=239) 37% (n=248) 19% (n=126) Not at all important 9% (n= 59) The importance of renewables in future growth Town only residents ■ very important ■ important ■ not so important ■ not at all important Very important Important Not so important 37% (n=136) 36% (n=133) 16% (n=58) Not at all important 10% (n= 37) Hlb In terms of future growth of Lansing how important is the prevention of soil erosion and storm water runoff control? The importance of controling soil erosion and stormwater runoff T&V residents ■ very important ■ important not so important ■ not at all important Town only residents 36 Very important 46% (n=310) Important 44% (n=294) Not so important 7% (n=48) Not at all important 2% (n= 14) The importance of controlling soil erosion and strormwater runoff Town only residents ■ very important ■ important ■ not so important ■ not at all important Very important 45% (n=162) Important 44% (n=157) Not so important 9% (n=33) Not at all important 2% (n= 9) Hlc In terms of the future growth of Lansing how important are green building practices and energy efficient housing? The importance of green building practices and energy efficient housing T&V residents ■ very important ■ important not so important • not at all important Town only residents 37 Very important 39% (n=260) Important 43% (n=289) Not so important 14% (n=91) Not at all important 4% (n= 30) The importance of green building practices and energy efficient housing Town only residents ■ very important ■ important ■ not so important ■ not at all important Very important 38% (n=138) Important 44% (n=161) Not so important 14% (n=49) Not at all important 4% (n= 16) H2 Do you support green infrastructure (e.g. porous pavements, green roofs, solar panels, rain gardens etc.) in the Village (asked only village residents) even if it is more costly than current practices. Support of green infrastructure in the Village ■ strongly agree ■ agree disagree ■ strongly disagree This question was only asked of village residents . 38 Strongly agree Agree Disagree 13% (n=90) 20% (n=131) 10% (n=68) Strongly disagree 2% (n= 14) 11 What is your preferred method of receiving information about the Town/Village of Lansing? Email 34% (n=227) Newsletter (currently placed in shopper 11% (n=76) Postal mail Meeting attendance Social media Website Preferred communication mode for Town/Village information T&V residents • email ■ postal mail • social media Town only residents • newsletter ■ meeting attendance ■ website Email 34% (n=229) 3% (n=17) 3% (n=21) 14% (n=96) Preferred communication mode for Town information Town only residents • email • postal mail • social media 27% (n=99) ■ newsletter ■ meeting attendance • website Newsletter (currently placed in shopper 21% (n=76) Postal mail 31% (n=114) Meeting attendance 3% (n=lO) Social media 4% (n=14) Website 14% (n=SO) 39 12 The Village provides a newsletter 2 times per year electronically. Does this work for you? (asked only of Village residents. Preference for village newsletter ■ electronic copy ■ hard copy 40 Format works 26% (n=165) Prefer hard copy 18% (n=121) 13a How is the performance of your town officials in communicating information to you? Communication from town officials to you T&V residents ■ exellent ■ good fair ■ poor Town only residents 41 Excellent Good Fair Poor 10% (n=67) 37% (n=249) 31% (n=209) 20% (n= 135) Communication from town officials to you Town only residents Excellent Good ■ exellent ■ good ■ fair ■ poor 4% (n=lS) 38% (n=135) Fair 37% (n=134) Poor 21% (n= 76) 13b How is the performance of your town officials in responding to resident concerns? How well do town officials respond to resident concerns T&V Residents ■ exellent ■ good fair ■ poor Town only residents 42 Excellent Good Fair 10% (n=68) 35% (n=238) 29% (n=196) Poor 18% (n= 118) How well do town officials respond to resident concerns Town only residents • exellent ■ good ■ fair ■ poor Excellent 5% (n=17) Good 39% (n=l32) Fair 38% (n=129) Poor 18% (n= 60) Jl Age of survey participants (town and village) 18-24 2% (n=17) 25-34 6% (n=37) 35-44 13% (n=86) 45-54 24% (n=160) 55-64 22% (n=149) 65-74 22% (n=147) 75-84 8% (n=56) 85 or older 3% (n=19) % of survey participants by age (town& village) VI 30 .... s:::: ra Q. 20 ·u ·.;; ... 10 ra Q. ■ -0 -0 ~ 18-24 25-34 Age of survey participants 18-44 45-64 65+ I I 35-44 45-54 Age Town & Village 21% (n=140) 46% (n=309) 33% (n=222) I 55-64 % of survey participants by age VI 60 .... l; 40 Q. :~20 ■■ [ 0 18-44 45-64 Age ■ Town&Village ■ Town only 43 I 65-74 ■ -75-84 >85 Town only 65+ 20% (n=73) 52% (n=188) 28% (n=104) J4 Children under 18 in household? Town and Village 0 72% (n=488) 1 13% (n=86) 2 10% (n=70) 3 3% (n= 18) More than 3 1.4% (n=ll) 80 VI ~ 60 .c a, ~ 40 0 .c o 20 ~ 0 T&V residents 0 Children under18 in household --- 1 2 3 number of children under 18 in household 45 more than 3 JS Household income in 2012 < $10K 2% (n=17) $10K to $25K 5% (n=31) $26K to $SOK 17% (n=115) $51K to $75K 17% (n=112) $76K to $100K 15% (n=l02) $101K to $150K 19% (n=128) Greater than $150K 20% (n=135) Household income of survey participants 111 25 ~ 20 l'O ·3" 15 -~ 10 a. > 5 QI C: 0 ::J II) -0 * 60 Ill "C 40 0 .c Ill ::s 20 0 :I: -0 0 ~ -■ < $SOK I I I I I Town and Village <or= $SOK 24% (n=163) $51K to $100K 32% (n=214) >$100K 39% (n=263) Houshold income $51K to $100K ■ Town & Village ■ Town only 46 Town only residents 25% (n=86) 36% (n=124) 40% (n=139) > $100K JG Current employment status of survey participants: Town and Village Employed full time 46% (n=311) 9% (n=61) 8% (n=57) 2% (n=17) 28% (n=186) -0 so '#. 10 0 Employment Employed employed full time Not employed Employed part time or part of year Self employed Homemaker Retired and not working Unemployed and looking for work Unemployed and not looking for work Student 2% (n=19) 1% (n=4) 2% (n=17) Employment status (town and village) ■ emplyed part time ■ I self employed -homemaker retired Town & Village 64% (n=429) 35% (n=237) -unemployed unemployed & looking not looking Town only residents 68% (n=246) 32% (n=ll3) -student % of participants employed or unemployed Ill +' 80 ~ 60 a. 'i:i ·.;; 40 ... !U a. 20 -0 ~ 0 Town & Village Town residents only ■ employed ■ not employed 47 J7 Gender of participants: Town & Village Male 47% (n=317) Gender of survey participants T&V residents ■ male ■ female 48 Female 53% (n= 355) ••• • • • Prepared By Mike Catsos Hien Dinh Miriam Zaki Zhiyin Pan Adam Bronfin Eileen Munsch Geslin George Kieran Micka-Maloy •• • • • ••• • • • Acknowledgements Councilperson Ruth Hopkins Town Planner Mike Long Town Clerk Debbie Crandall Town of Lansing Planning Board Lansing Town Council Lansing Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Special thanks to: Fernando de Aragon and Tom Mank of the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council About Design Connect Design Connect is a collaborative, student-run, multidisciplinary planning and design orga- nization at Cornell University. Operating in cities and towns across Central New York, De- sign Connect applies community-based, democratic, and sustainable principles to a variety of planning and design problems in local communities. •• • • • ••• • • • Table of Contents Project Background 5 Process Summary 6 Baseline Conditions 10 Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 13 Streetscapes 18 Regional Connections 24 Alternative Transportation 2 7 Land Use and Density 31 Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook 34 Traffic, Congestion, and Safety 3 7 Alternative Transportation 40 Land Use and Density 42 Town Center 44 Recommendations and Long-Term Outlook 46 Recommendations Matrix 48 •• • • • ••• • • • Project Background Councilperson Hopkins approached Design Connect with concerns about the rapid pace of development in Lansing and questions about the quality-of-life impacts that housing cur- rently in the development pipeline might have on the community. As part of an ongoing com- prehensive plan update process, the town commissioned a resident survey; the results of the survey indicate that residents share similar concerns about the town's wild and agricultural heritage, congestion, traffic, municipal spending, affordability, and sense of place. The ongoing comp plan update, together with the conversation surrounding 15 to 20 pro- posed suburban residential housing projects, offers a chance to bring community desires into alignment with Lansing's planning, zoning, and urban design strategies for the coming years. The town would like to accomplish a thorough review of best practices for guarding against the negative impacts of new development, with a specific focus on the transportation issues that cause concern for local residents. On the basis of conversations with Lansing's Town Board, Planning Board, and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with feedback from lo- cal residents, the Design Connect Lansing team developed this guide using a best-practices framework to respond to many of the concerns that were raised by community members. Community History Lansing, New York was within the territory of the Native American Cayuga Tribe . The history of European settlement in the area dates back to the late 1700s when settlers arrived from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other areas of New York. In 1760, the area was divided into lots of land, the Central New York Military Tract, in order to reimburse Revolu- tionary War soldiers. A lack of Native Americans, due to General Sullivan's expedition in 1779, and the fertile land in Western New York, attracted early settlers to the area. In 1817 the act that created Tompkins County resulted in the formation of the Town of Lansing, setting it apart from the Town of Milton which it had previously been a part of. Historical farmers were served by grist mills, saw mills, clothing mills, blacksmith shops and tanneries operated by other settlers. Lansing is located on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake and is 69.92 square miles, 9 .2 of which are water. According to the 2010 census, Lansing had a population of 11,033. Nearly half of the community works in educational services in nearby Tompkins County Community College, Ithaca College and Cornell University. Lansing is a rural community; about one third of the town's land area is farmed on by forty operating farm businesses. 5 •• • • • ••• • • • Process Summary Research To better understand Lansing's transportation issues and the context that surrounds them, the team consulted a variety of sources during an extensive research phase. Information on the Town's current zoning codes, regulations, and recent development activ- ity was gathered. The team also looked in depth into the community's comprehensive plan and documents prepared by the current Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, along with survey results prepared for the comp plan update summarizing resident sentiments about a variety of planning issues. Both the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council and the Tompkins County Planning Department have prepared studies in the past that explore trans- portation issues in our study area. In addition, the team gathered information from Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit and local transportation advocacy groups. Two separate tours of the study area were conducted during peak morning and evening traf- fic hours to observe and document a range of transportation conditions. Lastly, to identify appropriate interventions that might be applied in the community, the group sought infor- mation from State and Federal government agency sources, national transportation advoca- cy groups and think tanks, and university research projects. Issues explored included traffic counts, accidents and traffic safety, bicycle and pedestrian issues, transit service and usage, regional commuting patterns, streetscape design, zoning, and land use. 6 •• • • • ••• • • • Outreach The team's outreach process was developed in response to the broad variety of transporta- tion issues we hoped to address. While working with community leaders to refine the project scope during early phases, the team conducted on-site brainstorming meetings and phone interviews with members of the Town Council, the Planning Board, and Lansing's Town Plan- ner. As the scope narrowed and major thematic issues began to emerge, representatives of the team distributed project information and team contact info at meetings of the Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, which generated interest in the project and feedback about current transportation issues and potential interventions. Informal con- versations with community leaders and local residents following those meetings also proved informative. Additionally, the team benefited from the fact that a town-wide survey on a number of transportation and planning-related issues had recently been conducted as a part of the comprehensive plan update process. While Lansing is a large community and some residents were difficult to reach, long-form survey responses and town records provided to the group served as an excellent resource in gauging community sentiment on a variety of relevant topics. The team delivering a project update to the Planning Board. 7 •• • • • ••• • • • Analysis Framework Distilling a wide range of community concerns and issues into a coherent set of themes posed an early challenge for the group. The range of transportation system challenges identified by community contacts, taken together with the large geographic extent of the proposed study area, made settling on a framework difficult. Eventually, an analytical framework emerged that was designed to approach many different issues through a broad, holistic look at trans- portation and related land use issues in the southernmost portion of the community. The team opted to explore several broad transportation themes: traffic volumes and asso- ciated effects, alternative transportation, regional connections, streetscape design, and land use. Through this lens, the team chose to assess baseline conditions in the town and explore potential short-and long-term changes to the community's transportation system as dif- ferent forces exert influence over time. Finally, using information gathered during research, outreach, and the baseline conditions assessment, the team elected to highlight best practic- es for transportation issues in rural communities and identify locations where interventions might be deployed in the Town of Lansing. The guide to best practices was to include infor- mation on how to finance improvements to the town's transportation system, along with reflections on how changes to town policy and planning procedure could generate positive changes in the community transportation landscape. 8 •• • • • ••• • • • The Study Area is bounded approximately by the Village of Lansing Line to the south, the Lansing Town Center to the north, Cayuga Lake to the wast, and the town line to the east. 9 •• • • • ••• • • • Baseline Conditions The Town of Lansing's existing transportation network consists largely of roads with a vari- ety of classifications and purposes. Two major north-south roads, Route 34 and Triphammer Road, run the length of the study area, channeling traffic to and from Ithaca and the commer- cial areas of the Village of Lansing. These two roads are classified by local agencies as Urban Minor Arterials. Another north-south road located further east, Warren Road, moves traffic through industrial areas of the community and past the airport, and is classified as an Urban Collector Street. Asbury Road, which connects the three major north-south routes between the Village line and the town center, shares this classification. Other streets in the commu- nity are classified as Urban Local Roads, reflecting their status as low volume streets serv- ing denser, suburbanized neighborhoods. Local planning agencies have also identified Route 34 and Triphammer road as major freight corridors, thanks to the presence of several major freight generators nearby. Surveys conducted to inform the Town of Lansing's comprehensive plan update, along with interviews of local residents, reveal a number of different perceived problems with the Town's road network and overall transportation system. While most streets in the study area are effective at moving vehicle traffic swiftly through the community, this convenience has come partly at the expense of other modes. Residents cited high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes, and truck traffic as major disincentives for pedestrians and bicyclists. Noting the absence of shoulders in much of the town, the scarcity of signaled intersections and street lighting, and the few designated pedestrian crossing areas, many residents shared memories of recent accidents. They made clear that perceptions of danger limit interest in other modes and can make the experience of driving uncomfortable. Other issues, such as the absence of turn lanes and the congestion along certain arterial roads, contributed to perceptions that some form of intervention could be required. Route 34, the town center area, Triphammer Road, Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and Warren Road were frequently mentioned as unsafe or dysfunctional during these conversations . 10 •• • • • ••• • • • N A Town of Lansing New YDlk State Pfsne Cen.rral 1983 N«lh Amo!l'fic.s-n Darum I :65 ,000 2 Miles 1 inch equa ls 1.03 miles "'· ' \t. 'f~ '~, -?,,, ¢DZ ''f' R: %.,. ,..,,_,,, ~'6-~,!/- ,s;,, ~"'it ,1 GA COUNT? --=='!!,, 11:J1=t1=a::s=a:i:~~ '~,. ,,,,,- ,,,,,- ,,,,--- ,,,,,- .,,--· -, , * ' ........... ,, ·, ,, fHF1ELD State Highways Coun1y Roads Local Roads CotuUy Boundaries Mun icipal Boundaries State Park Unpaved Local Roads State Marine Pa rk Seasonal Roads Private Roads ,, ""· ..... ~ '· '·,.\.. ' \ Tompkins Counry lnfQNn.Ww, Tedinr,/oIJY Swvli;;u ms OlvlsJon r_.t..Lu.11n:,1 •ef tU/Nfi~1 .~1.,..r(,1 ..&ttt>i -,,, ---.c=~~-1=.i,;!!! ► u ~~ L. ~, i ;1tcn,:i,; ·'" \ It')~ \ i " \ i : \ i ~ \ !: \ I -I, \ l \ i \ ' \ ~~~?~~;;:;~'t;T-'. ·--~ :~ I \__ 7 •11:l" 1 ! ~·ui,::M tlt-iii:lm i ,, I;:-------·-Qi.~ v,, I 'tH •'{A ) l A map from the Tompkins County Planning Office showingjurisdition over roads in the Town of Lansing . The study area is located in the lower right hand quadrant of the map . 11 •• • • • ••• • • • Consistent with these perspectives, records kept by the Lansing Town Clerk's Office reveal a long history of neighborhood requests for transportation interventions in the study area. Along Route 34, improvements have been requested at intersections with Eastlake Road, Waterwagon Road, and E. Shore Circle, which fall along a high-speed curve. One 2011 peti- tion with nearly 100 signatures from neighbors requested new signage, flashing lights, lower speed limits, more enforcement, lighting, and improved sight lines, indicating a strong degree of neighborhood support for focusing on safety. In this instance, the state approved a flashing beacon on the southbound portion of Route 34 approaching the intersection with Waterwag- on Road. Speed limits have also been lowered along Route 34 between Eastlake and 34B, but many of the issues that caused neighbors concern have not been resolved. Similar requests for lower speed limits, traffic signals, lighting, enforcement, and other traffic pattern changes have been made for Waterwagon Road, Asbury Road, Triphammer Road, and Warren Road, with a special focus on sensitive intersections along these corridors in- cluding Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury/ Triphammer, and Warren/ Asbury. Residents of neighborhoods alongside Asbury and Triphammer Roads have supported their requests with petitions and letters to local officials. While some of these requests have resulted in lowered speed limits, others have been rejected. Major accidents in the study area along the Triphammer corridor in 2013 and 2014, which required victims to be airlifted to regional hospitals, have kept Lansing's transportation safety issues alive in both local news and the public consciousness. Coupled with a series of recent high-profile articles about new growth, it is expected that community residents in the study area will remain invested in town-wide conversations on transportation system develop- ments related to new growth and change. 12 •• • • • ••• • • • Traffic Volumes 1071~ __ , ~ ........... I •~.;j co 0 "" 478 Av erage Dail y Traffic, :wu -No, Data -1 -1500 -1501 -40 00 -4001 -10000 -10001 -25000 -25001 -75000 -75000 -300000 Average traffic counts over a 24-hour period along all major roads through the study area from the New York State Department of Transportation. 13 •• • • • ••• • • • Traffic Safety A study of traffic accidents across Tompkins County from 2000 to 2010 conducted by the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council largely confirms many of the perceptions of local residents regarding road safety. Intersections with high crash rates are concentrated al- most entirely along Triphammer Road and Route 34, where high-speed collector roads meet neighborhood feeder streets. The road segments where accidents occur most frequently fall along Route 34, Hillcrest Road, Triphammer Terrace, and along other major North-South car- rier roads in the northern portion of the town. LAN.SIMG GENOA TOWN LNE RD NUT R100E ~ ANSBL!..,R.,Q ,c-Ai.t: ~- ~ ~ FTRO .. ULYSSES i __ OV_!-Rll rLEKER ,. 0 RD , :0 0 Legen d e Intersections w/High Crash-Rate • Lansing -Road Segments w/High Crash-Rate· Lansing 2 -----Miles Scale 51Ll'RD,.,.. Location of High-C rash Rate Roads and Intersections Town of Lansing 2000-2010 (1 crash/yea r min imum) N + Prap:ared by die llhaca-Tompkins. County TransportatlM Cou~I -311 /13 The study area, in the lower right-hand corner of this map, hosts a high concen- traion of high crash rate intersections. 16 •• • • • ••• • • • A look into the severity of the accidents that occurred during that time frame reveals a similar picture. High-severity crash intersections are concentrated even more noticeably in the town center and along Triphammer Road leading southward at intersections with Hillcrest Road, Waterwagon Road, and Asbury Road. The segment of Route 34 that passes through the study area south of the town center also plays host to a large number of high-severity accidents. LANSING GENOA TO'tJN L1NE RD NUTKl)GE.RD ,p~f',t- RD ~ ULYSSES I ~~RD !~a IW)RLRO Legen d "' " e Intersections w/High Crash-Severity -Lansing -Road Segments w/High Crash-Seve rity -Lans ing 2 ____ .,, ... Scale su.LRD ~ islOllM N LANSING SCH{)()L RD ~ <I) ~ MEWMANRD <i's " f MUN1:BACONR0. RERD DMAN EAAL!aSRD 34"5T lANSING RO Location of High-C rash Severity Roads and In tersections Town of Lansing 2000-2010 (1 crash/year minimum) N + Prepared by the llhaca:• Tompkll"l:s County Tran~natlon Cour-.c 1I -311113 High-severity crashes are also a common occurence. While roads and intersections in Lansing do not rank among the highest in the County for ac- cidents between vehicles and bikes or pedestrians, this lower frequency of incidents may be attributable to the low-density suburban character of the study area, which likely contributes to lower rates of walking and biking overall. Notably, conflict between vehicles and deer is strongly evident in accident patterns, with most collisions occurring along Triphammer Road and Route 34. 17 •• • • • • •• • • Warren Road Route 34B 20 •• • • •• • • Route 34B Town Center 21 •• • ••• • • • Asbury Road Waterwagon Road 22 •• • • • ••• • • • Streetscape Conditions Streetscapes in Lansing are largely rural in nature. Most roads have two lanes, no sidewalks, and minimal pedestrian amenities such as lighting. The widths of shoulders vary -sever- al roads have only narrow gravel shoulders, while others are as wide as three or four feet. Stormwater runoff grading on the side of the road varies in steepness and drops sharply in some areas. Most local roads wind smoothly around the topography of the area. The low density of housing allows for an abundance of natural vegetation, primarily deciduous and coniferous trees, along the sides of the roads. Community perspectives on streetscape changes are varied. According to information gath- ered from the pre-comp plan update Community Survey, 58.04% of surveyed residents would like to see tax dollars used for sidewalks and 69. 70% are willing to spend tax dollars on bike paths/lanes on roads. After a review of open ended survey responses, a majority cited the lack of sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks as the main contributing factor to lack of road safety. Other factors include lack of lighting, sharp drop offs, and lack of bike and pedestrian pathways. Main areas of concern include East Shore Drive, Triphammer Road and Asbury Road. Although many people indicated a desire for pedestrian walkways, some felt that the lack of sidewalks contributed to the rural character of the area. 23 •• • • • ••• • • • Regional Connections and Commuting Patterns The Town of Lansing is connected to greater Ithaca and the Central New York region by arteri- als like Route 34 (Auburn Road/East Shore Drive), Route 13, Route 34B (Peruville Road/Ridge Road), and Triphammer Road. The most important regional connections are those that lead to Ithaca, namely Route 13, East Shore Drive, and Triphammer Road . In addition, several TCAT routes lead from Ithaca and Cornell University into Lansing, providing a means of alternative transportation into and out of the town. Major employment sectors in the Town of Lansing are Education, Health and Social Services (1,549 employees), Manufacturing (405), Retail Trade (351), Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing (345). Many people commute to jobs outside of Lansing each day, particularly those who work for Cornell University--a substantial percentage of the popula- tion. Pubfo: adminf:ltfation Other services (t-Xcep • pulblic admini5tration) - Arts., enterta[nment, recreation, aroommod..it[on and ... _. ~duca1!lol'!'!:!1, riea!th o1nd $tlCial S:f!Nri;es Pr-0fes.sional, scientific, managiemen~. ad minisuatlve, ... ~ Filnal'lce, if'\S1Jrance, real estate, and rental aricl leasing _ ~ I nklrmaUa.n ... 'O C Tr-ainsportation and ·wamhoU5lng, al\d utlliti!!,S --Retail trade Who!esale tJ-a die I. Marnllfacturing Constructioo _. Agrlcult1.1J1e, forestry, flshlngand hunting, ,md ml nlr,g - 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Number of employees ■1010 •2000 A chart of the Town 's employment distribution shows a large number of work- ers in education-related fields, manufacturing, and retail -all industries which are concentrated outside of the community. 24 •• • • • ••• • • • Between 2000 and 2010, the labor force in the Town of Lansing (outside of the Village) in- creased by 5.9% from 3,922 to 4,155. During the same time frame, the labor force in the Village of Lansing increased by 18.6%, from 1,663 to 1,972. Comparatively, Tompkins County saw its labor force increase by only 4.3% during those years, from 51,187 to 53,371. Lansing, particularly the Village of Lansing, has thus grown at a higher rate than the rest of Tompkins County in recent times. Much of that increase is workers drawn to jobs in other parts of the county. Lansing's employment distribution reflects the high number of professionals commuting to Cornell and other major employers in Ithaca. In-commuting to Tompkins County from Cayuga County, immediately to the north of Lansing, has increased steadily in recent years. In keeping with patterns identified in Lansing's road hierarchy, sources indicate that a sig- nificant number of the study area's residents commute southward along major north-south corridors into the City and Town of Ithaca. Many are employed by the county's major educa- tional institutions, Cornell University and Ithaca College, with others employed in business and industrial parks located immediately outside the town's southernmost boundaries. Commuting Mode Split In terms of commuting modes, the Town of Lansing is much more auto-oriented than Tomp- kins County as a whole, with 72% of people driving to work alone and another 13% of people carpooling to work. Mode split in the Village of Lansing is much closer to Tompkins County as a whole, with 56% of people driving to work alone and 17% carpooling. Walking to work, in both the Village and the Town of Lansing (with 1 % and 2% mode share respectively), is very rare in comparison to Tompkins County as a whole, where walking to work has 17% mode share. Residents of the Town of Lansing take the bus to work at approximately the same rate as people of Tompkins County as a whole (7%), but people in the Village take the bus in much greater numbers, at 20% mode share. Cycling is the least chosen way to work, with mode shares of 0%, 1 % and 2% in Town of Lansing, Village of Lansing and Tompkins County respec- tively. 25 •• • • • ••• • • • IMod to Work.-T,own or Lansilng (2~2 5 •Census ACS) Mode to Worik • \'ilklge ol l..1msng {2012 S Cen51n ACS) Moda to Wo~I< • Tompkins County (2&1'2 S Censos Acsl llriwAlo<!II ., Ciilj:,cJd 0 11:k.