HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2023-06-14
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N. Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
6/5/2023
TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee:
Rob Rosen, Chair
Bill Goodman
Eric Levine
Eva Hoffmann
Chris Jung
Ariel Casper
FROM: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting – June 14, 2023
The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, June
14, 2023, at 5:30 pm in the Aurora Conference Room, located in Town Hall at 215 North Tioga
Street. A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town Board may be present at this meeting. However,
no official Town Board business will be conducted.
The following items are attached:
1. Minutes from the May 10, 2023, COC meeting.
2. Technical memorandum relative to Chapter 234: Subdivision of Land regulations
amendments approach.
If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Abby Homer as soon as possible at (607) 273-
1747, or ahomer@town.ithaca.ny.us.
cc: Susan H. Brock, Attorney for the Town
Dan Tasman, Senior Planner
Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement
Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk (email)
Town Administrative staff (email)
Town Board Members (email)
Town Code Enforcement staff (email)
Town Planning staff (email)
Town Public Works staff (email)
Media
TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be held in person in the Aurora Conference Room, Town Hall,
located at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, with an option for members of the public to
join the meeting via Zoom. The Zoom link is below.
Join Zoom Meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/6750593272
Meeting ID: 675 059 3272
Dial in #: 1(929) 436-2866
Meeting of June 14, 2023– 5:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Member comments/concerns.
2. Review minutes from May 10, 2023, COC meeting.
3. Approve scope of work for Chapter 234: Subdivision of Land regulations (existing
regulations: https://ecode360.com/8660770).
4. Review technical memorandum for Chapter 234: Subdivision of Land regulations
prepared by Dan Tasman, Senior Planner.
5. Other business:
• Discuss draft minutes distribution timing.
• Next meeting agenda.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
June 5, 2023
1
TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC)
Meeting of May 10, 2023 – 5:30 pm
Town Hall Aurora Conference Room
Draft Minutes
Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair, Ariel Casper, Eric Levine & Chris Jung.
Members excused: Eva Hoffmann & Bill Goodman.
Staff Present: Christine Balestra, Planner; Dan Tasman, Senior Planner; C.J. Randall, Director of
Planning; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town (via
Zoom).
Guests: None
The meeting began at 5:35 p.m.
1. Member comments/concerns. Rob mentioned the town’s website “add to calendar” feature
shows only one hour for the COC meeting. Chris B clarified that the committee has always met
for two hours. The committee discussed the calendar; it was determined the COC prefers an end
time added to the online calendar meeting. This topic was discussed further under Other
Business and was finalized later in the meeting.
Rob confirmed the COC members in attendance. Chris B mentioned that Eva called the town hall
prior to the meeting but staff was unable to connect to verify if she would be attending. Chris
sent Bill a message from the meeting, and he confirmed he needed to be excused as well. It was
noted that the COC is a six-member committee and requires four members in-person for a
quorum.
Chris B introduced Senior Planner Dan Tasman as the planning staff member taking over the
COC meetings as coordinator and Planning Department staff support. Chris B will slowly phase
out of the regular COC meetings. However, her role as a Planner in the department will continue
and she will provide assistance whenever needed. Eric thanked Chris B for her “fantastic” long
time service to the committee.
2. Review minutes from February 15, 2023, COC meeting. Small corrections were made by the
attorney. Eric moved to approve the February 15, 2023, minutes as corrected; Ariel seconded.
All members voted in favor of approval.
3. Review 2023 Codes and Ordinances Committee Work Plan. CJ explained that the proposed
work plan was drafted with input from Public Works and Engineering Departments, Attorney for
the Town, and Codes Department staff. Four Town Code sections were noted as priority - the
highest being the need to revise the Subdivision regulations to be consistent with NYS Law and
the Town’s Comprehensive Plan goals. The three others included developing Institutional
Zoning, amending Stormwater Management Erosion and Sediment Control regulations, and
2
amendments to the Town Water and Sewer Code. CJ welcomed any comments or questions on
the draft 2023 COC Work Plan and noted that it is a guide for the future work of the committee.
Rob asked for a general breakdown of the Planning Department staff and asked about the
interconnections with Engineering Department staff resources. CJ shared the Town’s
organizational chart on the screen, which showed the various departmental positions and roles.
She explained each of the Planning Department positions and roles and briefly noted the
Engineering and Public Works positions and roles as well.