$ DWat; ■Siey.elo C Won;.ail-bnii, ,ao,.., Jl.k:nO '■ Clalp:lol CllM □Wal< -~ .Cl Wcri< lll t-t:n'lt, CI OIMAlorw! ■c ....,.,i C!M □W:d< -~ IJ WG<k;illl'tlre Charts of commuting modes indicate that the rate of commuters using alterna- tives to single-occupancy autos lags far behind regional averages. 26 •• • • • ••• • • • Alternative Transportation Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure Infrastructure intended solely for use by pedestrians and cyclists is relatively rare in the Town of Lansing. Major roads through the community including East Shore Drive, Ridge Road, War- ren Road and Auburn Road have shoulders available for pedestrians and bikes, yet many oth- er streets lack both space and infrastructure for pedestrians or bikers. Visibility around high speed curves is limited on roads such as Route 34, and other streets such as Hillcrest Rd present visibility problems as they rise up steeper hills, creating safety risks for pedestrians and bicycles attempting to share road space. Narrow and winding country roads with no shoulders carry frequent 18-wheeler traffic from the airport-area industrial park, salt mine, and other industrial facilities. Because some roads lack tonnage limits, pedestrians and bi- cyclists are drawn into conflict with larger, dangerous vehicles on top of regular automobile traffic. There are also some intersections that pose specific dangers for pedestrians and bikers. The town center intersections of Triphammer Road / 34 and 34B / RT34, in particular, lack any form of safety measures, and high-speed right-hand turns passing outside of the travel lane and through bicycle and pedestrian space are very common. This practice is common else- where in the town, both for turning and for passing of turning vehicles, which leaves pedes- trians and bikers along shoulders exposed to high speed traffic. 27 •• • • • ••• • • • Transit Service TCAT busses serve the suburban neighborhoods within the study area. Two regular routes, Route 36 and 37, pass through between northern portions of Lansing and Ithaca. Route 36 follows the path of East Shore Drive and serves a park-and-ride lot in the town center area. Route 37 follows Warren Road, Asbury Road, and Triphammer Road before continuing north. One additional weekend-only trip, Route 77, also follows Warren Road, but terminates before reaching the town center. Little formal infrastructure exists for these bus lines, but bus policy allows pickups for flag-stop riders throughout Lansing. While in practice this makes for an easier ride, it can make identifying origin points of riders more difficult. Current service schedules mean that Lansing is currently served by bus during the morning and evening rush hours only. The absence of a regularly-available bus line has been identified as an obstacle for users who would like to rely more on the bus as a substitute for a personal vehicle. However, low ridership patterns across the community, especially when compared to neighboring communities of similar size, indicate that service frequency is unlikely to increase anytime soon. The community's low density nature and other factors also contribute to a history of poor ridership. 28 •• • • • ••• • • • Community Perspectives on Alternative Transportation According to open-ended survey conducted in advance of the town's comprehensive plan update, residents feel some degree of dissatisfaction about alternative transportation in the community. Concerns surrounded a number of different issues, including lack of sidewalks, crosswalks, crossing lights, crossing signs and bike lanes, traffic lights not long enough for pedestrians to get across, narrow shoulders, high speed limits, heavy truck traffic, poor visi- bility at night and absent lighting, lack of turning lanes along some roads, lack of road safety education for pedestrians and drivers, inadequate road maintenance for bikes and pedestri- ans terms of clearing snow and grass, lack of speed monitoring on roads, poor road condi- tions for the elderly, and blind spot on certain corners. Because of the way the survey questions were formulated, most responses related to the state of the community's physical infrastructure for alternative modes. Fewer responses were recorded relating to commuting, mode choice, and community policy towards transit. It is also worth noting that many survey respondents expressed satisfaction with the current state of the community's alternative transportation system, and were skeptical that the ben- efits of investment in new infrastructure would have a positive impact for taxpayers in the northernmost rural areas of the town. 30 •• • • • ••• • • • Land Use and Density Legend Tax Parce ls La nsi ng Town & Village Roads Town of Lansing Zo11ing 2003 Commercial Mixed Use (Bl) Commercia l (B2) Industrial /Research (1 R) Lakeshore (L I ) Residential • Low Density (RI) Res id ential • Moderate Density (R2) Residential -Mixed Use (R3) Rural Agricu ltura l (RA) Cay uga Lake -.i._."''"""'"''..._.cw ... c.._,....,.,t...,o1--.. -t ... -. .. 1-.•7""-_,. .. ,_ ..... __ . __ ..,,) RA .,. j -· N + =--.;:,-~ ..... ------- , ... ...,.._y~-rT"--.,.,;..,-=~ -C::::::::O■'-==-----=====-----====~•M ... The Town of Lansing's current zoning map . 31 •• • • • ••• • • • Within the study area, the zoning picture is somewhat more complicated. The study area is punctuated by a Commercial Mixed Use zone covering the town center area, intended to foster the development of a discernable town center with varied commercial and residential development forms. From the town center and the Village of Lansing line, a corridor of Mod- erate Density Residential spans the approximate area between Route 34 and Triphammer Road, two of the Town's busiest travel corridors. West of Route 34 on the Lakefront and east of Triphammer Road are areas of Low Density Residential. A large Industrial/Research area covers lands immediately to the north of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport which include light manufacturing and offices. Finally, Residential Mixed Use districts intended to accom- modate denser growth as infrastructure take shape are located to the east and north of the town center. The densest single family residential development allowed under the current zoning code is possible in the Moderate Density Residential Zone, with a minimum lot size of 20000 square feet. In the Moderate Density Residential Zones and Mixed Use Commercial Zones, multi- unit residential can be developed at an intensity of up to 8000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. In Low Density Residential zones, minimum lot size is 40000 sq. ft., or nearly one full acre. With the exception of the Rural Agricultural Zone, townwide height limits cap buildings at 35ft. All residential zones feature mandatory minimum front-facing setbacks of at least 30 ft, and minimum open space requirements on lots range from 85% to 20% in the densest commercial districts. The Town currently mandates that one-and two-family residential units include a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. Residential developments with 3 or more units require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Parking requirements for commercial, industrial, and civic uses vary significantly with proposed use. Despite residential zoning, large tracts of agricultural, inactive agricultural, and wooded land remain intact along the southern and eastern edges of the town within the study area. Resi- dential development has been most intensive in the area between Triphammer Road, Warren Road, and Asbury Road. On the fringes of undeveloped lands in the study area, division of land into fragmented single home lots along major street edges is a common practice. 33 •• • • • ••• • • • Recent Trends and Short-Term Outlook New Development As of early 2014, nearly 20 unique residential development projects were in different phases of Lansing's development pipeline. The housing units expected to come into existence through these proposed projects number in the hundreds. While not all of the development proposals may come to pass, the projects currently in the pipeline offer a sense of what Lansing's near- term development future may look like. Distributed across the study area, they serve as a reasonable approximation of locations in which growth might be expected to appear and the overall number of units which might be added to the Town's housing stock on a shorter time horizon. By entering the location and expected number of new units for each development into trans- portation models, it is possible to estimate how traffic volumes and flows might change in the community over the coming years. Using data supplied by the Design Connect team, the Ithaca -Tompkins County Transportation Council prepared models estimating how traffic vol- umes might change on the Town of Lansing's major roads as the currently-proposed devel- opments take shape. 34 •• • • • ••• • • • While some areas of the community are expected to experience no increase or only modest increases in traffic volume, several areas are projected to experience traffic volume increases nearing 10% during peak hours. Raw traffic volumes would increase the most along seg- ments of Warren Road and in the Town Center area. There are limitations to modeling traffic increases -this model assumes no changes in development patterns outside of the town, and estimates vehicle usage on the basis of a variety of ever-changing factors. However, the modeling results are useful in visualizing how broad trends in traffic volume and directional flow may evolve as the town's built landscape changes. By comparing the expected raw increase in traffic volume for each road segment to the ca- pacity of that road segment, we begin to develop a sense of where congestion will increas- ingly become an issue of concern. Higher Volume-over-Capacity ratios indicate higher levels of congestion and a decreasing overall level of service. A VOC of 1 indicates that a road seg- ment is fully at capacity; VOC's above 1 indicate that the road is above capacity, and VOC's approaching 1 indicate that the road is nearing it's maximum capacity. While many of Lansing's roads are projected to have traffic volumes stay well within capacity, several problem areas are also evident. Most notably, the town's three major north-south corridors (Route 34, Triphammer Road, and Warren Road) and Route 34B carry volumes that are significantly higher than their capacity relative to other roads in the community, and the southern segments of Warren Road are expected to experience negative changes in level of service under this development scenario. Beyond congestion, it is likely that increasing traffic volumes through sensitive intersections and road segments could exacerbate the traffic safety issues that the community has already identified. Increasing numbers of vehicles passing through intersections such as Warren / Hillcrest, Waterwagon /34, Waterwagon / Triphammer, Asbury/ Triphammer, and the Town Center may contribute to an uptick in vehicle-to-vehicle conflict in areas that are already no- table for high accident frequency and severity. Residents along the east-west roads that span the town, including Hillcrest Rd, Waterwagon Rd, Asbury Rd, and Cherry Rd, may perceive slight increases in the number of vehicles cutting through neighborhoods to reach other parts of town, along with associated road noise and traffic speed impacts. 39 •• • • • ••• • • • Recent Alternative Transportation Developments Pedestrian and Bicycle The Lansing Town Pathways Committee has spearheaded a recent push to connect residential areas to the town center as a part of a complete network of paths, both sidewalks and trails, to connect local schools, the town hall, Lansing Market, Myers Park, Salt Point, Ludlowville park, and the RINK with one another. Plans developed by the committee and endorsed by the town council express a need to connect neighboring communities with the paths as well. While current pathways in the town center area are largely recreational, the community's paths are eventually intended to be useful for commuting, traveling to school, visiting neigh- bors, and accessing services. Planning efforts have focused on the southern portion of the town, where most intensive residential development has occurred in recent years. Despite the recent surge in interest towards a path network, on-the-ground developments have been few. The pathways committee has identified several steps to success in creating a trail system. Those steps include: ■ A formalized process to contact landowners of property with the potential for trail devel- opment to link with existing trails or with unique natural areas and seek agreement for property easements. The contact work could be done by volunteers, perhaps from the Lansing Pathways Committee, with oversight from the Town Board. The Town Board, with legal advice, would also oversee easements. ■ Coordination with neighboring communities to link to their trail systems, such as those in the Village of Lansing, the Town of Dryden and the Town of Ithaca. ■ A Town policy for working with all developers to incorporate trails and open spaces in their plans that link to existing trails or planned trails. ■ Clear communications with specific volunteer and community groups to coordinate work with the Town Parks and Recreation. Groups would include the Cayuga Bird Club, Boy and Girl Scout Troops, Lansing Pathways Committee. ■ A plan for costs and maintenance of trails through a capital improvements budget, use of volunteer groups, grants from public and private funds. Many local residents, particularly in the heavily agricultural areas of the community, are sup- portive of the trailways concept but skeptical that the benefits may not reach all parts of the community. Sustaining the push for new alternative transportation infrastructure, facilities, and amenities in the near future may be contingent on the identification of an outside funding source to support new investment. 40 •• • • • ••• • • • Transit If transit ridership is to become more viable in the community over the next several years, a number of obstacles need to be overcome. Development and enhancement of park and ride locales, improved communication tactics to raise awareness and improve passenger ex- perience, and the addition of shelters and amenities at bus stops could raise the profile of the transit system and attract more riders. However, recent development trends will likely replicate many of the problems faced by existing neighborhoods -homes are too far-flung from bus routes, trips are too infrequent, and no incentives exist to draw individuals out of their cars. For this reason, the absence of a multi-modal transportation hub surrounded by higher-density neighborhoods will continue to be a barrier to improved transit access and ridership. As community demographics change, the challenges posed by a lack of transportation alter- natives will start to become more apparent. For example, more than 89% of respondents to the town's recent survey indicated that transportation improvements for the elderly and dis- abled represent a good use of community tax dollars. In the same survey, 86% of respondents felt that expansion of housing options for the elderly was a top priority, indicating that aging in the community is a clear concern. Despite this interest, and a steady demographic shift toward becoming an older community, mobility and accessible transportation lag far behind what is necessary to provide a quality existence to non-driving seniors. Less than one percent of respondents felt that Lansing distinguishes itself as a place to retire, perhaps because of transportation barriers and the absence of local goods and services. While the aging are just one example, short-term trends indicate that alternative transportation options may eventu- ally be lacking for a variety of local groups. 41 •• • • • ••• • • • Recent Land Use Trends and Impacts A number of recent trends have shaped land use in the Town of Lansing. For one, the process of updating the comprehensive plan will eventually contribute to a revision of the communi- ty's zoning codes. According to a November 2013 report by the Town of Lansing, the Agricul- ture and Farmland Protection plan, one top priority is the protection of agriculture and farm- land. Although a large share of residential development has occurred in South Lansing over the past 15 years, the Town has observed encroachment into the agricultural and rural areas of North Lansing . The town is concerned about the potential impacts of future development on farms as well as suburban sprawl. Over recent decades, residential development outside of the Village of Lansing grew at a rate 3 times faster than development within the village. (The area of the Town of Lansing out- side of the Village is 41,835 acres.) Although the current policies and community support for agriculture has created a favorable farming climate, residents have observed that this high rate of development has had a negative impact on farming in many ways. The town has also observed that rural sprawl results in a more expensive process in the delivery of services to residents, such as water, sewage, well maintained roads, and lighting. As a result of these concerns, the town is hoping to rezone much of the RA zoning district to an agricultural zone, disallow uses least compatible with farming, and revise the definition of agriculture in the zoning code. They hope to "encourage in-fill development in South Lansing to reduce rural sprawl and the associated costs of infrastructure development;' and to ex- plore opportunities and properties to fund and preserve the farmland. The following are among the recommendations proposed by the Town of Lansing in order to achieve their goals of farmland protection and reducing suburban sprawl, while allowing ad- equate development for their growing population: ■ Avoid sprawl by focusing and promoting development in areas where adequate infrastruc- ture and services already exist or can be easily upgraded. ■ Preserve and protect lands that contain steep slopes; federal, state or locally designated wetlands; environmentally important areas (such as quality wildlife or plant habitats); for- ests and woodlots; and agriculture. ■ Require development to take the form of cluster and/or conservation subdivisions in en- vironmentally, agriculturally, and visually sensitive areas. ■ Establish more intensively developed mixed use neighborhoods in and near the Town Cen- ter. 42 •• • • • ••• • • • ■ Limit the acreage of land zoned for commercial and light industrial uses in the Town. Dis- courage strip commercial development through appropriate zoning mechanisms. Limit heavy industry to existing Industrial/Research (IR) Districts. ■ Redevelop or retrofit aging or abandoned industrial or commercial sites, where feasible . ■ Ensure that new development is sensitive to the community's scenic values. Develop a scenic resources inventory. ■ Encourage new development to contain a mix of uses and recreation spaces that support the daily needs of residents. Locate mixed uses in appropriate areas and in suitable build- ing types. ■ Provide a variety of housing types and prices that support a broad range of household types, sizes, lifestyles, life stages, and household incomes in new developments. ■ Incorporate suitable sustainable development practices (such as LEED certification and alternative energy production) in the design and construction of new developments . ■ Limit intrusion of non-agricultural uses into agricultural and conservation areas. Buffer farms from neighboring development. ■ Low density residential uses should be limited to areas that have marginal or no value as agricultural or conservation areas, and which are not anticipated to be served by public water or sewer. ■ Discourage frontage ("strip") residential lots, especially in prime agricultural areas. Study Area Land Cover and Deve lopment Proposals ~~Mi les • Oi!IYtb1X11-t!n!lP((Jp,;:ilS.!ll5 Exi sting Land Caver 2Q 12 R.eiid~r1!1~1 A 3ricu)1Lm1. -ln~ti~,;,Al,WIO,JltUl'Q -:R.em1t11U0111 .V.,.~o!:b!JLi'lo!-Ci:t\'l!I' -Wii1Liind1o ~1,6J;liil.Trert111X)rta\Joo,Tre11·111m111111()11 COnttn!rcl&I Publil.l'ln~lil'llfion,11 1 Development under existing zoning will radically alter land cover in t he study area. 43 •• • • • ••• • • • Town Center Trends and Developments During a Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting on November 13, 2012 a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis identified the lack of a Town Center as a fu- ture threat that could impact the Town of Lansing. The Town of Lansing has identified goals and objectives around creating a Town Center through its Comprehensive Plan. The Town Center area consists largely of some 140 acres of town owned land located along 34B in between East Shore Drive to the west and Triphammer Road to the east. It is zoned for com- mercial mixed use which allows allows most business and commercial uses, housing, mixed- use, recreation, and some light assembly and manufacturing. The Town Center Policy Plan indicates the desire for higher density housing, commercial services and recreational oppor- tunities that cater to the needs of local residents, increase the tax base and create a greater sense of community in Lansing. If the Town Center is developed, it is likely that the intersection of East Shore Road and 34B will experience increased traffic congestion during peak hours, which has been cited by res- idents and assessments as an area of concern for both congestion and safety reasons. Res- idential development south of 34B will likely increase traffic congestion for school related travel in the morning and afternoon. Local firm Holt Architects submitted a Town Center Plan in 2010 that articulated seven goals ,which included community identity and character, acknowledgment of Town Center activity (new town hall, renovated library, historic grange), increased density, mixed land uses, pedes- trian focus, consolidated parking and public sewers. During a public meeting, seventy Lansing residents raised 6 key issues that included the necessity of strategy, connections to unify the community, improvement of community services, support of small local business develop- ment, the presence of housing in the Town Center, and the promotion of green space . 44 •• • • • ••• • • • Proposed designs for the town center area from the Holt Town Center Plan . 45 •• • • • ••• • • • Recommendations and Long-Term Outlook While long-term outlooks for the Town of Lansing's transportation system are difficult to characterize and largely dependent on design and policy interventions adopted over the com- ing years, near-term trends provide a basis for assessing future conditions if patterns remain unchanged. Based on patterns identified in short term traffic change projections, congestion and traffic incidents can be expected to increase in the study area if development continues at a con- sistent rate. Locations already identified as congested or dangerous, such as Warren Road, Triphammer Road, Route 34, the town center intersections, and intersections with Asbury Road, Waterwagon Road, Hillcrest Road, and East Shore Circle, will continue to present prob- lems for public safety, commuting, and alternative transportation as traffic volumes increase. It will be difficult for the community to expand capacity to accommodate new growth without further compromising community character, yet without expanding capacity, certain prob- lems may be exacerbated. Thus, in accordance with many of the goals identified during the development of the town's new comprehensive plans, alternative approaches will need to be adopted to help the community mitigate against impending problems without costly and unpopular capacity increases. Further expansion of the community's housing stock without some form of investment in alternative transit infrastructure will continue to make potential bikers, walkers, and transit users feel unsafe and potentially alienated as users of the Lansing transportation system. The viability of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles will also be influenced by changes to the community's road networks and the physical form of new development. With many large-lot, low-density, residential-only developments on the horizon, offering pedestrian and bike infrastructure that provides meaningful connections to services and landmarks will be increasingly difficult. Travel by these modes, as well as by bus, will be further frustrated by the expanded use of dead ends, cul-de-sacs, and gated communities, which will continue to enable auto drivers. Significant local interest and momentum behind the development of a town-wide trail system could change Lansing's long-term alternative transportation out- looks, but the overall viability of these modes is closely interlinked with a number of other factors. 46 •• • • • ••• • • • From a regional connectivity perspective, barring any major structural changes, the southern portion of the town of Lansing will likely continue to serve as a bedroom community for Itha- ca professionals and other workers. Forces outside the region will continue to be the focus of commuting activity. In moving town residents between their neighborhoods and major employers elsewhere in the region, the major north-south corridors of Route 34, Tripham- merRoad, and Warren Road will continue to function as essential linkages. In the long term, the way development and transportation infrastructure take shape along these corridors will have an outsized influence on the feasibility of commuting via different modes and percep- tions of the transportation system for commuters. The interplay between new development, land use, density, zoning regulations, and trans- portation will continue to be a primary influence on Lansing's transportation future. Without density increases from infill development, cluster development, retrofits of existing build- ings, relaxation of height limits, and density bonuses, land use patterns are likely to further reinforce the auto-oriented culture of Lansing and pose challenges to the adoption of other modes of travel. The associated costs of developing and maintaining Lansing's vehicle infra- structure can be expected to continue to rise. However, significant community desires exist for reduced pressure on sensitive views and habitats, reduced conflict between development and agricultural character, and a more cohesive community center. If these desires win out, favorable changes in traffic conditions and the greater transportation system could result on the longterm. Past studies examining travel countywide have indicated that by tailoring practices to densify communities and preserve existing open space, Tompkins County munic- ipalities could slow the rate of increase in VMT and emissions generation by up to 45%. It is likely that constraints intended to focus new growth in already-developed areas and around transit could generate similar effects in the Town of Lansing. Concentration of new growth into more dense and diverse clusters, especially in the town cen- ter area, through expansion of services, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkable higher-den- sity housing, could offer an opportunity for local residents to address some of their needs in the immediate community rather than travelling to neighboring locales to take advantage of businesses and services. If some form of new development takes shape in the town center location, the community could add to available housing stock while potentially reducing the overall number of vehicle trips generated per residential unit. Town center development could compliment the existing TCAT bus stops in the area and, together with a multi-modal trail, re- inforce perceptions of the area as a hub of both transportation and community life. While the long-term future of the town center remains somewhat unclear, many of the goals expressed in the Lansing's existing plans for the area are consistent with improving the transportation system community-wide. 47 •• • • • ••• • • • Interpreting the Recommendations Matrix A variety of best practices are relevant to the issues and challenges identified in this review of the Town of Lansing's transportation system; many of those policies and design interven- tions are summarized in the following table. This guide is not intended to serve as a comprehensive program of transportation reform. Rather, it functions as a tool kit, with information on techniques that have helped other com- munities improve their transportation systems, opportunities to financially support different projects, and outside sources with additional details. Although the matrix includes recom- mended locations for each intervention, not every tool is appropriate in every place. With these tools and resources as a guide, town leadership and Lansing residents work together to identify high priority, location-appropriate projects to pursue. 48 •• • • • AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOWN OF LANSING, NEW YORK AUGUST 2015 FOREWORD Town of Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan August 2015 This plan is being forwarded to the Town of Lansing Planning Board, Town Board and the Lansing community at large for the following purpose: • To inform Town Government and the community about the scope of agriculture in the town including both land use and economic impact. • To suggest zoning changes to provide a clearer definition of agriculture consistent with state Agriculture & Markets Law. • To suggest a change from RA to AG agriculture zoning in areas where agriculture is the dominant land use . NOTE: Any zoning changes would have to be approved by the Town Board, upon a recommendation from the Town Planning Board, before they are enacted. • To strongly encourage formation of an Agriculture Advisory Committee that would advise town government on matters of importance to agriculture. The plan is not law; it is a guidance document that will inform the Town Agriculture Advisory Committee's annual work plan. Recommendations in the plan will be reviewed and prioritized by the committee. Some recommendations may involve Town government action, but many are focused on identifying resources that help support the continuation of farming in the Town of Lansing. 2 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOWN OF LANSING AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan Committee Skip Hardie, Chair David Buck Matthew Dedrick Dan Konowalow Larry Moore Kay Moore Town of Lansing Planning Board Representatives Lin Davidson Larry Sharpsteen Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County Monika Roth, Agriculture Program Leader Debbie Teeter, Agriculture Community Educator Tompkins County Planning Department Scott Doyle, Senior Planner Sharon Heller, GIS Analyst Consultant George R. Frantz, AICP, ASLA Special Thanks The Agriculture Plan committee would like to acknowledge the following individuals who have been active in supporting the plan development process: former and current town staff: Darby Kiley, Charmagne Rumgay, Jeff Overstrom, Sharon Bowman, Sue Munson, and current town planner Michael Long; former and current town board members: Connie Wilcox, Andra Benson, Katrina Binkowicz, Ruth Hopkins; and former planning committee member Larry Zuidema; former and current Town Supervisors: Scott Pinney and Kathy Miller. Additional credit goes to Tompkins County Planning, County Assessment and the Tompkins County Soil and Water District for data that is contained in the document. Most importantly, the committee appreciates the input of farmers and community members who attended public meetings and provided input on plan strategies. 3 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOWN OF LANSING AGRICULTURE & FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Summary of Findings and Recommendations August 2015 Purpose In 2008, the Town was awarded a grant from NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets to develop a municipal Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan. New York State has a constitutional priority to protect agricultural lands and therefore, has enacted the NYS Agriculture District Law and provides funding to municipalities to develop agriculture plans and for purchase of development rights. A committee was formed in 2009 to make recommendations for farmland protection and for strengthening agriculture. Recommendations contained in the plan reflect input from the agriculture committee, other town farmers and rural landowners, town officials, and the community at large at meetings during the past 6 years. The plan provides details on development and other pressures on farming, existing land use policies , farming resources and enterprises, along with recommendations to ensure a viable future for farming in the Town of Lansing. Vision for the Future of Agriculture in the Town of Lansing Agriculture has a significant impact on the Town's economy and land use. High quality soils and land suitable to farming is a unique resource in the northern part of the town that is protected for farming through policies that direct development away from prime soils. Supportive town policies and broad community support for agriculture create a climate where farming remains feasible and viable. A diversity of full and part-time farms will produce dairy, livestock, feed crops, local foods, horticultural crops, renewable energy resources, and other agricultural products that are marketed locally and through conventional agricultural market channels. The town's farms provide a variety of jobs and thereby strengthen the local economy. Farming practices protect soil , environmental quality, natural resources, and provide scenic working landscapes that preserve the rural character and enhance the quality of life of the town . Farming Profile Farming is alive and well in the Town of Lansing. Lansing enjoys a long history of continuous farming and can boast having the highest quality soils in the county that support 40 farm businesses, their owners, families and employees that generate a total of $20 million in agricultural product sales, nearly one third of total agriculture sales for the entire county. Farmers utilize 16,261 acres ofland or about one-third of the town's land area. Of the total land in farming, 8,834 acres are owned by 40 farmers and 7,427 farmed acres are rented from about 80 rural landowners . According to the Tompkins County Land Use Land Cover survey (2012), 1,017 acres of inactive agriculture land in the town has come back into production (some for organic farming) in the last 5 years. The increase in farmed land demonstrates the demand for farmland and the viability of farming in the area. Of the land in farming, 43% is designated prime soil and another 22% as soils of statewide significance, making Lansing the town with the best soils for farming in the county. Good soils for farming result in higher yields, better returns and more viable farms. Dairy farming is the dominant agricultural enterprise ( 11 farms) accounting for about $1 7 million in agricultural products from milk, cattle, and crops. Dairy farming creates most of the farm jobs. Most field crops raised on town farmland are destined to be consumed by dairy cows, but several crop farmers also sell crops on the commodity market. Organic farming occupies 2,900 acres of the total 16,261 acres (18%) and includes 3 organic dairy farms plus several field crop and vegetable farms . 4 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The next most prominent agricultural enterprise beyond dairy and field crops is greenhouse/nursery sales and service . These businesses benefit from the proximity of residential development in the southern part of the town. Horticulture businesses also provide many seasonal jobs. Direct sales offruits, vegetables , meat animals, poultry, and agritourism are areas for potential growth provided there is local consumer support. There is a total of 40 farming businesses in the town that employ approximately 100 people. Key Findings: • Town population, with growth centered in the Village of Lansing, has continued to increase at a significantly higher rate than other towns in the county. During the past 20 years, housing development outside the village grew at a rate three times faster than within the village. This has impacted farming in many ways -traffic, rising land prices and taxes, rural neighbors unfamiliar with farming activities, trespass issues, making it harder for farmers to find land to rent or buy, etc. • Rural sprawl poses additional problems for development and delivery of services to residents demanding water, sewer, better roads, lighting, etc. A Cost of Community Services study (1996, Tompkins County Agriculture Plan) showed that agriculture in the town demands 16 cents in services for every dollar paid in taxes, compared to $1 .56 in services demanded by residential development for every dollar paid. Rural sprawl can cost towns much more than keeping land in active agriculture. • Farmers rent nearly half of the land they operate and depend on rented land for the viability of their farming enterprises. There is uncertainty about the future of rented land given development pressure, rising taxes, and competition among farmers for good farmland. In recent years farmers have been buying additional land but land prices have climbed to a level that is not affordable for smaller farmers. In some cases town farmers have been out bid by farm operations from Cayuga County who now own 3000 acres of Lansing farmland . This has put smaller farmers in a more vulnerable position relative to their future. • Development rights have been sold on two town farms comprised of 1,446 acres of land ( almost 10% of the actively farmed land in the town). Farmer sentiment and understanding of farmland protection programs has shifted from property rights protection to acceptance of ideas that direct development away from actively farmed land. Priority Recommendations: • Create a Town Agriculture Committee with responsibility for advising the Town Board on matters pertaining to agriculture and to steer the implementation of the Agriculture Plan strategies. • Change most of the current Rural Agriculture (RA) zoning district to an Agriculture Zone (AG) and permit uses most compatible with farming. • Review the definition of agriculture in the zoning code and develop a uniform definition consistent with the diversity of farming enterprises in the town and with NYS Agriculture District Law. • Encourage in-fill development in South Lansing to reduce rural sprawl and the associated costs of infrastructure development. • Explore options for keeping critical high quality farm parcels that come up for sale available for farming . • Identify key farm properties to target for NYS Farmland Protection (PDR) funding to preserve prime farmland; work with County Planning in developing applications for PDR funding . • Seek funding and other opportunities to expand and strengthen the economic impact agriculture has on the town's economy. 5 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword/Acknowledgements ................................................ 2-3 Summary of Findings and Recommendations ......................... .4-5 I. Introduction ..................................................................................... 8-10 Background .............................................................. 8 Purpose ................................................................... 8 Definition .................................................................. 9 Plan Development Process .......................................... 9 II. Town of Lansing Profile ................................................................ 11-17 Overview ................................................................................ 11 Population .............................................................................. 11 Housing .................................................................................. 11 Infrastructure .......................................................................... 13 Land Resource Base/Soils ..................................................... 14 Watersheds/Waterbodies ....................................................... 16 Natural & Scenic Areas ........................................................... 17 Ill. Town of Lansing Agricultural Profile .......................................... 18-29 Overview ................................................................... 18 Land in farms .......................................................................... 18 Farming enterprises ................................................................ 20 Farm operations/employment. ................................................. 20 Economic value of farming ...................................................... 21 Future plans reported by farmers ............................................ 22 Key concerns voiced by farmers ............................................. 23 Agricultural trends and outlook ................................................ 25 Landowner survey results .............................................. 28 IV. Town of Lansing Land use policies, plans and programs ...... 30 -3 7 A. Existing Town Land Use Policies Agriculture as reflected in the Town's 2006 Comprehensive Plan ...... 30 2012 Comprehensive Plan Review Process ........................................ 30 Town Center Proposal. ......................................................................... 30 Town of Lansing Right to Farm Law ..................................................... 31 6 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN B. Tompkins County & NYS Land Use Programs, Policies, and Plans .... Protected Farms -Lansing ................................................................. 31 Protected Farms in Tompkins County ............................................... 32 NYS Agriculture & Markets Law 25AA - Agricultural Districts ........... 32 Tompkins County 2004 Comprehensive Plan .................................... 35 Tompkins County Agriculture Resources Focus Area Plan .............. 35 V. Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance Review and Recommendations ... 38-45 Conformance with NYS Agriculture & Markets Law 25AA ................... 38 Recommendations for Zoning Changes to Protect Farmland ............... 39 Recommendation #1 -Review/Revise definitions .................... 39 Recommendation #2 -Create a new AG Zoning District ........ .41 VI. Agriculture & Farmland Protection Recommendations ............... .46 -55 Vision Statement. .................................................................................... 46 Plan Components .................................................................................... 46 I. Location of areas/land recommended for protection for agricultural use 11. Value of land to be protected Ill. Consequences of Farmland Conversion IV. Level of Development Pressure V. Development Impacts Implementation recommendations ................................................. 50 A. Town Agriculture Committee B. Encourage farmers to be active on town board/committees C. Priority actions D. Goals and Strategies to preserve farming and promote agriculture Implementation Chart .................................................................. 52 APPENDIX Appendix I -Maps Appendix II -Supporting information Appendix Ill -Meeting Notes 7 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOWN OF LANSING AGRICULTURE & FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND New York State Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 AAA, encourages development of county and town agriculture and farmland protection plans. According to State law, agriculture and farmland protection means "the preservation, conservation, management, and improvement of lands which are part of viable farms, for the purpose of encouraging such lands to remain in agriculture production." In 2006, the State made grant funding available for municipal Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan development. The Town of Lansing submitted an application and was awarded a municipal Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan Development Grant in 2008. The State requires the following information be included in the plan : • Location of areas or land to be protected • An assessment of the economic and open space value of the agricultural lands to be protected, the consequences of conversion, and the level of development pressure on these lands • A description of programs and strategies to be used by the municipality to promote continued agricultural use Plan development is carried out at the local level with participation from town officials, farmers, Cooperative Extension, County Planning, the Soil & Water District, and consultants as needed. Plan approval requires at least one public hearing, town board approval, and County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board approval with final approval by NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets . PURPOSE The Town of Lansing updated its Town Comprehensive Plan and adopted the revised plan in November 2006 with the goal of updating zoning and land use regulations to match the goals of the comprehensive plan. It was the intention of the town (as stated in the Agriculture & Markets grant application) to utilize state funding to develop a municipal Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan, to review zoning regulations and their benefit to farmland protection, and to support farmers interested in participating in the State's Farmland Protection Program (purchase of development rights-PDR). While the Town's Comprehensive Plan expresses strong support for and recognition of the importance of agriculture, it does not lay out specific strategies for preserving valuable farmland and promoting the continuation of agriculture. Additionally, local laws and ordinances should be reviewed relative to their contribution or hindrance to the goal of protecting agriculture and farmland . The completion of the Town of Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan is timely given that the town is updating its Comprehensive Plan. Taking steps to identify important farmland and agriculture resources will allow the Town of Lansing to accommodate future growth without threatening the valuable land and soil resources and economic activity that make agriculture significant to the town and the county as a whole. 8 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN AGRICULTURE -DEFINITION For the purpose of this report, agriculture is defined as the use of land, buildings, structures, equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and farming practices which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products as a commercial enterprise or a hobby, and including commercial horse boarding operations as defined in the Agriculture and Markets Law Article (AML) 25-AA, Section 301. Agriculture is becoming increasingly diverse and the intent of this definition is to cover the variety of current and emerging farm enterprises; this includes but is not limited to orchards and vineyards, vegetable crops, hops, greenhouse/nursery production of horticultural and floriculture crops, greenhouse vegetable production, harvested agronomic crops ( com, soybeans, small grains), hay and pasture, livestock and poultry raised for food and fiber, and animals raised for recreation or sale (e.g. horses, alpaca/llama), beekeeping, aquaculture (fish production), silviculture (timber, firewood), agroforestry (forest farming) including maple, energy production including energy from manure or biomass crops. Agriculture and farming, and agricultural operations and farms, are considered to be interchangeable terms in this report. Agri-business or farm support services with equipment sales and repair, seed and feed, fertilizer and compost, custom services, storage, marketing and processing facilities, etc. all contribute to the viability of farming and provide non-farm jobs. Agritourism including activities such as pick your own crops, com mazes, wineries, breweries, distilleries, farm bed & breakfasts, farm markets and roadside stands, farmers' markets, farm festivals, farm weddings, etc. are all considered dimensions of farming that contribute to the viability of farming enterprises. PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Background Activity related to this grant was initiated in January 2008 by then Town Environmental Planner, Darby Kiley. Shortly thereafter, when Ms. Kiley resigned from, former Town Planning Board member Larry Zuidema reviewed the grant application and outlined a process for proceeding with plan development to the town supervisor in June 2008. Early in 2009, Connie Wilcox, then Town Board member and Assistant Supervisor, activated a farmer steering committee. An agreement to provide plan development support services was executed between Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and the Town of Lansing in June 2009. The agreement with Cooperative Extension included Cooperative Extension staff to support committee work and the plan development process, conduct a farmer and landowner survey, develop a profile of farming activities in the town, facilitate the development of a vision for the plan and recommendations, and lead the process of writing the final plan. In July 2011, the Town hired George Frantz, Planner, as a consultant to review current land use policies for their consistency with NYS Agriculture and Markets Law 2-AA, section 305, and to suggest additional policies that would further the goal of farmland protection in the town. Information was summarized and presented to the Town Planning Board and Agriculture Plan Development committee in Fall 2011. During 2012, Cooperative Extension staff and George Frantz reviewed input and presented a preliminary draft plan to the town agriculture committee on Feb . 21, 2013 . Further revisions have been made at committee meetings since 2013. Three public information meetings were held to gain broader farmer and landowner input on April 5, 2010, March 26, 2013, and January 8, 2014 . 9 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Meetings Held and Key Milestones Farmer and town representatives were invited to an inaugural meeting on May 11 , 2009 to learn about the grant requirements and goals, and were asked to give input on issues of concern pertaining to land use and local laws. Farmers, town representatives and consultants served on a steering committee that met on the following dates (public information/input meeting dates in bold): 06-15-09 Further input on planning needs 08-24-09 Maps review, farm profiles I 0-05-09 Work plan draft, farmer survey, vision, strategies 01-10-10 Planning meeting with town representatives 03-08-10 Vision statement and goals 03-22-10 More work on vision, goals and strategies 04-05-10 Public information meeting to review vision and strategies 06-30-10 CCE agreement executed 07-26-10 Joint meeting with planning board 12-13-10 Reviewed remaining steps for plan completion with town officials 07-2011 Hired planning consultant George Frantz for zoning review and recommendations 07-20-11 Possible zoning changes 08-03-11 Review maps and zoning recommendations 02-07-12 CCETC staff & consultant Frantz present preliminary draft to Town Ag Plan committee & Planning Board 03-13-12 Follow up meeting with a more complete draft , edits suggested Oct-Dec 12 CCETC staff devoted time to editing 02-21-13 Ag Plan development committee & Planning Board members reviewed late st plan draft 03-07-13 Further plan review 03-27-13 Farmer and public meeting to present and review plan recommendations 04-02-13 Meeting to discuss input from farm community 04-25-13 Discussed ag zoning & trends 05-29-13 May 29, 2013 -discussed zoning & reviewed maps 06-26-13 Reviewed implementation strategies 10-09-13 Presentation to the Comprehensive Plan Committee 11-25-13 Presentation to the Town Planning Board 01-08-14 Public meeting for farmers and rural landowners 03-09-15 Presentation to Planning Board 06-01-15 Presentation/discussion with Planning Board and Comp Plan Committee 06-11-15 Farmer meeting for final approval 06-22-15 Joint meeting of Planning Board & Town Board to approve moving plan forward for public hearing Meeting notes can be found in the Appendix -electronic copy only on file with the town. Final steps for plan adoption • Comments/revisions • Plan approval by the Town Agriculture committee • Plan review by the Town Planning Board and Town Board for review/input • Public Hearing-first hearing held on July 15, 2015; second hearing Sept. 16, 2015 • Approval by Town Board • Approval by Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board • Final approval by NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets 10 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN II. TOWN OF LANSING PROFILE OVERVIEW The Town of Lansing is comprised of three distinct areas that have been evolving for the past 50 years. To the north, agriculture is the active and predominant land use with field crop and dairy production that continues north into Cayuga County. The town has approximately 13 miles of lake frontage where housing developments are increasing to enjoy the attractive lake views. In the southern part of the town, the Village of Lansing is dominated by shopping, businesses, apartment complexes, and single family homes. Development has been occurring most rapidly in the village given its proximity to the City of Ithaca and major employers including Cornell University, the Regional Airport, the Cornell Research and Technology Park, mail services, the County Jail, medical offices, and schools. Beyond the highly developed areas of the village, there has been strong interest among town officials and the community to develop a "Town Center" where Rt. 34 and 34B join. The area currently includes the Town Hall, Town Park and Recreation facilities, the library, a grocery store, gas station, restaurant and a few other small retail businesses. Increasing residential and commercial density to grow the Town Center will impact active agriculture to the north unless steps are taken to concentrate development and protect agriculture. POPULATION According to the most recent 2010 US Census, the town's population is 11,033 people with 3,529 residents living in the Village of Lansing. From 1940 to 1990, the town's population increased by 234%. During the same 50 year period, the county population grew by only 122%. In the 10 year period from 1990 to 2000 the town's population increased from 9,296 to 10,521 for a 13 .18% increase. This was the largest increase of any town in the county and more than the City of Ithaca. County population during the same period only grew by 2.55%. From 2000 to 2010, population in the town grew at slightly less than half the rate of the previous 10 year period (4.87%), while the rate of population growth for the county overall was 5.25%. HOUSING In 2010 there were 5,130 dwelling units in the town with 1,788 (approx . 35%) of those being in the Village of Lansing. Over the 20 year period from 1990 to 2010, dwelling units increased by nearly 1000 for a 24% increase overall. The increase in housing for that period was largely outside of the Village of Lansing, with a 33.9% increase compared to only a 9% increase in housing the village. This could be attributed to existing density in the village, along with demand for single family homes, including lake view developments. The expansion of housing outside the village has implications for agriculture. A closer look at both census data and town building permit data reveals that the growth in population occurred primarily in the Village of Lansing and areas of the town south of Rte34/34B. This is readily apparent in Map 1 (page 13) which depicts building permits issued for new homes between 2001 and 2010. Almost 80% of new homes built in the town during that timeframe appear to have been built south of Rte34/34B. 11 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN LAND RESOURCE BASE Geology/Bedrock and Topography The geology of the Finger Lakes is shaped by abundant Devonian rocks and by recent glacial history. Together, the Devonian rocks that accumulated in a warm shallow sea more than 360 million years ago, and the action of massive ice sheets shaping the rocks during the last 2 million years have produced the arresting landscape of lakes, hills, gorges and waterfalls. The latest glacial episode was most extensive around 21,000 years ago, when glaciers covered almost the entire state. Around 19,000 years ago , the climate warmed, and the glacier began to retreat, disappearing entirely from New York for the last time around 11,000 years ago. The most obvious evidence left by the glaciers are the gravel deposits at the south ends of the Finger Lakes called moraines and streamlined elongated hills of glacial sediment called drumlins. Moraines are most visible south of Ithaca. Drumlins are visible at the northern end of Cayuga and Seneca Lakes. Bedrock that predominates in the region is limestone , shalestone and siltstone and is found at elevations between 400 to 1000 feet. The Ithaca Formation is the dominant formation both in the county and the Town of Lansing. The topography of the northern part of the county in Lansing is medium elevation with flat areas that are ideally suited to farming . The gorges and creeks carved by glaciers have never been actively farmed; however, logging may have occurred in some areas. Soils Tompkins County soil associations and soil types were mapped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1965. Soil associations are mapped on a scale of 1 inch per 2 miles (1: 126,720) and broadly represent the parent source of soil origin. A soil map is more detailed classifying soils by type at a scale of 1 :20,000 and provides much more specific information about soil capabilities and limitations generally within a two acre area . The four predominant soil associations in the northern part of the Town of Lansing include: Cazenovia-Ovid; Honeoye-Lima; Lansing-Conesus; and Kendaia-Lyons . The first three are dominantly deep, well to moderately drained , medium to moderately fine textured, nearly level to sloping soils. The fourth association, Kendaia-Lyons, is composed of somewhat poorly to poorly drained soils, subject to prolonged wetness and is rated as having medium to low potential for general farming . It is significant to note that based on soil association data, approximately 80% of the soil in the northern part of the Town of Lansing is rated as having high to medium potential for farming. The continuation of farming in this area can be attributed to high quality soil resources. A study conducted in 197 4 by R.E. Linton and H. E. Conklin, College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, for the Tompkins County Planning Department rated farming areas for their potential for the continuation of farming taking into account soils and economic factors. In reference to Lansing farming areas, the study stated that "Efficient and productive farming will continue in this area, if not disturbed by urban influence." 