Dan Tasman then shared an informative slideshow that summarized the issues and potential
solutions associated with the Town Subdivision regulations, highlighting that some of the
existing rules have led to undesirable outcomes (e.g., indiscriminate use of flag and odd shaped
lots, underdeveloped land with high density zoning capability, cluster subdivisions with open
space of questionable value and poor road interconnectivity, etc.). Dan explained that the town
needs more detailed and current subdivision regulations, along with road specifications, and
design standards to apply to new developments to eliminate substandard roads, and rural type
roads in more suburban and urban settings and outdated provisions. The overall intent is to
replace the subdivision law with an easy to use and administer set of regulations that give more
certainty to subdividers and stakeholders, prevent waste of land, create better places to live,
help implement the 2014 Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans, and make todays best
practices in subdivision design and resource protection the standard.
The committee applauded Dan for the presentation and had no suggested changes to the
proposed 2023 Work Plan.
4. Review proposed scope of work for Chapter 234: Subdivision of Land regulations: The scope of
work that was included in the COC mailout was reviewed. A summary of the project was
included with the policy issues, the resources needed, and the key deliverables with tasks on
proposed committee schedule. CJ explained that this COC meeting was the “kick off” for the
scope of work, and that the end draft/final deliverable suitable for Town Board adoption was
anticipated by mid-June 2024. One COC member noted that the schedule was ambitious, and CJ
assured the member that the timeline was realistic. The next step will be a technical memo
containing the vision process and a conceptual storyboard for development. This is expected at
the next COC meeting in June. CJ noted that identifying the stakeholders in the process was a
priority.
Rob recommended that the committee review the scope of work presented for the project in
detail and consider it for approval at the next meeting. In the meantime, staff will work on the
technical memo for the June meeting.
5. Other business:
• Discuss next meeting date (June 14, 2023); future dates and times. The COC decided
to keep the meeting dates the same, but to reduce the length of the meetings to 90
minutes long, from 5:30pm to 7:00pm. Staff will add this to the town website’s online
meeting calendar.
• Discuss digital packets versus paper mail outs. Chris B offered members the option to
receive digital meeting packets versus paper mail outs. Members changing to digital
packets include Ariel and Chris J (Bill was later added to the digital list). Rob and Eric
3
would still receive paper copies for the mailout (Eva later added to remain on paper
list).
• Rob requested an earlier mailout/committee receipt of meeting materials. He
suggested that the committee receives materials a full week prior to the COC meetings.
Staff noted that internal administrative deadlines would need to be adjusted.
• One member suggested using a SharePoint repository for electronic document access
and C.J. noted that this could be explored if file set up and administration were
handled closely. FOIL and public document records, public access, and the Open
Meetings Law were also briefly discussed in relation to SharePoint.
• Next meeting (6/14) agenda. C.J. and Rob noted they would meet to set up the
monthly meeting agendas.
Susan Brock thanked Chris Balestra again for her “spectacular” service to the COC and noted that she
has been an incredible asset and will be missed. Rob seconded this sentiment.
The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
The next meeting of the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) will be held
Wednesday, June 14, 2023 from 5:30 pm to 7 pm.
Subdivision Code 2.0: Technical Memo
Codes and Ordinances Committee
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
14 June 2023
This page is intentionally blank. :)
1
Subdivision Code 2.0 Technical Memo
Codes and Ordinances Committee
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
14 June 2023
Cover image created with Midjourney.
❶ Introduction
The Town first adopted subdivision regulations in 1956.
Updates and amendments in the 67 years that followed
were built on the code’s original foundation. In many
ways, the subdivision code still reflects a rural town’s
(formerly) ambivalent outlook towards planning and land
use regulation; the Town’s subdivision code no longer
provides an effective and efficient response to current and
future development issues. Many of its provisions (or lack
of certain regulations) are contrary to what’s considered
good planning practice in 2023.
This technical memo describes how subdivision
regulations work, and how the Town’s current subdivision
code doesn’t work in many situations. It also has a brief
overview of how Planning staff propose to fix it: by starting
from scratch, with new regulations that consider the
Town’s planning goals, and contemporary planning
practice. The new code will also be easier to read and use.
Most of its standards will be prescriptive and predictable,
and provide far more certainty to land owners and
developers.
This report – really, a long memo – isn’t intended to
substitute for a full diagnostic analysis or review of the
Town’s subdivision code.