14 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN WATERSHEDS/WATERBODIES There are two dominant watersheds in the Town of Lansing: Cayuga Lake Watershed: As the principal water body, about 80% of the county's land area ultimately drains into Cayuga Lake and north to Lake Ontario. The Town of Lansing's western border includes about 13 miles of lake shore. The land near the shore slopes steeply to the lake and therefore is not actively farmed. However, because farming is actively practiced on hilltops and on moderate slopes east of the lake , runoff may find its way into creeks draining to the lake. Salmon Creek: This is the main creek that originates in Cayuga County and drains into Cayuga Lake at Myers Point. Salmon Creek bisects agricultural areas with mostly steep slopes and forested hillsides bordering the creek. There are relatively few flat areas near the creek that are farmed. Soil and nutrient erosion from farm fields can and does on occasion enter the creek and subsequently the lake. Farmers must remain vigilant in their farming practices to prevent source and non-source point pollution. This is done by following best management practices and through the installation of infrastructure to minimize and capture potential runoff. Salmon Creek is home to a 33 acre bird sanctuary managed by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, and the creek is a significant recreational resource for fishing with public fishing areas maintained by NYS DEC. Salmon Creek is identified in the Tompkins County Conservation Strategy Natural Features Focus Area worthy of protection (2007). Protecting Water Quality Agricultural best management practices are recommended in the Cayuga Lake Watershed Management and Restoration Plan to reduce soil erosion as well as source and non-point source pollution from farms and other facilities. Farmers in the town are active participants in the NYS Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program that provides farm site and enterprise specific recommendations for practices that mitigate water pollution and environmental degradation . A total of 6,224 acres of town farmland are enrolled in AEM representing 8 farm operations. Practices and infrastructure on Lansing farms that reduce or mitigate source and non-point source pollution include: 6 manure storage systems 6 milk house waste systems 4 silage leachate treatment systems 4 barnyard water runoff control systems 3 grazing rotational plans 2 fuel spill prevention systems 1 alternative watering source system 1 buffer system for nearby water courses. Source: Tompkins County Soil & Water Di stri ct 16 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Ill. TOWN OF LANSING AGRICULTURE PROFILE To effectively protect and promote agriculture in the Town of Lansing, it is necessary to understand the nature of farming in the Town. To gain a better understanding of Lansing agriculture, a survey was distributed to 34 farm operators receiving agricultural assessment in 2012, 18 of which were returned (53% return rate). The survey included questions about farm operations (acres, crops, livestock, employees , etc.) as well as, future plans. For the remaining 16 farms, that did not return the survey, Cooperative Extension staff referenced Agriculture District review survey data (2011 ), and made personal phone calls to verify farming information. Therefore, in developing the town agriculture profile, all farming operations known at that time were included; additionally all farming operations were invited to public information meetings to provide further input. A survey was also sent to 80 landowners renting land to farmers and receiving agricultural assessment. 38 of these surveys were returned (46% return rate). Unlike the farmers, Cooperative Extension staff did not follow up with landowners who did not respond, however, all landowners receiving agriculture assessment were invited to attend the 3 public information meetings held. In this survey landowners were asked about future plans for their land which has significant impact on land available for farming given the amount of rented land that is farmed. LAND IN FARMS There are 8,834 owned and 7,427 rented acres in the town receiving agricultural property tax assessment, for a total of 16,261 acres involved in agriculture -36% of the town's land base . Tompkins County Assessment Department data (2012) provides fairly accurate information about land that is farmed because both farmers and landowners value the benefit of agricultural assessment of property they own or rent to farmers. There may be some additional land that is farmed and does not receive agricultural assessment which is not captured in the numbers though the amount is insignificant because during the Agriculture District Review process, Cooperative Extension identifies and contacts farms outside the district to recommend inclusion. As noted above, 16,261 acres of land are associated with farming in the town. F arty-five percent of the farmland is rented (7,427 acres) by farmers, the balance is owned (8,834 acres). 2 ,900 (18%) of the 16,261 acres owned or rented by farmers are under certified organic production. Compared to 2001 Agriculture Assessment data, there were 7,841 acres owned and 5,016 acres rented by farmers for a total of 12 ,857 acres farmed. In the past 10 years, there has been a 993 acre increase in land that is owned by farmers and 2,411 acre increase in land rented by farmers. In 1996, farmers owned 8,928 acres of land and rented 3,145 acres . The increase in land owned and rented by farmers can be attributed to: 1) expanding dairy and crop operations; 2) inactive land that is easily certified for organic production; 3) large dairy and crop farmers in Cayuga County are renting and buying land in the town; and 4) government regulations that require Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) to spread manure over a larger area to avoid nitrogen and phosphorous contamination of water supplies. 18 Town of Lansing Town of La ns ing A~rieuttural Pro p<>rty IF'ar,m,ectby0wnerl9,4i2 acl!'t!lo ln!led F:rtffflbn.d 3,570:i!ICfH CJ MJ~I Boll"ldarits Cay~Lak. Map 6 -Farmland Owned & Rented AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Lan d Use Lan d Cover 20 12 Agriculture 14 ,728 111cres Recreation 228 acres Town of Lans i ng Ba rren or Di sturbed 164 acres -Vege tative Cover 15.632 acres -Wetlands 968 acres ~ water 6079 acres (includes Cayugai Lake) t=JI Munictpal Bounda ries Soun:;,, 2012 ~nd Uw lo1m;! C,q./f/lf lnvQnt.Qry, Tompkins Co1,mly PIQnmng O®I Map 7-Land Use Land Cover Demand for land in Lansing from Cayuga County farmers has been primarily driven by large dairy operations that must comply with CAFO regulations; however, there are also several crop farmers and a wholesale sweet com producer that own and rent land in Lansing. In fact, the largest dairy operation in Lansing is not head-quartered in Lansing. This farm, based in Genoa, rents 500 acres and owns over 2000 acres in Lansing. At the same time, six Lansing farms own or rent land beyond town boundaries into Cayuga County or in the Town of Groton illustrating that Lansing farmers are being pushed to find land at some distance from their home farms The Tompkins County Planning Department in the 2012 Land Use Land Cover (LULC) survey identified 14,728 acres of active agricultural land, plus 980 acres classified as inactive agriculture. This number is slightly lower than agriculture assessment data because it reflects land use. Farmers may own land that is not actively farmed (forest land). In this LULC survey, it was noted that active agricultural land increased in Lansing by 1,017 acres from 2007 to 2012, with most of the increase resulting from inactive land going back into farming (866 acres). This increase is reflective of the demand among farmers for land to farm . 19 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN FARMING ENTERPRISES The predominant agricultural enterprise in the town is dairy farming along with forage and field crop production. A diversity of field crops is grown on Lansing farms. The most common crops are com, legume and grass hay, and soybeans. Farmers also raise oats , winter barley, wheat , triticale, sorghum, sunflowers and trees. Pasture is another significant use of farmland, mo st typically for dairy or beef cattle, although there are some farmers raising equine , pigs and poultry. Other types of farm enterprises include horticultural businesses , small vegetable and fruit farms, Christmas trees , and small livestock farms . There are five are certified organic farms , including three dairy farms, one crop and one vegetable farm. The growth of diversified farming operations in the town has been slower relative to other parts of the county. The reason for this is that farmland in the town is intensively used by crop and dairy farmers, and the price of farmland in the town is higher than in other parts of the county making it harder for small diversified farmers to buy land in Lansing. Larger farm operations are able and willing to pay higher prices for quality farmland. Several farms have a mix of enterprises so while the there is a total of 40 farms , multiple farm enterprises are reflected in the table above . Also , while only 34 farming operations receive agricultural assessment, the total number of agricultural businesses in the town is 40; this includes 6 horticultural sales and service operations. Of forty, at least Farming Activity by Type of Enterprise Dairy ................................... 11 In the town; 3 dairies own/operate land in Lansing with facilities in Cayuga County Crops, No dairy ..................... 8 Vegetables/Fruit ................. 15 (Includes Cornell Orchards on Sweazy Road; 6 small market gardeners; 7 raising produce with other crops or livestock; 1 large vegetable producer has headquarters in Cayuga County) Livestock .............................. 8 Three beef, balance includes a mix of small livestock & poultry Equine ................................... 4 Offer stables or riding services Honey/maple ......................... 2 Ornamental Plants/Nursery 6 Christmas trees .................... 2 Total: .................................. 56 Enterprises associated with 40 farm businesses. So urce : Cornell Coo perati ve Extens io n To mpkins County half (20) are operating full time or significant part time businesses. 10 farms have been in existence for 50 years or more, and four of the se are century farms. FARM OPERATORS/EMPLOYMENT Nearly all farms report that various family members (parents, spouses , siblings , children, "other") have roles in the farm operations, including labor, management, bookkeeping and clerical. On some farms, there is a division of labor with different family members in charge of different aspects of the operation, such as caring for calves , being in charge of equipment, or overseeing crops. Lansing farms provide full or part time employment opportunities for 40 owners and their family members. Additionally, farmers hire at least 60 part time and seasonal employees. It is estimated that 20 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN there are at least 25 Hispanic workers employed on town dairy farms. Hispanic workers are vital on dairy farms. There is concern that immigration enforcement actions and changes in immigration law could result in the sudden loss of Hispanic workers resulting in critical labor shortages on dairy farms. Further efforts to evaluate the importance of the Hispanic workforce should be considered by the town agriculture committee once appointed. ECONOMIC VALUE OF FARMING Total farm product sales in the town are estimated to be around $20 million per year with about $17 million attributed to dairy farming. This is the largest value of agricultural product sales of any town in the county and it further points to the significance of the agriculture industry in the Town of Lansing. Town of Lansing farms generate 30% of total farm product sales in the Tompkins County ($67 Million total sales for Tompkins County, 2012 Census of Agriculture). Capital investments on farms over the past 7 years as reported in the 2011 agriculture district review survey ranged from a majority of farms with investments under than $10,000 to several farms with over one million invested. The majority of farms invested $200,000 to $700,000 per farm (7 year period). The fact that farms are investing in their businesses is a sign of farm viability, that farms are modernizing, and that farmers are optimistic about the future of farming. Typical farm investments include: new structures or equipment and, on dairy farms, environmental investments required for EPA Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) compliance. As mentioned before, farms in Lansing provide at least 40 full time jobs for owners and operators and at least 60 additional jobs that are part-time or seasonal. This amounts to a combined payroll of at least 3 million. Most farm employment is associated with dairy farms and horticulture businesses. Dairy farm management jobs pay competitive wages and workers are generally paid above the minimum wage . Crop farms and smaller specialty enterprises are generally owner-operated but employ extra workers during the harvest season. Jobs on farms result in dollars being spent in the community for housing, food, and other personal goods. Both part-time farmers and full-time farmers indicate that having off farm family income to provide health and retirement benefits is vital to the farm operation and family quality of life. Taxes paid by Lansing Farmers $30,807 in Fire District Tax, out of a total of $1,241,417 which represents 2.48%. $45,658 in Town of Lansing Taxes, out of a total of $1,630,854 which represents 2.80% $222,998 in County taxes, out of a total of $43,778,193 which represents 0.51%. $614,885 in Lansing School Taxes out of a total of $14,724,972 which represents 4.18. $14,185 in Groton School Tax, $4,858 in Ithaca City School Tax and $12,046 in Southern Cayuga Taxes. Total tax liability paid by farmers in the Town of Lansing -$945,407 -burden shared by 40 businesses involved in farming. Note that nearly 5% of gross ag sales is paid out in taxes. Source: Tompkins County Assessment Department, 2013 21 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN FUTURE PLANS REPORTED BY LANSING FARMERS Lansing farmers, especially full time farmers, indicate a strong desire to keep their land in agriculture and productive farming into the future. If farmers sell land, it tends to be the less productive fields or sites where development is already encroaching. Part-time farmers seem to have more uncertainty about what will happen to their farms and farmland in the future. Because many part-time farmers rent a portion of their land to full time farms, it is possible that land will be sold to a larger farming operation at some time in the future. According to several farmers interviewed, when good farm land in the town becomes available, farmers tend to buy it. Buying farmland near the home farm is important for farm operating efficiency. Trends suggest there may be fewer farmland owners and larger farms in the future. However, several farm operators did not envision expanding their farming enterprise in the future and farmers that had expanded in recent years indicated that they anticipated moderate growth in the future. Being able to transfer a farm to next generation is not an option for some farmers in the town. About half of the town's 11 dairy farms have a business structure or family members in place to take over. It is uncertain what will happen to the rest. Most have a few more years before reaching retirement age. In one case with no heirs, development rights have been sold which guarantees that the farm will not be developed but must be available for farming purposes. In another case where development rights were sold, the next generation is already in place and taking over the farming operation. Total acres of farmland under permanent easement in the Town of Lansing: 1,446 acres. Crop farmers who operate at least half of the land in the town along with their dairy farmer neighbors have an uncertain future unless there is someone who will take over their enterprise, presumably another crop farmer seeking to expand. Crop farmers own very little land but rent most of it. Their equity is mostly associated with field equipment. The continuing availability of land to rent is a source of stress for both dairy and crop farmers. With nearly 45% of the land that is farmed being rented by farmers, there is a level of uncertainty about landowner plans. However, from the landowner survey, there was a strong stated preference to keep land in farming. Small and beginning farming enterprises also face uncertainty. Many small farms, including those in Lansing, find it challenging to develop a profitable farming enterprise. It is typical that a major effort is expended on the part of owners during the startup years, but if limited progress is made with marketing, covering costs, and building equity, the owners tend to bum out. Some are able to refine and adjust operations until their goals are met which may include covering costs and taxes while raising food for themselves, while others hope to develop a part or full time business that eventually replaces off farm income. Small part-time livestock and produce farms may be less likely continue beyond the current owners, however, others such farms will emerge, therefore it is anticipated that farmland use will remain stable into the future. 22 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Key Concerns Voiced by Farmers Agricultural policies • • • • • • high level of importance placed on the NYS Agricultural District Law in keeping land in agriculture agriculture assessment to keep taxes manageable but the state exemption is not great enough (the amount of the exemption has been less in recent years because of the valuation method used by the state; changes are being propose at the state level) PDR is less enticing given rising value of land and less differential between ag values and development values desire for town leadership pre-disposed to protecting farming interests, making it possible to keep farming rural roads need to be maintained in good condition for moving farm equipment government regulations in general are of concern Risks to farming operations • losing rented ground; finding good land to rent • landowners may need to sell parcels to cover rising taxes • finding land to buy • price of farm land to buy or rent • farm transfer to next generation Development pressure • misinformation and lack of understanding about agriculture practices among general public • farmers are stewards of their land -this needs to be communicated to the public • steady increase in development • city people moving into rural areas, lack knowledge of farming practices • complaints from non-farmers (smell, dirt on road, farming practices) • more development pressure as non-farm neighbors sell land for development Maintenance of rural roads -Some farmers noted that increasing development and demand for services in the southern part of the town has resulted in less road maintenance in the northern part of the town. Farmers depend on rural roads for moving equipment, delivery of supplies, and movement of harvested products. Road maintenance is one of the few town services that farmers receive for taxes they pay; therefore it is of value to have good roads for farming operations. Demand for good farmland among farmers -Due to the level of farming activity in the town, there is demand among farmers for good quality farmland to own and rent. In recent years, rental rates and the price of farmland in Lansing have increased contributing to higher operating costs (debt). The increase in prices paid for farmland is driven by larger farm operations from Cayuga County that have purchased town farmland as it has become available . Given the size of these farming operations; they can often afford to pay higher land prices. Some Lansing farmers have consequently lost the opportunity to buy nearby land to expand their farming operations . While larger operations keep land in farming, it makes it harder for Lansing farmers to remain competitive and impacts the ability of new farming operations to start up . High value and small scale farming enterprises may be able to afford higher prices for smaller parcels. The demand for land may result in squeezing out middle sized farms. 23 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Property values-In 2012 Tompkins County A ssessment undertook a comprehensive review of agriculture property sales to determine the current value of farmland for assessment purposes. The purpose of the review was to bring agricultural land assessments to 100% fair market value. For the Town of Lansing, farmland sales ranged from $1,000 to $4,500 per acre, with an average selling price for the 6 farm properties in the review of $2,850. The average farmland selling price in the county was $2 ,300. Farmers are concerned about the increase in the assessed value of their properties along with the ability to buy land at a price they can afford. Farming as a business is based on land as its productive resource. If land is not available at a price they can afford , it will surely be bought up by other interests. A town Purchase of Development Rights program is one way to keep land available and affordable for town farmers. However, higher prices paid for farmland is also making PDR less attractive to farmers as the difference between agriculture values and development values is shrinking, meaning that farmers will get paid less when selling their development rights. Taxes-given the amount ofland required to operate a viable farming operation , taxes even with agricultural assessment and the NYS Farmers School Tax Credit represent a significant operating expense. Of the 5 leading agricultural states, NY farmers pay the highe st taxes, even higher than California farmers. This means that NY farmers are at a competitive disadvantage given the higher cost of doing business and they are also therefore, less profitable. Higher taxes and less profit can lead to loss of farming enterprises and the associated farmland. Land Rented vs. Owned -many farmers are uncertain about whether land they are renting today for farming will be available in the future . Rural landowners, like farmers, are impacted by increasing taxes. Those renting land to a farmer and receiving agricultural assessment are less impacted by tax increases . Most farmers work with landowners they rent from to ensure there is a 5 year lease in place required to qualify for agricultural assessment. Many parcels being rented to farmers are owned by older residents including some that retired from farming but still own their land. A key concern is what will happen to this land once it is transferred to the next generation ; will the heirs hold on to the land or will they sell it? Some may be sold to farmers , but some may be lost to farming depending on the heirs and estate. Estate planning and the sale of development rights may be one way to help keep rented land in farming. The Next Generation of Farmers -Agriculture depends on future farmers to take over current operations or start new ones. In Lansing, there is a mix of farming operations with a younger generation or business partners ready to take over, along with farms that have no heirs or transition plan in place . The transition of farming operations to new owners or the next generation will require estate planning. Cooperative Extension and NY FarmNet can link farmers to legal counselors to help this process move forward. There is an active community of beginning farmers and farming entrepreneurs in Tompkins County . These farming enthusiasts are seeking to raise a variety of crops and livestock on a small scale destined for local markets . In the Town of Lansing there are fewer start-up farm s because land is less available and prices are higher. Small scale farming can play an important role in the rural economy and could be encouraged by matching beginning farmers with rural landowners or farmers who want to keep their land in farming. Cooperative Extension has started Finger Lakes LandLink to foster connections between land owners and land seekers . 24 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Economic Realities of Farming -Ultimately, maintaining land in farming will depend on the economic conditions and policies that impact farming. Regulations , high taxes, high utility costs, availability of labor, supply and demand, input costs, and market prices all impact the costs and returns. Many farms have expanded to keep up with these realities ; however, expansion alone may not address these challenges. Good management and strategic planning is critical. Some farmers have changed production and marketing strategies to generate higher returns. Policies at the local, state and federal level all play a role in agriculture's future . At the local level, the key policy issues will be land use control and giving priority to agriculture, along with property taxes. Other Ways to Encourage the Continuation of Farming As Mentioned by farmers and landowners at meetings and in the surveys • encourage growth in concentrated areas to stop/slow down growth in farming areas • evaluate the option to lease development rights for a period of time with stipulations • make it possible for town farmers to buy farmland at a price they can afford • right to farm law -review existing law, strengthen as appropriate • more focus on local food production and marketing • town wide waste facility to produce biogas -manure could supplement AGRICULTURAL TRENDS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK Farmers in the Town of Lansing have reflected on what they see as trends and the outlook for agriculture in the town. Given the long history of active agriculture as a dominant land use and economic sector, there is optimism that agriculture will remain viable in the future given protection of high quality soil resources , well managed farming operations , and the availability of farmland for expansion . Farmland Farming has been a continuous activity in the Town of Lansing since it was settled. Over its 200+ year history, there has been a shift in farming and farm related enterprises. One major shift was from small plot diversified farming and related processing facilities such as creameries , mills and tanneries that existed in the late 1800's to early 1900's to more specialized agriculture that emerged mid-20th century and continues today . There is a trend today to return to smaller specialty agriculture and organic farming. While there has been a loss of farm numbers over time, the land in farming has remained steady and is recently increasing. The gain in actively farmed lands as show in in Land Use Land Cover data from Tompkins County Planning (2012) has been fueled by both large and small farms. Larger dairies are seeking land to comply with regulations for manure spreading; higher com prices drive more acreage; organic farms are seeking land where chemicals have not been used for at least 3 years ; and small specialty farms are emerging on parcels from 1 to 20 acres. While there is turnover of ownership, there is continuity in agriculture due to the fact that Lansing is a highly active farming area with high quality soils to support productive agriculture. In the past 10 years , there has been a transition in farmland ownership from local farms to larger farm owners from north of the town line. Two Cayuga County farmers have been buying land to expand their dairy and crop enterprises and now own a combined total of about 3000 acres of Lansing farmland . While these neighboring farm operations are keeping land in agriculture and pay taxes, several concerns 25 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN have emerged for town farmers. The local farming community finds it challenging to compete with these larger operations to buy or rent land. Both farm real estate prices and farmland rental prices have increased. As a result, the town's mid-sized farms are being squeezed out by the larger farms that buy land or pay higher rental rates. It is harder for town farmers to find land to buy or rent at affordable prices, which impacts their ability to expand. Some town farmers are buying land at some distance from their home base , when land next door sold at a price than they were able to pay. When farmers buy land at a distance from their home farm, there is an increased cost to farming. This raises several concerns about agriculture in the future. Will it be dominated by large absentee farm owners; will mid-sized crop farming operations be able to find land they need to remain viable, and will high priced farmland deter the next generation of beginning farmers? Another impact of higher farmland prices is that it results in higher assessed values. The overall tax liability for farmers increases even with the benefit of agricultural assessment. Taxes may be a small portion of a large farm's operating costs, but for small farms, it has a big impact on farming profits, cost of living , and overall quality of life for farming families . Without an active farmland protection program that makes it possible for local farmers to buy farmland at prices they can afford, these trends will continue with the following consequences: 1) Larger absentee farmland owners will own and operate land in the town -this means that there is less of a personal connection between the farmer, the land, the neighbors, and town government. Farmers who live and work in the town have a commitment to their community. 2) The future of farming will depend on the viability of large farm operations outside the town. If these operations should downsize or even worse file for bankruptcy, it is uncertain what would happen to farmland they own or rent in the town. With fewer local farms to re-absorb that land, some land may be abandoned until some future use emerges. 3) Smaller diversified farming enterprises may find it harder to buy land in the town given the competition for farmland and higher selling prices. This limits the opportunity for new ventures focused on local food production and agri-tourism to emerge unless they have significant investment capital. Several actions could be considered by the Town to help preserve an active local farming community. One is to make rural landowners aware that selling or renting farmland to a neighboring farmer instead of the highest price may help preserve the local farming community. An incentive program that encourages landowners to sell to local farms could be considered. New farming enterprises might be encouraged through similar incentives that connect current landowners with beginning farmers with the goal of ultimately transitioning land to new owners . Creativity and commitment will be needed to secure a future for farming. To realize the vision for agriculture's continuation will require an engaged town agriculture committee and agriculture community, as well as consensus among town officials and the community at large that agriculture should be protected and promoted for the benefit of all. Farming Operations In the Town of Lansing as farmers have retired, the remaining farmers have absorbed much of the available farmland. This has resulted in fewer farmers farming more acres spread throughout the town. This historical trend of fewer and larger dairy and crop farms will likely continue . 26 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The transition to organic dairy farming began in early 2000. Currently there are 3 certified organic dairies in the town farming a total of around 2 ,500 acres of land they own or rent. At present, there are no reports of additional dairies planning to become certified. Organic dairies rely on organic crops they grow or buy. Given prices of organic feed , more crop farmers could raise organic crops to meet the needs of organic dairies. There is one crop farmer raising approximately 350 acres of organic grains to supply area dairy farmers and a small organic vegetable farm with about 4 acres in production and 50 acres rented for organic grains. Livestock beyond dairy is somewhat limited but has potential to expand if there is more demand for local meat. Beef is raised on 3 farms at present but demand exists for other meat animals (pork, lamb, goat) and poultry. These could be raised on a small scale and sold locally. Overall, there has not been as strong a trend towards small diversified farming in Lansing, mostly because the larger specialized dairy and crop enterprises dominate. And the price of farmland is generally higher in the Town of Lansing, making it less attractive to new farmers who are starting up south and west of Ithaca where land prices are somewhat lower. There is a strong commercial ornamental horticulture industry in Lansing. Horticulture businesses in Lansing benefit from having nearby business and residential customers . Christmas trees are associated with two operations. Growth in housing and commercial development creates demand for horticulture sales and services and generates niche farming opportunities y that is less land intensive than grain or dairy farming. Fruit including soft tree fruits, berries and grapes have good potential in Lansing. Evidence for this comes from the fact that the Cornell Horticulture Department has a stone fruit research facility on a slope down off Rt. 34B. There are two stone fruit orchards near 34B. Apples have been successfully established in two other town locations near Rt. 34. There is additional potential for fruit production, especially along the 34B corridor. A pick your own fruit farm could offer a high value crop opportunity for an enterprising new farmer. There is a diversified pick your own farm just over the county line in Cayuga County. Competitors might find a niche with organic fruit. Agritourism including orchards , wineries , and other farm attractions along Route 34 B could enhance the Cayuga Wine Trail on the east side of Cayuga Lake . Vegetables are a sideline on several dairy, livestock and crop farms and part-time enterprise for a few market gardeners. There are currently two CSA options for Lansing residents: Thomson Farm located on Van Ostrand Road with pick up at the Grey Barn on Peruville road (farm is being sold and family is relocating in 2016), and Early Morning Farm in Genoa, offering a CSA pick up near the post office. Approximately 100 Lansing area households are served by these two farms. Interest in local foods is likely to continue as a societal trend as long as local foods are easily obtainable and affordable. The level of interest among Lansing residents in local foods is unknown; a survey of residents might be considered. Many south Lansing residents shop at the Ithaca Farmers Market. After 3 seasons, vendors involved in a Saturday Lansing Farmers Market at the Town Hall felt they were not attracting enough customers and sales to justify their time. This may suggest that interest in local foods among Town residents is not strong enough to support a farmers market. A market will only succeed if there are sufficient vendors and customers. There is a new farmers market operating on Friday mornings in the Triphammer Mall parking lot (next to the Fish Truck) which appears to be a better 27 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN venue for sales than at the Town Hall. This market is consistently attracting about 18-20 vendors and has a regular customer base of shoppers visiting the Fish Truck, however, vendors report that only a fraction of customers shopping for fish, buy from them . LANDOWNER SURVEY RESULTS A survey was sent to 80 Lansing non-farming landowners that receive agricultural assessment on land they rent to farmers; 38 returned the surveys (46% return rate). These property owners were asked a variety of questions about their land and what they thought might happen to it in the future. Following is a summary oflandowner responses (survey questions can be found in Appendix II). Like much of the farmer owned land in Lansing, agricultural land that is rented to farmers has typically been in the family for decades . Twenty-eight (74%) landowners responding have owned their land for 21 or more years, and nine of these owners reported their land has been in their family for over 60 years. The most commonly cited reasons for holding on to or purchasing agricultural land were maintain open space (27 responses/71 %), for privacy (23 responses /61 %) and recreation was also important (17 responses /45%). Income was the least often selected response (12 responses /32%). Six respondents (16%) provided additional reasons including investment, firewood /hunting, and family. All respondents were reasonably satisfied with their current rental arrangement, with 32 (85%) leaning towards highly satisfied. Nearly all, 32, found it relatively easy to find a farmer to rent land, although three reported some difficulty. Sixteen landowners reported renting their land to the same farmer for more than ten years, and nine of these had agreements for twenty years or more. Six landowners reported that their current rental arrangement was less than five years old. Most of the landowners (35 out of 38) expect to rent their land to a farmer for at least the next five to ten years, and 20 (53%) of those expect to rent beyond ten years -although 15 (39%) didn't know what would happened beyond the next ten years suggesting there is some uncertainty about the future of their land in farming. Twenty-five landowners (61 %) place no restrictions on farming practices used by farmers renting land. Of the eight (21 %) reporting some form of restriction, two are involved organic production/no pesticides use, one requests advance notice of spraying, one said no manure spreading (odor), and three wanted input of cropping plans. Thirty landowners (79%) have never sold land for house lots. Most landowners (28 or 74%) do not intend to sell housing lots in the next five to ten years; only three landowners said they would, and one said maybe. Profit, the need for supplemental or retirement income, or high taxes were some of the reasons landowners had sold or might sell housing lots. Landowner hopes for the future are that their land stay agricultural or open space (17 or 45%), four expected to pass the land to other family members, three had no idea what would happen, and three thought the land would be used for development. Nearly all respondents indicated income from the sale of housing lots was not important (22 did not respond and 10 said it was not at all important). Landowners clearly indicated interest in keeping their land actively farmed (31 or 82%) and undeveloped (25 or 61 %). They also cited that receiving agricultural assessment on rented land is important (25 or 61 %), and rental payments they receive were somewhat less important by comparison (20 said it was important, 12 moderately important, and 5 said not important). Of the non-farm landowners with woodlands, seven have a forest management plan, seven regularly harvest wood for timber, and nine regularly harvest wood for firewood. 28 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Most landowners (31 or 82%) do not expect to ever farm the land themselves, although five expected to start farming at some point. Sixteen respondents (42%) thought there was a great amount of housing development pressure on the Town of Lansing, 8 thought there was some, and 11 thought the pressure was very low . There was a shift in these figures when landowners were asked about development near their land: 11 thought there was a great amount of housing development pressure, 11 thought there was some, and 13 thought the pressure was very low. Most respondents, 28 (74%), indicated nearby development would not influence them to subdivide their land, while five said it would and three others indicated it might. Landowners indicated interest in the following as services/assistance to help manage land: • • • • • • • • • • Keep the Ag District intact Someone to look at the land and let me know it is being most productively used Keep zoning to a minimum Lower taxes Keep the land around me strictly for agriculture; don't want to be blocked in by housing developments Continue to encourage farmland to stay in farming Observance/enforcement of existing land use ordinances Make it possible for retired farmers live off their land by not restricting farmland sales Tax advantages for farming & small rural business Lower taxes on farmland . Undeveloped land owners should be rewarded for NOT subdividing . Most subdivide to pay for land they are trying to keep . Sentiments regarding large farms and their associated odors and potential pollution hazards were not mentioned as issues by survey respondents perhaps because they rent to farmers, some renting many years to the same farmer, and therefore they may have less concern about farming practices than a more recent rural landowner who does not know the farmer as well. At least one rural landowner attending a public meeting expressed concern about farming practices on large dairy farms . Agriculture production methods have significantly over the years and larger farms do pose some risks that smaller less intensive enterprises may not pose. The EPA regulations that dairy and large livestock operations must follow have generally minimized the environmental risks. Building good farmer neighbor relations is in the interest of the farm community. Farming practices can be modified to accommodate the needs of the farm and of the surrounding rural residents . 29 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN IV. TOWN OF LANSING LAND USE POLICIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS IMPACTING AGRICULTURE A. Existing Town Land Use Policies AGRICULTURE AS REFERENCED IN THE TOWN'S 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Town of Lansing's adopted Comprehensive Plan (11/15/2006) Agriculture section states that an objective is "to protect the Town's agricultural land resources through the use of Transfer of Development Rights and Purchase/Lease of Development Rights. " The northern portion of the town was identified as the target area for farmland protection. This area has productive farming operations, excellent soil characteristics, and is geographically connected to a similar farming region in southern Cayuga County. According to the 2006 plan, the Town is also committed to keeping development concentrated in the southern part of the town and promote growth in South Lansing and in the "Town Center" at the intersection ofNYS Routes 34 and 34B to maximize the return on infrastructure investments. Encouraging development in this service area and keeping the northern part of the town in active farmland are mutually reinforcing elements of the same goal, as stated in the Town's Comprehensive Plan: "New development should be encouraged to occur in areas where a larger population concentration will make the provision of public utilities practical and feasible. Within this overall growth orientation, the Town also intends to support viable agricultural activity. " 2012 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATE The Town of Lansing is currently updating the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. A committee appointed by the Town Board began meeting in September 2012. The committee is in the process ofreviewing and revising goals and drafting recommended actions for the Town Board to consider. It is hoped that the update will be completed in 2015. Information about the Comprehensive Plan update is available on the Town website (www.lansingtown.com). TOWN CENTER PROPOSAL The Town is seeking to create a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development that further enhances a conceptual plan for a traditional neighborhood styled "Town Center." The site has road frontage on three sides with access to Route 34/34B and Conlon Road. The intent of the Town is to have complimentary uses including: retail, residential, hotel and motel, affordable market-rate and senior housing, business, commercial, and office space uses, research and development, recreation, open space, and trails. County housing studies and recent development pressure point to the need for housing, public spaces, and mixed higher-density nodal developments. The town would like to meet these needs, while simultaneously promoting a sense of community in this Town Center area. Municipal water is currently available, as is natural gas, electricity, and other utilities. Sewer service is not currently available but a sewer district has been under consideration. 30 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOWN OF LANSING RIGHT TO FARM LAW: LOCAL LAW #2-ADOPTED IN 1997 With this Local Law, the Lansing Town Board affirmed that farming is an important activity in the town that contributes to the quality of life, provides open space, and generates economic benefits. The intent of the law is to preserve the tradition of farming, permit normal farm operations, and encourage the expansion of farms and agricultural businesses. A provision of the law is to provide anyone filing for a building or subdivision permit with the Town Zoning officer a disclosure statement if the property borders a farm. The intent is to make permit applicants aware of farming neighbors and to inform them that farmers have the right to undertake and follow sound agricultural practices. This local law further affirms the right to farm provisions in the NYS Agriculture & Markets Law 25 AA (details follow). Much of the farmland in the town lies within Agricultural District # 1 and is therefore protected by both the town and state Right to Farm law provisions. For town farmlands outside of Agriculture District #1, the town Right to Farm Law provides protection for the conduct of normal farming practices. B. Tompkins County and New York State Land Use Programs, Policies and Plans in effect in the Town of Lansing PROTECTED FARMS IN LANSING In 2003, the 439-acre, 35 cow dairy owned by Donald Howser on Auburn Road (Rt. 34) was the first farm in Tompkins County to be awarded a NYS Farmland Protection Implementation Program grant. In 2005, the farm also received Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (USDA NRCS) matching funds. The deed restriction and agricultural conservation easement for the Howser Farm was finalized in 2006. Bensvue Farm (approximately 6 miles from the Howser Farm, on Lansingville Road) was awarded a NYS Farmland Protection Implementation Program grant in 2009 . This 525 cow organic dairy farm encompasses a total of 1,007 acres that are now under permanent agricultural conservation easement (Spring 2012). Both easements are held by Tompkins County and the County Planning Department has the responsibility for monitoring the easements annually to ensure terms are upheld. Total Farmland under Permanent Agricultural Easement in the Town of Lansing: 1,446 Acres ( 16% of total farm land owned by farmers; 9% of all land owned and rented by farmers) Protected Open Space: Town of Lansing and nearby • 300 acres Finger Lakes Land Trust -conservation easement on a farm belonging to Gordon and Margaret Nesbitt, 761 Peruville Rd . (tax parcels: Groton-34.-1-15 and Dryden-21.-1-11) • 33-acre (tax parcel Lansing-9-1-12) Finger Lakes Land Trust Salmon Creek Bird Sanctuary. To help protect the Sanctuary's birds, there are no trails on the preserve . 31 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN PROTECTED FARMS IN TOMPKINS COUNTY In 2006, the 419-acre Lew-Lin Farm in the Town of Dryden was approved for NYS Farmland Protection Implementation Program funding. Since then two additional Dryden Farms were selected for state funding-Jerry Dell Farm on Simms Hill and Carpenter Farm east of the Village of Dryden on Route 13. Three farms in the Town of Ithaca are under permanent agricultural conservation easement (Ferguson, N. Eddy, Cummins). In the case of the Town oflthaca, easement funding came from three different sources: the town's program; Federal USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Easement; and the NYS Farmland Protection Implementation Program. NYS AGRICULTURE & MARKETS LAW 25 AA -AGRICULTURE DISTRICTS Article 25-AA of the Agriculture & Markets Law authorizes the creation oflocal agricultural districts pursuant to landowner initiative, preliminary county review , state certification, and county adoption. The purpose of agricultural districts is to encourage the continued use of farmland for agricultural production. The law provides a combination of landowner incentives and protections designed to forestall the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses . Benefits include preferential real property tax treatment (agricultural assessment and special benefit assessment), protection against overly restrictive local laws, government funded acquisition or construction projects, and private nuisance suits involving agricultural practices. The NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets Division of Agricultural Protection manages the certification of new districts and the review and recertification of existing districts . State certification confirms that a district meets the purposes and intent of the Agricultural District Law and all eligibility criteria described therein. Districts are reviewed for recertification every 8 years at which time the county board recommends properties for removal or inclusion (the state certifies all changes for district continuation). Properties can be added to districts annually but removed only during the 8 year review. The Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board , along with the full County Legislature , are responsible for conducting reviews of agriculture districts in Tompkins County. A step in the review process is to meet with town boards to ensure that local land use plans and agriculture district boundaries remain compatible. Tompkins County Agriculture District #1 The process of forming an agricultural district begins when farmers with a combined total of 500 acres or more petition the County Legislature for district designation; subsequently the district is reviewed and certified by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets and the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC). In 1974, then Agriculture District 4 in the Town of Lansing was formed to encompass farms and contiguous non-farm rural lands from Route 34B north and east to the Groton Town line. The original agricultural district encompassed 25,293 acres wholly within the Town of Lansing and included a total of 98 farm operations (including 23 dairy farms) at the time of formation. In 1979, an additional district #7 was formed to include 3 farms in the southern part of the town encompassing 664 acres . 32 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN NYS Agriculture & Markets Law, Section 305a -Agriculture Districts Key Provisions of the Law Agricultural Assessment One of the most important benefits of the NYS Agricultural Districts Program is the opportunity for farmland owners to receive real property assessments based on the value of their land for agricultural production rather than its development value. The Department of Agriculture & Markets uses a Land Classification System based on soil productivity to calculate agricultural assessments for individual parcels. Farmers qualify for Agricultural Assessment if they operate 7 acres or more that has been farmed for 2 years, and generate $10,000 in agricultural product sales. Landowners qualify for agricultural assessment on land they rent to a farmer if they have a written 5 year lease with a farmer who qualifies for agricultural assessment. To receive the exemption, farmers and landowners renting land to farmers fill out a soils worksheet to classify their soil and then apply each year by April 1 with the county assessment department. Notice of Intent The NYS Agricultural District Law places a mandate on state agencies, local governments, and public benefit corporations to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to farm operations when pursuing projects within an agricultural district that involve either the acquisition of farmland or the advance of public funds for certain construction activities. Agriculture & Markets staff conducts detailed reviews of Notice oflntent documents provided by project sponsors and recommends mitigative action where necessary. Such projects cannot proceed until the Notice oflntent process is completed. Restrictive Local Laws The NYS Agricultural District Law protects farmers against local laws which unreasonably restrict farm operations located within an agricultural district. Agriculture & Markets staff, together with Department legal staff, reviews both existing and proposed laws to determine if they are compatible with farm operations. In cases where a local law is determined to be unreasonable , staff works with local government to develop mutually acceptable modifications. If a local government is unwilling to modify a restrictive law, the Department is authorized to take action to compel compliance with NYS Agricultural District Law. Sound Agricultural Practices The NYS Agricultural District Law also authorizes the NYS Agriculture Commissioner to issue opinions, upon request, concerning the soundness of specific agricultural practices. If the Commissioner determines that a practice is sound, it shall not constitute a private nuisance. In order for a practice to be considered sound, it must be legal, not harmful, necessary and supported by expert guidance or opinion. Cornell Cooperative Extension educators or Soil and Water District staff may be called upon to issue an opinion regarding sound practices. Agricultural Enterprise Determinations Under Section 308(4), the NYS Agriculture Commissioner is authorized to issue an opinion on whether particular land uses are agricultural in nature. 34 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOMPKINS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Tompkins County 2004 Comprehensive Plan recommended diversity in the agriculture sector, including agriculture that serves local and regional markets, an emerging clean energy sector based on renewable resources, conservation of forest lands and their management for sustainable yields of forest products, and protection of water resources and wildlife habitat. It was recognized that agriculture and agriculture-related enterprises represent a significant share of the economy in rural towns and contribute to the scenic countryside that attracts tourists and business to the area. Specifically with regard to the Town of Lansing, the 2004 County Comprehensive Plan identifies the northern part of Lansing as one of three major Agricultural Resources Focus Areas. These areas have the best soils and highest concentrations of contiguous, actively farmed parcels of land in Tompkins County. According to the county comprehensive plan, these areas provide the best opportunity to protect a critical mass of contiguous agricultural land, and ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in Tompkins County. Tompkins County's recommendations in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan include: • Enhancing the viability of existing farming operations and agricultural businesses, and encouraging the creation of new ones • Supporting agri-tourism development • Sustaining and enhancing the agricultural activities and working farms within the Agricultural Resources Focus Areas • Encouraging development designed to preserve valuable agricultural and forest land and protect prime agricultural land for agricultural use The County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in March, 2015. This plan makes less specific recommendations related to farmland protection given that work is being done to update the Tompkins County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan (to be completed September 2015). There are however references to maintaining agriculture's contribution to the economy and to active working landscapes, promoting agri-culinary tourism and encouraging local food production. Additionally agriculture is recognized as having a role in protecting water quality and natural areas, reducing carbon emissions, and for providing alternative energy resources. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files /compplan/documents/FINAL-March%2012-low%20res.pdf Tompkins County Agriculture Resource Focus Area Plan (ARFA) The purpose of the Tompkins County ARFA Plan (2010) is to present a strategic county-wide approach for long-term conservation of farmland resources. The plan describes existing conditions of each focus area; identifies impediments, opportunities, and resources for the farming community; and suggests conservation and management tools to ensure the future viability of these important agricultural resources and to help farming prosper in these areas. 