In this report, “subdivision code” or just “the code” refers
to Ithaca Town Code Chapter 234; the Town’s subdivision
regulations.
❷ Subdivision regulations 101
Subdivision regulations govern platting; the division and
layout of lots, and provision of related roads,
infrastructure, and amenities.
Subdivision regulations have two major substantive
elements: 1) physical or design standards, and 2) the
entitlement or approval process.
Design standards. This covers the general size and shape
of lots, their relationship to other lots and various
manmade and natural features, access, required
infrastructure and utilities, configuration and layout of
streets (which give access to individual lots), required areas
for parks or community uses, and the like. Along with
zoning regulations, the design standards in subdivision
regulations are a recipe of sorts for how to lay out a
neighborhood or community. (The Town of Ithaca’s
subdivision code currently has only very basic physical
standards.)
Entitlement process. This describes the process of
creating and approving or denying a plat, which is a legal
document depicting areas of land that can be individually
owned. It covers the types of approval (administrative by
staff, or involving a planning board and public meetings),
the criteria for the approval type to use, and the process of
those approval types. It also has regulations about vesting
(how long a plat or lot plan stays valid if a subdivider
doesn’t take any action to go to the next step), building
improvements, required utilities, performance guarantees
(assurance that the subdivider will build all improvements,
and guarantee them for a short time after they’re finished),
dedicating roads and parks to the public, development
and maintenance agreements between the subdivider and
local government, master planning and phasing (for large
subdivisions), and the like.
Subdivision regulations will also have sections for an
introduction, and specialized terms and definitions.
Historically, subdivision regulations were usually
standalone documents, separate from zoning codes.
Contemporary subdivision regulations are often part of a
larger unified development code or ordinance (UDC,
UDO), which includes all planning-related regulations in
one document or municipal code chapter.
Subdivision review processes
There are two basic kinds of review processes in most
subdivision regulations; a minor subdivision, and major
subdivision.
Minor subdivision: a subdivision plat that municipal staff
can review and approve. Minor subdivision actions usually
include moving lot lines, splitting a lot into two where
there’ll be no new road or utility distribution line
construction (and it’s not part of a series of successive
splits), merging lots (in rural areas), and creating a lot for
utility purposes.
Major subdivision: a subdivision plat that a planning
board approves through a public review process. Major
subdivision actions usually include creating more than one
new lot, subdivisions with new or extended roads or utility
distribution lines, and creating lots that meet certain
criteria for exceptions to prohibited lot types, like flag and
double frontage lots.
2
Other types of review processes are usually variants of the
major subdivision or minor subdivision process; for
example, a regular minor subdivision that needs planning
board approval, and a minor exempt subdivision that
requires only staff approval.
(The Town’s subdivision code doesn’t distinguish between
a minor or major subdivision. Technically, all plats need
Planning Board approval, although the Town Engineer is
empowered to approve some simple subdivision actions.
Internally, subdivision names include the number of lots
involved, but not necessarily created; a “2 lot subdivision”,
“3 lot subdivision”, and so on. This is not standard practice
elsewhere.)
The review process for a major subdivision
will usually have two stages: preliminary plat
and final plat.
Preliminary plat: initial proposed plan or
layout of a subdivision. It includes a
conceptual but detailed design of the
proposed subdivision, including lot layout,
street layout, utility plans, drainage plans,
and other relevant details. It serves as a
basis for evaluating the feasibility and
appropriateness of the proposed
subdivision. For large projects, it also
includes a phasing plan, showing areas that
will be formally subdivided and built at
different times.
Final plat: a more detailed final plan that
becomes the official legal documentation of
an approved subdivision. A final plat is
based on the approved preliminary plat. It
includes any changes, modifications, or
conditions that the planning board and
municipal staff identified or imposed during
the preliminary plat review process. A final
plat includes precise boundary lines, lot
dimensions, road specifications, utility
locations, easements, notes about
conditions, and other details.
Building out a large subdivision with a
phasing plan involves approval of two or
more final plats over a period of months or
years; a separate final plat for each phase
on the preliminary plat.
Final plat approval includes approval of
other binding documents and agreements,
like a performance guarantee (bond or
other financial guarantee that improvements
will be built), a warranty for any improvements, and
development and maintenance agreements. (The Town of
Ithaca’s subdivision regulations don’t require complete
improvements or a performance guarantee before final
plat approval.)