35 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Table 3 -AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE FOCUS AREA (ARFA) SUMMARY North Northeast Lansing/ Northwest Benjamin Pony Hollow Six Mile TOTAL West Hill Creek Groton Total ARFA 25,234 21,680 21,522 2,155 1,930 4,774 77 ,295 Acreage # of Farm 59 52 67 12 4 19 213 Operations Total Farm Operation Acres 16,590 15,467 13 ,197 1,584 1,702 3,389 51 ,929 (active+inactive agricultrual land) Average Farm 8il;B8~1; Operation Size 281 297 197 132 426 178 (acres) 244 % Total of ARFA 8il;B8~1; in Active 52% 55% 49% 56% 44% 47% Agriculture, 2007 52% % Loss of Agriculture Land 8iEB8~E (active+ 24% 16% 23% 19% 9% 25% 21% inactive), 1969- 2007 % Owned;% I 8iEB8~E 72% owned; 66% owned; 78% owned; 56% owned; 55% owned; 71% Leased Farm 28% leased 34% leased 22% leased 44% leased 100% owned; 45% leased owned; Operation Acres 0% leased 29% leased % Prime Soils; % Soils of 9% Prime; 43% Prime; 35% Prime; 1% Prime ; 37% Prime; 21% 8il;B8~1; Statewide 57% soss 22% soss 30% soss 73% soss 28% soss Prime; 27% Prime ; Significance 40% soss 38% soss (SOSS) Estimated# 30 23 3 3 1 3 63 Dairies Source: Tompkins County Conservation Plan (April 2010) -Part II - A Strategic Approach to Agricultural Resource Stewardship -http://www.tompkins-co.org/planni ng/Rural%20Resou rces/ ARFAPlan.htm DEFINITIONS: Prime soils -have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for agricultural production with minimal inputs of fertilizer, lime, etc. to produce highest and best yields for viable agriculture . Prime soils are characterized by having high lime, high nutrient supply capacity, good structure/texture, well drained ( or when artificially drained), flat to gently sloping, and significant depth before reaching bedrock. Soils of Statewide Importance ~ land which is deemed suitable for agricultural production when appropriate management practices are applied. For exact definition, see: http://www.law.comell.edu/cfr/text/7/657.5 37 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN V. Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance Review and Recommendations Prepared by George R. Frantz, Planner/Consultant The purpose of this review is to identify current zoning strategies that impact agriculture and to identify options for strengthening farmland protection and minimizing unintended impacts of zoning on agriculture in the Town of Lansing. CONFORMANCE WITH NYS AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW NYS Agriculture and Markets Law (AML), 25 AA, section 305a, Agricultural Districts, provides farmers and agricultural operations located within state certified agricultural districts specific protections against local zoning regulation that may be unreasonably restrictive and cause undue interference with legitimate agricultural practices as defined by state law. Because most farms in the Town of Lansing are located within a state approved agricultural district (Tompkins County Agricultural District #1), they are afforded the protections available through Section 305-a. In 2002, the NYS Legislature amended Town Law Section 283-a to require local governments to ensure that their laws, ordinances or other regulations that might apply to agricultural operations located in state certified agricultural districts do not " ... unreasonably re s trict or regulate farm operations in contravention of Article 25-AA of the Agriculture and Markets Law, unless it can be shown that the public health or safety is threatened. " General questions that municipal officials should ask when assessing the application of zoning regulations to agriculture include: 1. Do the regulations materially restrict the definition of farm, farming operations or agriculture in a manner that conflicts with the definition of "farm operation" as set forth in AML Sect. 301(11)? 2. Do the regulations materially limit or prohibit the production, preparation or marketing of any crop, livestock or livestock product? 3. Are certain types of agriculture subject to more intensive review or permitting process than other types of agriculture? 4. Is any agricultural activity that meets the definition of "farm operation" as set forth in AML Sect. 301(11) subject to special permit, site plan review or other local review standard above ministerial review, or subject to a more intensive level ofreview than other uses permitted within the same zoning district? 5. Are farm operations treated under the local zoning regulations as integrated, interdependent uses and activities, or as independent, competing uses of the same property? 6. Do the local zoning regulations relegate any farm operations located within a state agricultural district to the status "nonconforming use"? 38 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN The NYS Commissioner of Agriculture & Markets is empowered to initiate a review of local land use regulations as they may affect farm operations within a state certified agricultural district, either independently or upon the request of a farmer or municipal official within said agricultural district. The NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets will review local regulations to assess whether the local law or ordinance is unreasonably restrictive on its face and whether it is unreasonably restrictive when applied to a particular situation. The Department must also assess whether the regulated activity poses a threat to public health or safety. If the NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets determines that a local law or ordinance imposes an unreasonable burden on farm operations within a State agricultural district, it will notify the municipality of its findings. The Department will then work with municipal officials to bring the local regulations in line with Agriculture & Markets Law. If the issue cannot be resolved through negotiation, the Commissioner is authorized under the law to bring an action against the municipality to enforce the provisions of Section 305-a. Recommended Zoning Changes to Improve Farmland Protection RECOMMENDATION #1 -REVIEW/REVISE DEFINITIONS An important component in any set of zoning regulations is the glossary section containing definitions of various terms used in the zoning regulations. Because of the nature of zoning, clarity is critical to ensuring fair and consistent interpretation of the regulations, promoting efficient administration and positive public perceptions with regard to their local zoning, and inoculating the community against controversy and in some cases expensive litigation . There following definitions related to agriculture in the Town Land Use Ordinance warrant revision: Develop a Comprehensive Definition of Farming The Town should consider removing the reference to regulations of the NYS Board of Equalization and Assessment in the definition of farming. Section 503 Schedule 1 does not specifically permit agriculture, but instead lists "Farming -dairy," "Farming -poultry," "Farming -livestock." These uses are currently permitted in the Rural Agriculture and Residential-Mixed Use districts. Rather than separately listing a number of specific farming activities that make up the practice of agriculture , the Town should use one umbrella term such as "agriculture" or "farming" encompassing all activities . This approach would take into account not merely the specific activities set forth in the various definitions, but also the multiple structures and subordinate activities that contemporary agriculture encompasses. Such an approach may also eliminate ambiguities, such as whether or not the "growing of fruits and vegetables ... " includes processing and storing for sale of such commodities, or whether the "commercial growing of plants ... " in the definition of greenhouses precludes growing plants as a hobby or for personal enjoyment. Farm supply and service providers should also be recognized activities and enterprises that are integral to supporting agriculture. And marketing should be understood to include a variety of direct marketing opportunities that bring customers to farms (agritourism, wineries, farm stands, PYO, CSA farms, farm festivals, com mazes, farm B&B's, etc.). By replacing multiple uses and definitions with one umbrella definition that is more generic, the Town of Lansing could streamline its zoning regulations, head off possible controversy over defining 39 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN specific activities, and ensure some flexibility to accommodate the changing nature and increasing diversity of agriculture. An example of a comprehensive definition of agriculture is: "The use of land, buildings, structures and equipment, and the practices which support the production, preparation, processing, marketing and transportation of grains, vegetables, fruit, and other crops, horticultural and floricultural products, animal husbandry (including horses, llamas and alpacas), livestock and livestock products, aquaculture, apiary products, forest farming, and farm energy production from sun, wind, manure or biomass crops. " This definition is designed to take into account the numerous activities that may take place on a farm of any size. It provides a clear and concise definition of what would constitute an agricultural operation, but provides considerable flexibility that accommodates wide variety of activities generally recognized as being "agriculture" in New York and the constantly evolving nature of agriculture and agricultural practices. Businesses that exist in support of agricultural enterprises such as suppliers, processors, trucking companies, veterinarians, loggers, composting operations, and other such services that farmers need, can also be considered as part of this definition if providing services for the farming community. The following types of farming operation should be included in the definition of agriculture and therefore be treated the same as other farming enterprises under the local land use law. Commercial Plant Nursery or Greenhouse "Commercial plant nursery or greenhouse" is permitted upon site plan approval (Sect. 802.8), as are "roadside stands" (Sect. 802.30) and "public stables" (Sect. 802.1) in the Rural Agriculture district. These should be treated consistent with other farming enterprises. Horse Boarding The Town's definition of agriculture does not include "commercial horse boarding operations." These are considered to be "agricultural" activities and benefit from the protections ofNYS Agriculture & Markets Law Section 305-a. There is a definition for "public stable," which covers the same type of establishment, and which is use permitted in the Rural Agricultural District in the Town, subject to site plan approval. By adding horse boarding to the agriculture definition, it avoids the potential for contravention ofNYS AML Article 25AAA. Roadside Stand The current definition provides for the sale of "farm or other products" on a seasonal basis, with no description of what "other products" may include. The Town could consider modifying the definition to promote the sale of farm products produced within 50 miles of the property where the roadside stand is located. Roadside stands generally operate from tents, sheds or small buildings and may be self-serve or staffed and operated on a seasonal basis. Roadside stands should be understood to be distinct from year round Farm Markets which are permanent building dedicated to retailing of farm products and perhaps other goods purchased for resale to serve customer needs and interests. Farm Markets associated with farms for the primary purpose of selling farm raised products should be permitted under local land use law . For more information see NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets guidance document: Guideline for Review of Direct Marketing activities (http ://www .agriculture .ny .gov /AP /agservices/guidancedocuments/305-aFarmMarket.pdf). 40 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Other definitions that warrant review -Definition of Junk There appears to be one potential conflict between the Town of Lansing Land Use Law and the provisions of AML Article 25AAA. The NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets does not expect municipalities to grant farmers an exemption from junk accumulation. A number of towns have modified their existing definitions for junkyard to include language such as " ... and other debris that is not generated by or used in any active agricultural operations on the premises. " The definitions for "Junk" and "Junkyard" do not exempt farm equipment and other items that may not be operational, but are kept for spare parts, etc. Many local regulations governing junkyards do not exempt farm "junk piles" or a collection of inoperable equipment or vehicles that can be found on the typical farm. The NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets recognizes the need for some "junk" storage on farm and the prohibition of such activities may be considered a contravention ofNYS Agriculture and Markets Law (AML) Section 305-a. This technicality could be resolved with a slight modification to the definition of "junk" by the addition at the end of the following language: "with the exception of materials generated by or acquired for use on the farm premises in any ongoing agricultural operations. " The modified definition could read: "Junk. Any scrap, waste paper, rags, scrap metal, white goods, junked vehicles and boats or parts therefrom , reclaimable material or debris, whether or not stored or used in conjunction with dismantling, processing, salvage, storage, baling, disposal or other use or disposition, with the exception of materials generated by or acquired for use on the farm premises in any active agricultural operations. " Further information pertaining to the State's perspectives on "junk" can be found in the following guidance document: http ://www. agriculture .ny. gov/ ap / agservices/ gui dancedocuments/3 0 5-aJ unk _ J unkyard%20Guidelines . pdf RECOMMENDATION # 2 -AG ZONING DISTRICT The Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan Steering Committee is recommending that the Town Board consider the creation of a new Agriculture Zoning (AG) district to encompass actively farmed areas in the northern part of the Town and encompassing high quality soils necessary for continued viable farming in areas with the least amount of development pressure. This recommendation would not eliminate the RA zoning district entirely but would reduce it to areas where uses as permitted in the RA zoning district exist. Agricultural Zoning (AG) districts can be found in the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Ulysses. The intent of the agricultural zoning district in Ulysses is to protect the town's agricultural resources including viable agricultural operations and high quality soils. The Town of Ithaca's goals for their agricultural zone is to provide conditions for continued agriculture use, maintain open space in agricultural areas, and support compatible activities and densities while minimizing incompatible uses. [See the Appendix II for a summary of AG zone provisions from the Town oflthaca and Ulysses.] Given the intensity of agriculture in the northern part of Lansing compared to Towns of Ithaca and Ulysses, it is recommended that the Lansing Town Board take a proactive approach to protecting high quality soils and active farmland that will enable farming to continue as a viable economic sector in the 41 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN There are a number of businesses, including several in existence in the proposed Agricultural zoning district that would be grandfathered in the new district. The following businesses would be most compatible in an AG Zoning district. Agricultural Commerce. The list of permitted commercial and industrial uses in the new AG zoning district should explicitly include and encourage "agribusiness," "agricultural enterprises", or "agricultural commercial" for the purpose of zoning. Such businesses may include farm services, farm equipment and supplies, processing, and marketing functions and may be owned or operated by farmers or agri-support entrepreneurs. Such enterprises provide local jobs and keep dollars circulating in the local economy. Many farm operations have side businesses that supplement the income of the overall agricultural operation. The Town of Lansing already permits "home occupations." The home occupation concept provides the farm community with the opportunity to supplement income from farm operations on a smaller scale that would not compete for land or introduce potentially incompatible uses. Agricultural commercial enterprises and cottage industry or rural enterprises, however, could be much larger, employ persons not living on the premises , and also include retail and wholesale services to the general public. Examples of agricultural commercial businesses would be farm equipment dealerships, seed, grain, hay, straw and fertilizer sales, repair services, building, excavating and other contracting services and trucking services. In the Town of Ulysses such businesses are referred to as "agricultural commerce" and defined as: "A retail or wholesale enterprise providing services or products principally utilized in agricultural production, including structures, agricultural equipment and agricultural equipment parts, batteries and tires, livestock, feed, seed, fertilizer and equipment repairs, or providing for wholesale or retail sale of grain, fruit, produce, trees, shrubs, flowers or other products of agricultural operations. " Agri-tourism is a growing and important component of an overall direct marketing strategy for an active agricultural operation or farm market, and is an important source of supplemental income for farms. The Town of Lansing zoning regulations do not explicitly permit such activities in the current Rural Agricultural zoning district. Such uses should be defined in a manner that accurately describes the activities envisioned as part of an agri-tourism enterprise, protects the town from unanticipated ones, and permits some flexibility in interpretation. An example of a definition for agri-tourism is: Recreational, educational and entertainment activities operated in conjunction with and as part of an overall direct marketing strategy for an active agricultural operation or farm market that contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock products, and including activities such as petting zoos, hayrides, corn mazes, festivals, farm tours, farm lodging, farm wineries, farm restaurants, and other such recreational activities, educational demonstrations, and the onsite preparation, processing and sale of foods prepared from local farm products for consumption on site and off site. 43 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Agri-tourism operations are designed to attract the general public . They also have the potential to grow into major businesses that may attract large numbers of people and traffic, particularly for occasional special events. Site plan approval is a mechanism by which a municipality can ensure that the health and safety of the general public and patrons of such businesses are protected ; ensure that adequate facilities for parking and safe ingress and egress from public highways are provided, and that potential adverse impacts of such businesses or large events are mitigated. The Town of Lansing may wish to require site plan approval for agri-tourism. The NYS Department of Agriculture & Markets offers a Guideline for Review of Direct Marketing acti vi ti es (http ://www. agri culture.ny. gov/ AP/ agservi ces/ gui d ancedocuments/3 0 5-aF armMarket.pd!). Farm Markets. Generally permanent year-round retail operations that sell agricultural products, baked goods, and other foodstuffs, and operated as part of an overall farm enterprise. Handicrafts and other agriculture-related products could also be sold. Although they can provide an outlet for agricultural products grown on the host farm, because of their size and because they may be year-round operations, some of the products sold at a farm market may not be produced on the farm premises. Rural Enterprises. Another type of business suitable in the Agriculture Zone would be "rural enterprises." Unlike the agribusinesses or agri-tourism, these are small-scale business enterprises operated by rural residents, but are not necessarily linked to the agricultural economy. They provide employment to rural residents and services to rural areas, but maintain a scale in character with the rural nature of the Agricultural Zoning district. A rural enterprise would be a small-scale business operated by a resident of the premises. The business could be a service or small-scale craft or industrial enterprise. Key attributes of these types of businesses are that they are operated by a resident; and their size and scale limited by the number of employees permitted. An example of a definition for rural enterprises is: A manufacturing, construction or service enterprise owned and operated by a resident of the principal dwelling on a lot, but which does not employ more than ten (10) persons on site not residing on the premises. Types of businesses that are envisioned under the above definition include small contractors, woodworking, metalworking and other craft manufacturing, small auto repair and body shops, small craft bakeries and food processors . They may also include businesses such as bed-and-breakfast inns or other types of small-scale lodging establishments that take advantage of and are compatible with the rural character of the Agricultural Zoning district. In many case such businesses can occupy surplus farm buildings. Their size would be controlled by a limit on the number of employees not living on the premises. Such businesses should be subject to site plan approval. Wind Energy. Although permitted under Sect. 503, Schedule I, the zoning regulations do not provide a definition of what constitutes a wind energy source, and what distinguishes commercial or residential scale systems . Such systems also require site plan approval. The Town of Lansing should consider permitting small-scale wind energy systems as a permitted use, without site plan approval, subject to specific design and setback requirements, for residential and agricultural operations. Such systems can 44 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN be distinguished from large scale commercial systems by limiting their size to 10 KW. These smaller units are large enough to serve a typical home, and 2 to 3 can serve a moderate size dairy operation. Key standards for the design and placement of wind energy sources include limits on generating capacity, height, turbine blade length, setbacks from buildings and property lines, color and number permitted. Where a farm operation may warrant more than one turbine, the number can be controlled by tying the number permitted to the number of acres on the parcel of land. ( e.g. one turbine unit for each 10 acres). Although concerns about visual impact have been expressed, these smaller systems generally recede into the background at distances beyond 500 feet, and within 500 feet can be screened from public roads by existing buildings, trees and other vegetation . Additional guidance is provided by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets at: http://www.agric ulture.ny .gov/AP /agservices/guidancedocuments/Guidelines for Solar and Sma ll Wind Energy Faci liti es .pdf Solar Arrays provide similar renewable energy generation opportunities. Restricting arrays on prime soils in active agriculture areas may be appropriate. However, with proper citing, arrays can offer energy savings for farming operations and rural residents. Certain types of farming, for example, grazing by sheep or goats, are potentially compatible with solar fields. 45 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN VI. Town of Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Recommendations VISION STATEMENT A future vision of agriculture and its contribution to the Town of Lansing Agriculture has a significant impact on the Town of Lansing economy and land use. High quality soils and land suitable for farming is a unique resource protected through policies that direct development away from prime farmlands. Supportive town policies and broad community support for agriculture create a climate where farming remains feasible and viable. A diversity of full and part-time operations will produce dairy, livestock, feed crops, local foods, horticultural crops, renewable energy resources, and other agricultural products marketed locally and through conventional agricultural marketing channels. The town's farms provide a variety of job opportunities and thereby strengthen the local economy. Farming practices protect soil, environmental quality, natural resources, and provide scenic working landscapes that preserve the rural character and enhance the quality of life of our community. Plan Components (as required by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets) I. Location of areas/land recommended for protection for agricultural use RECOMMENDATIONS A. Town of Lansing farm lands in NYS Agriculture District #1. Ensure that the Town Board, planning and zoning board and relevant staff are informed and aware ofNYS Agriculture District Law and its implications for local laws that may be overly restrictive to farming. B. Create a new AG zone to encompass the majority of agricultural areas of north Lansing. Boundaries of new Ag zone: all agricultural areas north of NYS Route 34B. The area from 34B to Buck Rd. is considered as being under development pressure and transitioning to residential/rural agriculture . South Lansing agriculture includes a mix of open hay fields and would be most appropriate for small scale consumer oriented agriculture given proximity to residents; larger scale animal agriculture would not be appropriate in this area. We propose no changes be made in this part of the town's zoning district and that agriculture be allowed to continue along with other uses. C. Consider options and seek opportunities for securing and protecting key farmlands for continued and permanent agriculture use. 1) Support farmers that are interested in seeking conservation easements on their properties via the NYS Farmland Protection Program. Work with Tompkins County Planning Department and the AFPB in the application process. 2) Continue to work with NYSEG/AES and future owners of this property if sold, to ensure that the portions of this parcel that is currently farmed remain available to rent. 46 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN II. Value of Land to be protected A change in zoning from RA to AG in North Lansing will provide broader recognition and protection for farming by giving priority to agricultural uses and restricting uses that are not compatible with agriculture. By protecting agriculture in North Lansing and encouraging development in South Lansing, the town will preserve economic activity generated by farming enterprises including $20 million dollars in product sales and jobs for at least 100 people. In addition to the economic contribution of agriculture, it is important to recognize the value of high quality soils that are not replaceable once developed. Farming is viable in Lansing because of its high quality soils. Ill. Consequences of Farmland Conversion Loss of high quality soils for farm and food production -Given the amount prime soil and soil of statewide significance in the Town of Lansing that is desirable and necessary for farming and food production it would be a significant loss to the future of farming and food production in the town, county and region if this resource were lost. Soils cannot be replaced once lost due to construction when the landscape is carved up with infrastructure and buildings. Fragmentation of farmland -Rural sprawl including housing and business developments make it harder for farmers to farm efficiently and thereby increases the cost of doing business. Fragmentation has been shown to lead to the impermanence of farming. Farm operations need land to operate and the farther they must go to find farm land the more challenging it becomes as they travel from field to field and work around developed areas . Loss of farm jobs and employment sector-Farms in the Town of Lansing provide full or significant part time jobs for approximately 40 owner/operators and their family members. Hired labor on farms is generally part-time and seasonal providing approximately 60 jobs. Hispanic workers have become the dominant labor force on at least 3 town dairy farms (approx . 15 workers total). Hispanic workers along with other local employees live here, shop locally, and contribute to our community. Loss of supply services-support businesses -Having a concentration of farming in one area makes it more economical for suppliers and other support businesses to provide services to farmers. Farmers rely on a range of services including veterinary services, seed and feed suppliers, crop consultants , trucking, vehicle maintenance, accounting, and other such business. Given the scope of the farming in the town , there is potential for more farm support and supply business development. Loss of economic activity-Farms in the Town of Lansing generate approximately $20 million dollars in dairy, crop and related agricultural sales. $17 million in sales is generated by the dairy industry alone. Total agriculture product sales in the county is $67 million (2012 USDA Census of Agriculture), therefore, Lansing farms are significant in the overall Tompkins County farm economy. Loss of open space/scenic views/UNA's associated with farms_-Over 16,000 acres of land in the town or slightly over one-third of the land area of the town is associated with agriculture. An additional 13 % of the town's land is classified (Tompkins County Land Use Land Cover Survey, 2012) as being in vegetative cover, some of which may also be associated with farms. Most of the UN A's in the Town of Lansing are associated with farms. The rural character of the northern part of the town will 47 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN change significantly if agriculture is no longer a dominant factor in contributing to scenic views and open space. These are attributes that also benefit rural tourism development. Increased rural sprawl_-Rural sprawl is already a reality in the town. During the past 20 year period housing development outside the village grew 33.9% compared to 9% within the village. As the village has become built out, more housing is moving into rural areas, impacting farming operations, but also creating a demand for more town services that are less efficient and more costly to deliver over larger areas. Higher taxes and increased demand for services -A 1995 Cost of Community Services Study prepared by Cooperative Extension and the Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board compared the cost of services demanded by 3 sectors: residential, industrial and agriculture compared to revenues contributed for services. For the Town of Lansing, the ratio of tax dollars generated compared to town expenditures was 1 to 1.56 for residential; and for both industrial/commercial and agriculture the ratio was 1 to .16, meaning that for every tax dollar from residential $1.56 is demanded in services while both agriculture and industrial/commercial receive only 16 cents in services for each dollar paid in taxes. Consequently, the loss of agricultural land to residential development will result in increased demand for services and result in higher taxes overall. This type of study has been repeated by American Farmland Trust in many communities, with similar overall findings. IV. Level of Development Pressure Development in the Town of Lansing has been steady expanding from south to north. It is anticipating that the following trends will continue to impact the farming community. Population in the Town of Lansing grew at a rate double that of county from 1940-1990. From 1990 to 2000 town population increased from 9,296 to 10,521 for a 13 .18% increase. This was the largest increase of any town in the county and more than that of the City of Ithaca. County population during the same period only grew by 2.55%. From 2000 to 2010 the town population grew half the rate of the previous 10 year period at a rate of 4.87% while the rate of population increase for the county overall was 5.25% at the same time . Housing development has been most active in the Village of Lansing but as the village has become more built-out, there has been an increase in suburban-style scattered development in the form of single-family homes in areas beyond the village, generally south and southwest of 34 and 34B, in areas with lake views, and along rural routes. From 1990 to 2010 there were 995 new housing units/dwellings added to the town. This represents a 24% increase in the number of dwelling units in the town. Of this number, 846 units or 85% were built outside the Village of Lansing. The housing stock in the Town of Lansing is of higher median value than in other parts of the county. This drives up the value of land for housing and the value of land in general. This is reflected by higher land prices in both suburban and rural areas of the town compared to other towns in the county. Business development -concentrated in the Village of Lansing and near the airport provides jobs and consequently increased demand for nearby housing. 48 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Town Center-the Town Center proposal for the intersection of Rt. 34/34B is supported by farmers but is also of concern in that it borders agricultural areas to the north. The proximity of an area of mixed use housing, retail, business, and recreational use will draw more traffic into rural/agricultural areas and has the potential to drive more rural housing sprawl into agricultural areas. Rural roads -farmers have noted increased car traffic traveling at higher speeds on rural roads. With more housing along rural roads, and more drivers, there is concern that fast moving cars and slow moving farm equipment especially during spring planting and fall harvest season pose increased safety concerns. Non-farm neighbors -farmers are concerned about the compatibility of rural development with farming operations. Given that fewer people are familiar with farming operations and activities, there is the potential for misunderstanding farming practices and for trespass and injury associated with unlawful trespass . The need to educate non-farm neighbors places an additional burden on farmers . Rural sprawl -poses several problems beyond non-farm neighbor conflicts and traffic on rural roads. Farming operations are generally less efficient when they operate fields over a larger area interspersed by housing. There are increased costs associated with moving equipment, fuel , and growing crops on smaller fields instead of larger contiguous farm fields. Additionally, rural sprawl results in demand for services from residences that are not cost effective to deliver over larger areas. V. Development Impacts Farmers feel the encroachment of development in north Lansing farming areas and it is of concern to them. There is documented rural housing growth outside of the Village of Lansing which is likely to continue as a trend. Horticulture businesses and small scale farming oriented at direct marketing can benefit from urban/suburban growth if residents place a value on buying products from local businesses. Larger scale farms are concerned about the proximity of non-farming neighbors unfamiliar with typical farming activities. More cars and people in rural areas increase the need to educate rural residents about road safety and trespass issues. Development opportunities will also impact what residents who own land and currently rent to farmers will do in the future. Farmers are concerned about access to rented land. For some farmers who rent the majority of the land they farm, it could mean the end of their farming operation because there is little other land available to rent or buy. While many rural landowners indicate they prefer that their land is farmed , high taxes and development opportunities are likely to impact future decisions to rent land to farmers. 49 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS The Agriculture Plan for the Town of Lansing serves as a guidance document for Town officials to consider for the protection of valuable agricultural lands, in particular those with high quality soils that occupy the northern area of the town, and serves as a reference for planning and agricultural economic development. The recommendations in this plan reflect current conditions and therefore , in order to remain relevant, the plan will require that changes in agriculture and the community over time be monitored. PRIORITY ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Form a Town Agriculture Committee Appoint committee -define membership, describe duties/charge/mission, establish a regular meeting schedule It is recommended that the committee be comprised of at least 5 active farmers, a liaison from the Town Board, a liaison from the Planning Board, Town staff (zoning or planning), and at least 1 rural non- farmer landowner. Farm owners may include : dairy, livestock including horses, field crops , fruits, vegetables, Christmas trees, and other enterprises as defined as agriculture in this document. Liaisons may include representatives from agricultural organizations such as Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County or the Tompkins County Soil & Water District or other such person as deemed relevant to furthering the work of the committee. Set the committee charge It is recommended that the main function of the committee be to ensure a means for implementation of the agriculture plan; to prioritize recommendations and set a course for moving forward with plan components ; to review and update the plan periodically; to review site plans for proposed developments and to assess and provide input on their impact on agriculture; to provide input to the County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board on matters pertaining to the Agriculture District; and to host at least one annual farm community meeting to listen to concerns and needs. Additional suggestions for committee roles can be found in the appendix. B. Encourage farmers to be active on Town boards/committees 1) Recruit farmers to serve on Town Planning Board, Board of Zoning Appeals, and Conservation Committee, others as appropriate 2) Encourage farmers to run for Town Board C. Prioritize the following recommendations 1) Create a new Ag Zone in the predominantly agricultural area of north Lansing 2) Revisit the definition of agriculture in the current zoning document and consider revising it to reflect current farming activities and to be consistent with NYS Agriculture & Market Law 305a (as per recommendations on page xx of this report). 3) Continue to remain informed about the status of the NYSEG/AES land so that land currently rented by a farmer is available to farm after sale to a new owner, in particular if the owner is NYSDEC. 50 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN 4) Identify high priority area /parcels for State Farmland Protection funding to purchase permanent agricultural easements on farm land that is high quality and that serves as a buffer to protect other active farming areas of the town. Establish criteria for identifying such parcels and actively reach out to landowners to assess interest in selling agricultural easements. 5) Identify agriculture economic development needs and opportunities and make farmers aware of such opportunities to grow their farming enterprises. 6) Prioritize the goals and strategies found within the following chart that follows. 0. Goals and strategies to preserve farming and promote agriculture The following chart is based on input from the farming community on ways to strengthen agriculture. The recommendations provide ideas and opportunities for consideration by the Town Agriculture Committee and Town Board as they move forward with plan implementation. The planning committee has assigned High, Medium or Low priority to the recommendations and recognizes that the Town will want to partner with other agencies and organizations to move forward with some of these recommendations . It is anticipated that some recommendations are more feasible than others and that not all will be implemented. It is also anticipated that new priorities will emerge over time that will be addressed by the Town Agriculture Committee. E. Plan adoption 1) Provide input and recommendations as needed. 2) Host public hearing. 3) Town Board approval. 4) Forward to Tompkins County Agriculture & Farmland Protection Board for review. 5) Submit final plan to NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets for approval. 51 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Town of Lansing Agriculture & Farmland Protection Plan Implementation Chart Goals and Strategies to Preserve Farmland and Promote Agriculture INCREASE COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE'S BENEFITS Recommendation Implementation Actors Goal 1 -Increase general agriculture awareness and support for the Town's agriculture industry Town Right to Farm Law & State Ag District Law -education HIGH -short term 1-a & outreach lyr TOL AC; CCETC Strengthen real estate property disclosure in Ag Districts TOL AC; CCETC; Board (part of Ag District Law) HIGH -Ongoing Realtors Town website information about farming in the Town; HIGH -short term 1-b Town newsletter articles lyr TOL; CCETC Promote farm direct marketers and encourage residents to HIGH -short term Farm retailers; TOL; 1-c buy local lyr CCETC Road signage denoting when entering farming areas/ag MEDIUM -short 1-d zone term 2yr TOLHD Data gathering about farming in town -economic impact, 1-e trends MEDIUM -Ongoing TOL; CCETC Farm tours for Town officials, school staff, farm neighbors, 1-f youth, public MEDIUM -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC Classroom Education about farming/4-H ag clubs/ 1-g Community & School gardens MEDIUM -Ongoing LCSD; TOL AC; CCETC CREATE A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR FARMING Recommendation Implementation Actors Goal 1 -Infrastructure/policies important to farming 1-a Maintenance of roads & bridges -for heavy ag vehicles HIGH -Ongoing TOLHD HIGH -short term 1-b Access to high speed internet lyr TOL Review traffic/speed limits/signage in agriculture areas to TOL HD; Tompkins 1-c improve safety MEDIUM -Ongoing County 1-d Trespass control MEDIUM -Ongoing TC Sheriff 1-e Public utilities -municipal electric (wind, solar, hydro) MEDIUM -long term TOL Policies that enable farm-based renewable energy MEDIUM -short 1-f development term TOL Goal 2 -Limit non-farm development in agricultural areas 2-a County Agriculture District Law provisions/protection HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC/TC AFPB 2-b Limit water & sewer extension into agricultural areas HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC/TC AFPB Avoid development of prime and soils of statewide 2-c significance HIGH -Ongoing TOL/PB; TOL AC Create a new Agriculture Zoning district in dominant ag HIGH -short term 2-d areas lyr TOL/PB; TOL AC Goal 3-Create incentives to direct development away from agricultural areas 3-a Sewer development-South Lansing/Town Center Ongoing TOL 3-b Infill-density in South Lansing/Town Center (consider TDR) HIGH -Ongoing TOL/PB 52 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN TOL/PB; Better 3-c Affordable housing in South Lansing/Town Center HIGH -Ongoing Housing TC Ensure stormwater regulations are followed to avoid farm 3-d field damage HIGH -Ongoing TOL/Zoning Cost of services increases with scattered development - 3-e educate officials MEDIUM -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC Goal 4 -Tax policies that make owning farmland affordable Explore Town tax abatement through short term TOL AC; County 4-a easements to keep land in ag LOW -3-5 yrs Assessment Ensure fair farm property valuation practices by county TOL AC; County 4-b assessment MEDIUM -Ongoing Assessment Recommend to State to cap Agricultural Ceiling Value HIGH -short term 4-c increases & update formula lyr TOL AC; Farm Bureau Educate farmers/rural landowners about Ag Assessment if 4-e not receiving HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC Educate farmers about NYS Farmers School Tax Credit if 4-f not receiving HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE BEST FARMLAND AND ENCOURAGE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Recommendation Implementation Actors Goal 1 -Promote land stewardship to protect soil, water and environmental quality 1-a Encourage sustainable soil building farming practices HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC; SWCD Encourage farms to adopt/ follow nutrient management 1-b plans HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC; SWCD Make farmers aware of programs and funding to protect 1-c environmental quality HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC; SWCD Goal 2 -Protect the best land for farming Investigate options for short term easements (Lease Dev TOL AC; CCETC; 2-a Rights) MEDIUM -mid-term COUNTY PLO TOL AC; County 2-b Support town farmer applications for State PDR funding HIGH -Ongoing Planning Town co-hold easements on farms awarded State PDR 2-c funding LOW -future TOL 2-d Investigate Town PDR program and means to fund LOW -future TOL Educate landowners about benefits of renting/selling to 2-e town farmers HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC FARM FRIENDLY ZONING Recommendation Implementation Actors Goal 1 -Create an Agricultural zoning district that gives priority to farming and related enterprises Change most of the current RA district in North Lansing to a HIGH -short term 1-a new AG zone lyr TOL; Planning/Zoning Zoning laws should continue to permit ag commerce and HIGH -short term 1-b related enterprises lyr TOL; Planning/Zoning 53 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN Allow smaller ag enterprises in R3, RA, and Ag zones (farm 1-c markets, ag tourism} HIGH -Short term TOL; Planning/Zoning Ensure town staff (code/planning} are familiar with NYS Ag 1-d District Law HIGH -Short term TOL; Planning/Zoning Ensure local zoning is not in conflict with NYS Ag District 1-e Law HIGH -Ongoing TOL; Planning/Zoning Investigate zoning to cluster housing on poorer soil and 1-f maintain open farm land MEDIUM -mid-term TOL; Planning/Zoning Require developers to maintain buffer between housing & 1-g farmland in ag zone HIGH -short term TOL; Planning/Zoning Link Agriculture Plan with Comprehensive Plan ensuring HIGH -short term TOL: Comp plan 1-h common goals are met lyr committee STRENGTHEN THE FARM ECONOMY AND FUTURE VIABILITY OF FARMING Recommendation Implementation Actors Goal 1 -Strengthen the Farm Economy, Farm Viability and Agricultural Economic Development 1-a Deer management -list of hunters/places to hunt HIGH -Ongoing TOLAC; DEC Farm energy conservation and renewable energy 1-b development MEDIUM TOLAC 1-c Promote farm direct marketing opportunities and options MEDIUM TOLAC 1-d Timber Sales based on forest management plans HIGH -Ongoing TOLAC; DEC Landowner coalition to inform farmers about gas leasing TOL AC; DEC; CCETC; 1-e decisions/options HiGH -Ongoing FB Goal 2-Encourage new farming enterprises -promote new opportunities Identify organic farming, specialty crop, niche marketing 2-a opportunities MEDIUM -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC Encourage cooperative ventures among farmers to reduce MEDIUM -based on 2-b cost/secure markets demand TOL AC; CCETC Cooperative infrastructure (processing, marketing, MEDIUM -based on 2-c storage, equipment, etc.} demand TOL AC; CCETC MEDIUM -based on 2-d Link local farms and the Lansing School District demand TOL AC; CCETC MEDIUM -based on 2-e More local food production for local consumption demand TOL AC; CCETC Grants & funding info for new business development (info MEDIUM -short 2-f on Town website} term TOL AC; CCETC 2-g USDA slaughter facility space availability MEDIUM -Ongoing CCETC Goal 3 -Future Farmers/Farm Labor Increase high school student/guidance counselor 3-a awareness of farm careers HIGH -short term TOL AC; LCSD 3-b High school training/internship programs HIGH -short term TOL AC; LCSD 3-c Farm Business transfer information/education HIGH -Ongoing TOL AC; CCETC 3-d Farm job posting on Town website MEDIUM -mid-term TOLAC TOL AC; CU Migrant 3-e Hispanic families -future on farms/in community MEDIUM -Ongoing Program 54 Town of Lansing AGRICULTURE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION PLAN List of abbreviations TOL -Town of Lansing; AC -Ag committee; HD -Highway Dept. CCETC -Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County - Agriculture Program TCSWCD -Tompkins County Soil & Water District LCSD -Lansing Central School District FB -Farm Bureau DEC -NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 55 ,J " '1,1 - 's 1, Town of Lansing, N.Y. Zoning LANSING GENDATQWN LINE Ji _i F~MI 1-- t B Recommended Changes June 2015 Zoning Districts D Commercial Mixed Use (B1) D Commercial (B2) D Industrial/Research (IR) D Lakeshore (L 1) D Residential -Low Density (R1) D Residential -Moderate Density (R2) D Residential -Mixed Use (R3) D Rural Agricultural (RA) D Agriculture (AG) Source : Tompkins County Planning Dept Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance 2003 Tompkins County Assessment 2012 , 2014 N + C Tax Parcels 2014 D Municipal Boundaries Cayuga Lake Land in Agricultural Use I I Protected Agricultural Land D Leased Farmland 8,570 acres Farmed by Owner 8,472 acres Tompkins County Planning Dept COU NTY U NE RD 7 ;,. " ,.,. ! j., :-,,tr~_HllL-!W_ I ~ ;i \ -• -#· I AG ...... ,.,., ! ll i ti ,; 8 ~~f.MI l1 1 0.5 ~ ) ·mies ~ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 2 Project Overview 3 Town of Lansing: Existing Land Use Analysis 4 Form-Based Code: Background 11 Form-Based Code: Case Studies 14 Public Meeting Feedback 25 Form Based Code: Town of Lansing Example 26 Process Conclusions 32 Appendix 34 Bibliography 39 Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 3 Project Overview Design Connect is a multi-disciplinary, student-run, community design organization based at Cornell University. Design Connect assisted the Town of Lansing in its comprehensive planning process throughout the Fall of 2015. The project team explored the applicability of Form-Based Code, as well as other policy options for achieving the objectives of town officials and residents. Through the semester we have worked with several clients at the Town of Lansing including Board Member Ruth Hopkins, Planning Committee members Deb Trumbull and Larry Sharpsteen and Planning Consultant Mike Long. The Design Connect team has analyzed the use of Form-Based Code in comparable municipalities, the existing land use and zoning in the Town, and the local real estate market. This report summarizes the work and research the Design Connect team completed over the course of the semester. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 4 Town of Lansing: Existing Land Use Analysis The Town of Lansing currently uses a traditional, Euclidean Zoning system. Euclidean zoning is also commonly referred to as 'single-use zoning' because the primary motivation and focus of the regulations are use restrictions. In contrast, Form-Based Code prioritizes regulating the form of buildings over regulating use. In the Town of Lansing's existing code regulations, the intent of districts is described as "the land use control districts in the Town of Lansing have been established in furtherance of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and for the aspirational and non-regulatory purposes of the intents described" (p. 15). The zoning regulation details the intent of each of the 8 districts which have been simplified below. The full zoning regulations are found in the Town of Lansing's zoning ordinance, available on the Town's website. Commercial Mixed Use (Bl) -Areas where development will be encouraged to occur in ways that can lead to an identifiable focal point for the Town. Commercial (B2) -Areas where a range of retail, service and repair business, commercial and storage activities, light industry and similar land use activities that may not be compatible with objectives of the B 1 district. Industrial Research (IR) -Areas where some form of light manufacturing is appropriate. Lakeshore (Lt) -Areas that are adjacent or have access to the shoreline of Cayuga Lake. Residential -Low Density (Rt) -Areas where agriculture has been an historic use of land, but which areas are now primarily residential. Residential -Moderate Density (R2) -Areas where the expected and desired use of land is a mixture of varied types of residential development at a somewhat higher development density. Residential -Mixed Use (R3) -Areas where the use of the land will change from the most traditional agricultural uses of the community to a denser residential development depending, in part, upon introduction of public water and sewage. Rural Agriculture (RA) -Areas where farming and farm-related businesses are the predominant and desire land use activities. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell Zoning Designation Ill Setback Requ irement M ~!T .. ~£!'!~, Maximum Bu ilding Height B1 -Commercial Mixed Use 60 ft 50% 35 ft B2 -Commercial 60 ft 50% 35 ft IR -Industrial Research 60 ft 75% 35 ft R1 -Residential Low Density 60 ft 75% 35 fl R2 -Residential Moderate Density 60 ft 75% 35 fl R3 -Residential Mixed Use 60 fl 75% 35 ft RA -Rural Agricultural 60 ft 75% 35 ft Figure 3: Town of Lansing Zoning Bulk Requirements Building Height Beginning with the maximum building height, we found that the Target Area conforms relatively well to the zoning regulations. The maximum building height for all buildings in Lansing, regardless of the zoning district, is 35 feet unless a variance has been established. An obvious exception to conformity in maximum building height is Rogue's Harbor on Shore Drive. Other obvious structures not in compliance with the height requirement are various barns scattered throughout the target area which are clearly over the 35-foot maximum. Overall, we did not find building height to be an issue in terms of zoning regulation enforcement. We do not think raising this height limit would greatly impact development in the Town. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 7 10 Existing Zoning Conclusion Based on the analysis conducted the zoning in Lansing fairly well matches the existing infrastructure. Minimum open space and building height are essentially non issues. However, setback requirements are not well aligned with existing buildings. In order to continue development consistent with the character of existing buildings in Lansing it is worth considering adjusting the setback requirements or switching to an alternative zoning system. Even if Lansing does not implement a Form-Based Code or another full revision of its zoning ordinance, it would be worth evaluating whether building setbacks should be reduced in certain zoning districts. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell • Build-to lines: Most traditional zoning often regulates the built form of buildings with minimum and maximum requirements on various measures. Common 12 examples include: maximum building heights, maximum lot coverage ratios, maximum floor area-to-lot area ratios, and minimum parking spaces per residential unit. However, the property owner has a great amount of leeway within these minimums, and these maximums do not determine the specific form which development takes. Form-Based Code often includes build-to lines rather than building maximums. For example, rather than requiring a maximum front setback of 40 feet, Form-Based Code might require that any be building be set back exactly 40 feet. This can give community members more certainty about what form development will take. • Form over use: Although Form-Based Code has some restrictions on what uses are permitted in a given area, it usually restrictive use less than traditional zoning. Traditional zoning, which was adopted by most US municipalities in the early 1900s, often banned commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. This made neighborhood-serving corner stores or restaurants illegal in many places. Form- Based Code relaxes this type of restriction, under the idea that neighbors are more concerned about the scale of development than about use, with the exception of true nuisances such as factories. • Details of buildings: Form-Based Code often is implemented so that new development will fit with the existing buildings. This can include requiring that new developments include features typical of the community's preferred buildings . This could include porches, types of siding or windows, or maximum percentage of opaque street-facing fac;ade in key shopping streets . However, the regulation of this type of building detail is not a feature of all form-based codes. • Clear regulation with images: Zoning ordinances are often complex and difficult to understand, with long descriptions of each regulation. Form-Based Code often uses images to demonstrate the outcome of the regulation, which is typically more legible than text alone. Since Form-Based Code typically has more specific requirements, anyone can view these images and understand. An example from the Form-Based Code of Malta, NY is found in Figure 7 below. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell . RA--.2: llli!Jlwn'IOW!ll ~1'11131 Att'At:l'rlEll!II Case Studies r»" ■ rm ;1, ::idiid-.::1 m::1 --., .. ~ c1 ..