A final plat becomes “official” when the chair of a planning
board (or, in some communities, a mayor or equivalent)
signs the plat. Most communities will only allow final plat
signing and recording after all improvements are built, or
there is financial surety to assure they will be built. (The
Town’s subdivision code is an outlier in allowing a final plat
to be signed and recorded before improvements or
financial surety.)
Flowchart of the subdivision review process from
the Buffalo Green Code. Buffalo’s code also has an
administrative “exempt” process for subdivisions or
lot adjustment affecting a relatively small area.
3
Minor subdivision approval usually combines the
preliminary and final plat review processes into a single
stage, with review and approval (or denial) by municipal
staff.
Certain parts of the subdivision review process are subject
to state-imposed time constraints, known as “shot clocks”.
If that part of the subdivision review process takes longer
than the shot clock limit, Town Law considers it approved
by default.
Subdivision categories
Subdivision codes usually define at least two categories of
subdivisions; conventional subdivision, and cluster or
conservation subdivision.
Conventional subdivision: a basic subdivision, with
individual lots that meet zoning code requirements for lot
width and size.
Cluster subdivision: a residential subdivision where lot
shapes and sizes result in a tight grouping of houses.
Land outside the house grouping is left unbuilt, as an open
space or public park lot. Lots may be smaller than what
the zoning code requires, but the overall density of the
subdivision will be the same as for a (conceptual)
conventional subdivision on the site.
(The Town’s subdivision code allow conventional and
cluster subdivisions. While cluster subdivision
requirements elsewhere usually require at least 30% to
50% (if not more) of the subdivision area to be dedicated
open space, the Town’s subdivision code only requires
open space on at least 10% of the subdivision area; same
as a conventional subdivision. )
New York State Town Law doesn’t allow a housing density
bonus for cluster subdivision. Housing density bonuses
may be a part of zoning or a unified development code,
though. (The Town allows increased density for cluster
subdivision through a creative interpretation of the law,
allowing principal housing unit to substitute for a
permitted accessory housing unit.)
Conservation subdivision: a cluster subdivision where
environmentally sensitive areas, land around creeks or
ponds, prime agricultural soils, or areas offering scenic
views is reserved and protected in dedicated common
open space or public park lots. Building is allowed on the
remaining land. Like a cluster subdivision, subdivision
codes usually allow conservation subdivisions to have the
same housing density as a conventional subdivision would
have on the site. Most codes offer density bonuses,
increasing the number of permitted housing units,
depending on the amount of open space.
Conventional vs conservation subdivision.
Contemporary subdivision codes may have additional
subdivision categories, like the following.
Infill subdivision: development on vacant or formerly
developed land (brownfield, grayfield) on a site
surrounded by mostly developed lots. It also includes
increasing the intensity of development in a subdivision
that was platted for lot sizes that are much larger than the
minimum lot size in the underlying zoning district. This
also includes backland subdivision; consolidating and re-
platting overgrown backyard areas on deep, relatively
narrow lots in long established neighborhoods.
Traditional neighborhood development (TND):
development in the form of a traditional village or older
urban/suburban neighborhood, usually with a central main
street or village square, a wide variety of housing types
and lot sizes, and streets with sidewalks, laid out in
interconnected blocks. The New Neighborhood Code,
separate from the Town’s zoning and subdivision
regulations, includes the standards for planning and
platting traditional neighborhood development.
Hamlet subdivision: a variant of traditional neighborhood
development that takes the form of a small traditional
hamlet, usually in a semi-rural setting. A hamlet
subdivision is one alternative to a rural strip (frontage) or
large lot subdivision.
❸ What needs fixing in our subdivision
regulations?
To paraphrase Randall Arendt (the author of several papers
and books about conservation development) the Town’s
current subdivision code emphasizes the fragmentation of
land, not the creation of proper neighborhoods of homes
and relationships, protection of working lands and
sensitive environmental features, and preservation of rural
and natural landscapes. The original authors of the Town’s
4
subdivision code were writing it for what was an almost
exclusively rural community in the 1950s. The Town didn’t
stay that way for long, but the subdivision code didn’t
keep up with the changes. The code now undermines
efforts to implement many aspects of contemporary best
planning practice, and many placemaking goals in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The following describes major deficiencies in the Town’s
current subdivision regulations. They don’t apply to
platting for traditional neighborhood development, which
is controlled by neighborhood design and subdivision
regulations in the New Neighborhood Code. For the sake
of brevity, this report doesn’t list all the problems,
shortcomings, and loopholes in the subdivision code that
Town staff has found or dealt with. Also, this technical
report doesn’t substitute for a “deep dive” code
diagnostic, so it won’t go into detail about all the possible
fixes for the problems that Section 3 described.