-.iiul:ili,,..,,....,_·,1 • lli:! ~IEl:Z -n ■ ir:.i-_,_ ■ ~ ~ !!I . MllXm..Dl 1:1 ng i-l.!Hf!h:l!:l ~---RIE,ium,~l:.tlal. (.;-ic To explore how Form-Based Code could be applied to the Town of Lansing, the Design Connect team reviewed examples from other municipalities which share some characteristics with Lansing. These examples are found in the following sections. Team members reviewed the code in each municipality, spoke with town officials or consultants involved in each zoning process, and reviewed news articles which recorded each process and the reception of each code. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 13 15 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? The Form-Based Code was primarily created with the help of two consultants, Joel Russell of Northampton, Massachusetts, and Environmental Design & Research of Syracuse, New York. (Langdon, 3) Additionally, volunteer committee members and planning staff assisted with the process. (Langdon, 3) 4. How long did the implementation process take? The implementation process took nine years. The discussion of a FBC first began in 1994 with the development of the Congress Park Centre and the Code was finally adopted in 2003. (Langdon, 3) 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? According to a presentation prepared by Joel Russell for the Massachusetts Municipal Association in January, 2011, the initial public response to a FBC was one of both confusion and skepticism. Quotes included in that presentation indicated that residents in Saratoga feared that too much power would be given to the Planning Board and that a FBC would encourage overgrowth. (Russell, 25) 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? In Saratoga's comprehensive plan the downtown district was identified as a special development area. The transect model was applied to the downtown district and, as a result, the area was divided into three urban transect categories that replaced the existing zoning districts: the Urban Neighborhood (T-4), Neighborhood Center (T-5), and Urban Core (T- 6)." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) Design Standards were applied "for setbacks, height, parking location, street design, fac,:ade treatments, and creation of a public realm." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) All uses are permitted in the T-6 zone. Both the T-5 and T-4 zones require the issuance of a special use permit for any new proposed use through a "flexible review process." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) As of 2011, following the adoption of a FBC, the city of Saratoga Springs approved fifteen major projects that reflect over $200 million and over one million new square feet. (Russell, 28) Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement Form-Based Code? The Town of Malta sought to implement a Form-Based Code as a way of taking a "proactive approach towards preserving its community character while simultaneously capitalizing on new community investments" that had emerged from the development of the Luther Forest Technology Campus and the Global Foundries computer chip manufacturing facility. (Code Studio, 2) Malta desired "to create an attractive mixed use Downtown centered on an integrated multi-modal transportation network, with an improved and inviting pedestrian and bicycling environment." (Code Studio, 2) 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? 17 In addition to the Town Board and planning staff, several consultants were hired to assist with the implementation of a FBC in Malta. Code Studio based in Austin, Texas was hired to serve as lead consultants on the project. Code Studio "in turn enlisted a team of specialists" consisting of Third Coast Design Studio based in Nashville, Tennessee, Howard Stein Hudson Associates in Boston, Massachusetts, and Fuss & O'Neill in Hartford, Connecticut. (Code Studio, 2) 4. How long did the implementation process take? In 2011, the town of Malta's Downtown Plan "recommended that the Town develop a form-based (zoning) code and complete streets plan for downtown." (Code Studio, 2) Following the hiring of the consultants listed above, a consultant held a walking tour of downtown Malta in March, 2012. The tour led into a Charrette Week, held from March 24~ 28, 2012. A draft FBC was published in July, 2012. The FBC was subsequently adopted by the Town Board in February, 2014. (Town of Malta) The FBC was then revised by the Town Board in March, 2014, and finally adopted for a second time in May, 2015. (Town of Malta) 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? The initial public reaction to a FBC in Malta appears quite mixed. As reported in the Ballston Journal on February 5, 2013, while several officials praised the adoption of a FBC, one resident expressed the following: "I'm really concerned about the honesty of this board ... The people have spoken: we do not want this." (Erchak) It is important to note that the initial adoption of a Form-Based Code in Malta required revision in order to refine Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 18 architectural standards. During the revision process, other residents expressed their concern that this new form of zoning was "very restrictive." (Connor) 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? The revised FBC was adopted by Malta in May, 2015. As such, it is too early in the process to determine the success of the FBC at this point in time. Subsequent research at a later date would aid the assessment of the success of a FBC in Malta, NY, as presently, a prediction would be premature. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 19 Form-Based Code Case Study: St. Lucie County, FL 1. Why did we select this municipality? St. Lucie County is unique for its successful implementation of the first regional FBC called Town Village County Code (TVC). It is a transect-based SmartCode and includes a regional street network that aims at creating a sustainable growth pattern for the St. Lucie County. Like Lansing, St. Lucie County includes adjacent agricultural and residential areas. 2. Why did the municipality seek to implement FBC? It was created as a result of growth pressure on a 28-square mile agricultural area near Fort Pierce. The plan wants to focus development in new villages surrounding the concentrated farmland to keep the balance of rural vs. urban development throughout the county and protect 60-70% of rural citrus farmland. The TVC is an amendment in the Comprehensive Plan that ensures sustainable development characterized by a mix of uses, building types, income levels and pedestrian-friendly blocks and street network. It also gives emphasis to public open space, future agricultural practices and how to mitigate the environmental impact of new development in the area. 3. Who was involved in the process? Apart from the Planning Department of St. Lucie and the State Board of County Commissioners of Florida, who take a prominent role in urban planning decisions throughout the state, Dover Kohl and Partners is private firm that was hired for consultation and design. Residents of the county also actively participated, providing input during town meetings. 4. How long did the process take? The plan was completed in 2006 and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007. The approval for the first village however, Village of Sunset Lakes, was approved and implemented only in 2010. 5. What was the public reception? There was a lot of anticipation and collaboration among the Planning Board, residents and Dover Kohl and Partners during the planning process. Many farmer owners however were Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell skeptical of diminished development rights. 6. Were the FBCs successful? Although approved in 2007, implementation was delayed as a result of financial crisis in 2008. The first successful implementation in Village of Sunset Lakes in 2010 and received support from majority despite obstacles as a result of public participation. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 20 Form-Based Code Case Study: Beacon, NY ~r ~~~~ t~' ~~ ~-~J l~ -~t, --I ~-n-:iw~ . ,..,,r. ---·- ~ ~ -- ·--~-~ ....,. .--~ ... --~ -.:x. ■ tft_. ___ -!,_ Figure 10 : Beacon Zoning Code. Linkage District. Figure 21-0: Illustrative View of Proposed Linkage Zoning Requirements Figure 11: Main Street, Beacon . © 2015 Houlihan Lawrence. 1. Why did we select this municipality? 21 The City of Beacon, New York was selected as a case study for this report because it is an Upstate New York municipality of comparable size to Lansing, with a similar attachment to its beautiful natural environs. The code eventually adopted by Beacon makes use of a type of Form-Based Code that is often called Transect-Based code or SmartCode; the town's predominating transect being similar to what is found in Lansing. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 22 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement a Form-Based Code? The City of Beacon sought to use Form-Based Code as a way to spur new development in the corridor along Main Street between the East End and West End Districts and the Linkage district that runs from West End to the train station. The new zoning was meant to encourage appropriate infill development in these prime locations that fits with existing historic buildings and reflects the artistic, design-oriented community (Russell, Beacon Comprehensive Plan). 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? The Form-based code was developed and written by consultant Joel Russell of Northampton, Massachusetts with the overall concept, graphics and community outreach plans by John Clarke, Dutchess County Department of Planning. Community meetings were held in the town to facilitate explanation of FBCs and elicit public input. 4. How long did the implementation process take? The directive to write the Form-Based Code for the Main Street and Linkage districts in was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan that was developed between 2004 and 2007. The Form-Based Code itself was adopted in 2013 (Stowe, Russell). 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? In the public meetings, Form-Based Code was received as generally positive by the town of Beacon. Residents did have two primary concerns with respect to encouraging more development. First, residents cherish the view from downtown of Mt. Beacon and did not want buildings blocking that vista (Stowe). Second, people were concerned about gentrification, especially given the proximity to New York City. As a result, provisions for affordable housing were written into code Qoel Russell). 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? It is still too early to make an assessment on the success of Beacon's Form-Based Code. As of this writing, plans for new development have been submitted indicating interest b y developers. There have been a few hitches in the approval process for a few buildings that take advantage of the height ex ceptions allowed in code Qoel Russell). Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell and public meetings was the Town of Port Royal and the Town Supervising Planning Committee especially set up for the formulation of the TND plan for Port Royal. 4. How long did the implementation process take? 24 Dover-Kohl and Partners began working on TND for Port Royal in the initial months of 1995 and the code was adopted on 7th Dec 1995. The town further contracted Kohler and Dove for 5 years to review the plan twice a year. In 1997, an Overlay district code was adopted for the town that focused on existing development and built upon the existing TND plan for Port Royal. 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? TND was sought as a means of promoting community and economic development. It focused on promoting traditional houses, increasing home ownership, and increasing public participation. Dover and Kohl spent six months in residency in the town of Port Royal to get a better understanding of the town and the needs of the people. "Hands-on Saturday" were organized every Saturday which included focused group discussions, community mapping for both existing and required aspects. Because of intensive public participation, the plan was very well received by the public once adopted. 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? Traditional Neighborhood Plan for Port Royal was one of the first Form-Based Codes to be adopted across the United States. The TND plan for Port Royal (1995) was a thirty-page document with only thirteen pages of text; the rest were drawings. It focused on the principles of neighborhood, street, open space, parks, and lucratively attracting the "right kind of developers". In 1996, the Congress for New Urbanism ranked Port Royal's TND plan in top 10 TNDs in the United states. The plan has been very successful and Port Royal has been able to witness a boom in construction and redevelopment ever since the adoption of the Form-Based Code. A new Form-Based Code was adopted in 2014, built upon the TND adopted about 20 years ago. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 25 Public Meeting Overview and Feedback Summary On November 12th, the Design Connect team held a public meeting for residents of the Town of Lansing. The Town advertised the meeting to residents by sending out postcard notifications through the mail. We structured the meeting by introducing the definition of Form-Based Code, providing examples of places Form-Based Code has been implemented using our case studies, and eliciting feedback from community members on their initial impressions of form based code and their ideas for how it may or may not be implemented in Lansing. There were twenty-five residents in attendance. We started the public meeting with an informal meet and greet. We set up six flipcharts around the room and encouraged people to write their answers to questions such as "What do you like about Lansing?", "When I think of new development in Lansing, I think of. .. ", "What would you improve in your area?". The goal of the public meeting was to introduce the concept of Form-Based Code and get the public's initial impressions. "Terrible idea ... I cannot build a house where I want, and it has to look a certain way? ... / don't want any part of form based code." "I think we should improve on what we have, and preserve agriculture and the small town." "I believe FBC is exactly what is needed. It would take what works and incorporate it throughout main areas of town and provide consistency." Public feedback was mixed. Some people automatically associated Form Based Code with regulation and made it clear that they were not accepting of anything that could potentially damage agricultural land or change the bucolic feel of the town. The residents made it clear that they like the relaxing, family-oriented, agricultural nature of the town. Even after the presentation, there was still some confusion about the definition of Form-Based Code and how it differs from traditional Euclidean zoning. Team leaders facilitated a group discussion to provide clarification allow people to express their views. There were some residents who were more optimistic and saw Form-Based Code as an opportunity to incorporate their town's values into the built environment. People identified the intersection of "I think it would help to preserve the rural sections of the town by restricting growth to the area where 34 and 348 intersect." 34 and 34B as a potential target area for form based code. This public contribution was important as that intersection is part of the target area initially identified by our client. Please see Appendix for a full summary of public feedback collected at the town meeting. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 26 Form Based Code: Town of Lansing Example We have come up with an example of what Form-Based Code near the intersection of 34 and 34B could look like, based on characteristics of Rogues' Harbor. The community identified this historic inn and restaurant as one of the most-liked buildings in the Target Area. Form-Based Code functions on a rural to urban transect, with each zone varying by level of intensity of natural, built, and social components. Our first step was to identify which transect category the intersection of 34 and 34B would be categorized as; we identified the intersection as a T3 sub-urban zone. Using Rogues' Harbor as an example, characteristics of the primary walls, roof shape, openings and windows, attached elements and massing have been identified. Additional images of these characteristics are provided as reference. In addition to building characteristics, a diagram of potential setbacks and building heights design guidelines based on Rogues' Harbor, as well as standard T3 setbacks and building heights, has been created. The following pages show how the SmartCode can be adapted to serve this goal. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 32 Process Conclusions If the Town of Lansing determines that it is in the best interest of the community to move forward with the implementation process of Form-Based Code, based upon the analysis conducted for this report and observations made at public meetings with residents of Lansing as well as community representatives, the following steps should be considered. 1. I dentify a target area for implementation At the outset of this study, we were given a particular Target Area of focus within Lansing in which we to focus our inquiries. As such our report primarily addresses that particular area of Lansing. However, as a result of our study and findings, we believe that the selection of a target area for the implementation of Form-Based Code should be considered with increased public participation and input. Clear observations were made throughout the study that indicate residents of Lansing may have differing opinions as to which area in Lansing would benefit most from Form-Based Code. The implementation of Form-Based Code in one particular of the municipality location appeared from our study to be the most effective, as well as efficient, limiting factor of the implementation process. 2. Involve Public Public participation should be a key priority of the entire implementation process . Public involvement was a component of the municipalities identified as comparable case studies for Lansing and a notion mentioned at the public meetings held during this study. Based upon the understanding of Form-Based Code developed over the course of the project, it can be seen that the strength of the Form-Based Code adopted by a municipality greatly depends upon the extent to which the public of that municipality participates in the implementation process. 3. Identify Goals and Consider Alternatives Form-Based Code has proven useful in many contexts, but is not applicable or necessary in every context. Any preliminary public outreach should focus on identifying the Town's goals, and Town residents should consider whether Form-Based Code could achieve those goals. These goals may become more clear during the ongoing Comprehensive Plan process. The Town should then consider: whether the existing zoning code supports those goals; whether the existing code could be revised to support those goals; or whether a new zoning ordinance is needed to support those goals. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 33 4. Consider hiring a professional consultant or private firm Each of the relevant comparable municipalities that have adopted Form-Based Code, as identified in this report, has used professional consultants to assist the appropriate town officials and planning staff with the implementation process. There is no indication that Lansing would not benefit from contacting a professional consultant or private firm. Ideally, the prospective consultant will have experience with the implementation process of Form-Based Code and be familiar with Lansing's context in upstate New York. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 34 Appendix The Design Connect team posed the following questions posed to community members at the public meeting held November 12th , 2015. Community members answered questions in Section A on public posters; community members answered questions in Section B on individual handouts. Section A: 1. What do you like about Lansing? • People and rural quality • Open spaces • Family farms • Small • No large, public capital projects • Views • Houses that have lawns 2. What are your favorite places in Lansing? • Myers Park • Myhome • The library • Agricultural areas • Lake • Salt Pt., Myers, Belle Station 3. Which places are in need of work? • Rogue's Harbor Intersection • Flooded ditches on Ridge Rd • Any big areas of paving • Roads leading into 34/34B • Triphammer/ Asbury Rd intersection • Asbury Rd/E Shore Drive 4. What would you improve in your area? • Broadband access • Speed limit lowering • True openness to governance that listens to all • Traffic patterns • Nothing ... • Drainage Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell • Deaden the road noise from the salt trucks and traffic (noise walls?) 5. When I think ef new development in Lansing, I think ef. .. • Urban sprawl • Ways to get between neighborhoods • Unplanned development could hurt town's character • Groan • McMansions-not a good thing • A real need for collaboration across segments • Unmanageable traffic & increased taxes • Lansing median income = $25,600 • Only 4400 households and 11000 people • Traffic noise, light pollution 6. When I think ef open spaces and scenic views in Lansing, I think ... • Great Lansing feature, don't want to lose. • Views from main roads -sunset, lake • Places to get away • Ludlowville • Lake • Private farms • Salt point • "Secret" waterfalls Section B: 1. General Comments • Don't want to lose ability to have home on large lot without a lot of close neighbors • Location of new town center (there is none now). Highway traffic is a problem here. Town center could be moved a little, or traffic could be diverted 2. How might FBC work in Lansing? 35 • New development areas, South Lansing, Lansingville area around fire station and N. Lansing • Not practically suitable for Lansing unless it could be used to preserve open space • I think it would help to preserve the rural sections of the town by restricting growth to the area where 34 and 34B intersect • I believe FBC is exactly what is needed. It would take what works and incorporate it throughout main areas of town and provide consistency Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 36 • Terrible idea ... I cannot build a house where I want, and it has to look a certain way!? Who are you to tell me how my home/ dwelling has to look? Being 20 years old, it is hard enough for my generation to get on its own (grow up), don't want ANY part of form based code. Plus, taxes will raise through the roof, not that they are high enough already • Mixed feelings -Not sure if it will work given scope of community • Yes, must explain to people that it is not encouraging in the agriculture areas of the town • The town center area would be a perfect place to apply FBC • FBC will be very hard to use in much detail, though it could be helpful to delineate new development and direct in-fill development 3. If you had $5 million to do build atrythingyou'd like in the Town of Lansing, what would you build? • South Lansing-sidewalks, bike lanes, trees all the way to Myers and school zone; mixed use-inland amass from town fields • Something for indoor arrangement in winter, museum/ theater combination. Need Town Hall. • Sewer system that wouldn't burden the property owners too much starting in the area circles and expanding as funds become available. Funds from a small increase in property tax. • Town Center and sewer system to support larger businesses • Improve what we have. Make the old new and not just keep building and developing. 5 million can buy quite a lot of asphalt for our current roads. • Something to Increase Tax Base • A conference center or hotel on old cement plant • I wouldn't build anything since the huge unknown factor of the power plant. Possibly closing and the unaffordable tax rate that will turn this place into a ghost town. With close to 20% increase in taxes, I will sell my business and home and leave. • Town center area with mixed use similar to figure #5 Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 37 4. Please look at the pictures ef various development types below) and consider how suitable each type is for the Town if Lansing. ~ La rising -Design Connect REFERENCE DEVELOPMENT Please loo k at the pictures of va ,ous development types be low, and consid er how su ita!J le each type is for tile Town of Lans ing . Larger cop ies of th ese images are avai lable on th e ma in table_ figure 1 Pre-Emptio11 Rd, Geneva figure 2 IM'liletaif Dr. Ith aca Figure 3 Ba llsto n Spa, Oowntov.n Area II ....... • .• Fagure 4 SiAclair street. Skaa.ea:tlles Figure 5 Saratoga Mixed 'Use Housing 01 figure6 Bea coo Main Slreet figure 7 Sarat0gi1 Housing figure 3 Grand Avenue Au bum Figure 9 Matta Hou:silg Development F,gme 11 Poets Landi ng, Dryden Figure 11 Saratoga Housing 11 Fiuure 12 Saratoga Mixed. Use Ho using 02 5. Additional comments from #4 above : AveI"age Snitability Scores according to residents ( 1-]east smtab]e; 5-most suitab]e) F igme 1 2.428 F igme2 3.25 F igme 3 2.428 F igme4 3.375 F igm,e 5 2.375 F igme6 2 F igme 7 2.875 F iigme 8 1.875 F igme9 2.375 F igme 10 2.571 F igm,e 11 2.571 F igme 12 2.125 • All except 3, 6 and 12 are striking for the absence of trees or other natural vegetation. They are uninspiring. Lansing in contrast has pieces that offer vistas, with hedge pieces. Triphammer Mall north of the mall. If these fields are to be developed, then aesthetic consider [illegible] in form based code become irrelevant. If a town center is to be created, it is a good model. • 3/6: Area where East Shore Drive/34B intersect, 7 /9: Triphammer Rd, 11/1: Along 34B North of Salmon Creek but South of Lansingville Rd; 4/2: Keep this where it is, east of the schools and Triphammer Road • 2-Cayuga Vista Drive, 10-Triphammer Road north of [Michauleous] • I think we should improve on what we have, and preserve agriculture and the small Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 38 town. • None are really appropriate. Lansing generally has broad setbacks of cul-de-sac type neighborhoods • Can't really match Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell 39 Bibliography "Article XVI: Downtown Malta Form-Based Code." Welcome to an Engaged Community. http:/ /www.malta-town.org/index.aspx?NID=285. Barden, Susan. "Discussion with Senior Planner of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning and Economic Department." Interview by Sean McGee. October 13, 2015. Beacon) New York Comprehensive Plan and Draft G eneric Environmental Impact Statement. 17 December 2007. http://cityo fbeacon.org/Pdf/Beacon_ Comprehensive_Master_Plan . pdf. Connor, Bob. "Malta to Tweak New Zoning Code." Ballstown Journal, March 18, 2014. Connor, Bob. "Malta Seems Likely to Adopt Architectural Standards." Ballstown Journal, July 22, 2014. Erchak, Wyatt. "Town of Malta Taking Form." BallstownJournal, February 13, 2013. Form-Based Codes: A Step-ly-Step Guide for Communities. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Metropolitan Agency, 2013. Langdon, Phillip. "The Not-So-Secret Code." The American PlanningAssociation -Special Section on New Urbanism,January (2006): 1-5. www.gatewayplanning.com/ APA/The Not-So- Secret Code. pdf. Malta Downtown Charette Report. Malta, New York: Code Studio, 2012. Parolek, Daniel G., and Karen Parolek. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners) Urban Designers) Municipalities) and Developers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Perez, Tony. "Misconceptions About Form-Based Codes -Form-Based Codes Institute." Form-Based Codes Institute. October 20, 2014. Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell http://formbasedcodes.org/ articles/ misconceptions-form-based-codes. Rangwala, Kaizer. "Why Design Guidelines, on Their Own, Don't Work -FBCI." Form- Based Codes Institute. December 22, 2010. http://formbasedcodes.org/ articles/ design- guidelines-dont-work. Revette, Marci. "Malta Adopts New Downtown Zoning." The Spotlight News, February 6, 2013. 40 Rouse, David, and Nancy Zobyl. "Form-Based Development Codes." Zoning Practice May 2004, no. Five (2004): 1-8. https:/ /www.planning.org/zoningpractice/2004/pdf/may.pdf. Russell,Joel. "Introduction to Form-Based Codes." Lecture,January 1, 2011. Russell, Joel. Consultant, Form-based code, Beacon, NY. Phone interview. Conducted by Stephen Wiley, 15 October 2015. Stowe, Boyd. "Beacon's New Form-Based Zoning For Central Main Street And The Linkage Zone". Beacon Streets Blog. http:/ /www.beaconstreets.com/ post/ 6205064 7967 /beacons-new-form-based-zoning-for- central-main Town of Lansing -Design Connect Cornell