Code usability
The Town of Ithaca first adopted its subdivision code in
March 1956. In the following years, a couple of overhauls,
and countless amendments, addressed new issues as they
came up. On their own, these changes were well
intentioned, and sometimes desperately needed.
Together, they added up to a cluttered and disorganized
planning framework.
The subdivision code’s outline scheme is difficult to
navigate. Section numbers have little or no relation to
specific topics. The many layers of chapters, articles,
sections, and subsections make it difficult for users to find
and cite regulations or processes. The relationship
between different rules and processes affecting a project
can be unclear.
The Town’s legacy subdivision and zoning codes are both
largely text-based, with long passages of legal English.
Wordy, vague, and inconsistent language can make
January 6, 1960: The Ithaca Journal dedicates its back page to booming development in Northeast Ithaca. “… the area has no fo rm of government, its cohesion
depending on its newness and proximity to (employment centers)"
5
interpretation difficult. The codes often use long
paragraphs to set out a regulation that could otherwise be
condensed to a short sentence or two. The print versions
of the subdivision code offers few navigational cues to its
readers. The codes also lacks tables, drawings, and
flowcharts that would help explain its regulations.
Flag lots
A flag lot (also called a pork chop lot or hammerhead lot)
has the shape of a flag, with a long, thin “flag pole”
connecting the main portion of the lot to a street. Houses
on flag lots are sited behind other lots, usually with its
front facing the back side of another house on a normal
street frontage lot. Occasionally, flag lots are stacked
behind each other, with two or three “flag poles” next to
each other.
Most subdivision codes only allow flag lots for rare
situations, usually when there’s a physical barrier making it
impossible to create a more normal lot pattern. However,
the Town’s subdivision code allows flag lots under any
circumstance. Subdividers in the Town of Ithaca often use
flag lots as a cost saving measure, so they don’t have to
build any new roads or other improvements. However,
this passes on the cost of building and maintaining long
private driveways and utility lines to the homeowner.
Flag lots result in houses (and residents) that lack a strong
relationship to the street and the rest of the
neighborhood, isolating them physically from their
neighbors. Those living on flag lots are at the total mercy
of their neighbors for preserving views or quiet enjoyment
of their land. Houses on flag lots can be difficult for both
casual visitors and first responders to find. It increases
postal and parcel delivery route distance. A flag lot
subdivision on a large lot limits future road access to
Criticism of the Town’s subdivision regulations, from the August 10, 1965 Ithaca Journal. While attitudes towards planning in the Town have changed dramatically
since then, the foundation of the Town’s subdivision code remains the same.
Flag lots in the Town.
6
neighboring lots, and undermines creation of a porous
street network. Closely spaced driveways – often lined
with tall fences or shrubs that block views of oncoming
traffic – can be a traffic hazard.
Frontage subdivision
Frontage subdivision (also called strip subdivision) consists
of residential lots along existing collector and arterial
roads, usually in rural areas. It’s the result of incremental,
piecemeal lot splitting from much larger parent lots, with
no long-term planning. It’s a common phenomenon in
the Town of Ithaca, and many other rural-urban fringe
communities in upstate New York.
As with flag lots, some landowners use frontage
subdivision to avoid building new roads. The town,
county, or state unintentionally subsidizes frontage
subdivision, because taxpayers paid to build the road that
the lots sit on.
Frontage subdivision undermines the rural character that
Ithaca and its residents value highly, and otherwise want to
preserve. With the sight of house after house along a road
in an outlying area, a streetscape loses its character and
sense of place, and becomes something that’s not quite
rural, and yet not quite suburban either. Frontage
subdivision removes the greater public’s ability to enjoy
the landscape, in favor of those who live along the road.
Often, the people who live on frontage lots will resist
future development on the land behind their backyards,
because it’ll block a view they feel belongs to them.
Frontage subdivision also fragments farm land, natural
habitat, and wildlife migration corridors. Over time, the
remnant parcel of successive frontage subdivision
becomes a flag lot of its own making, with access limited
to increasingly narrower narrow strips between roadside
lots.
Multiple driveways along rural roads result in frequent
vehicle turning movements, causing congestion and
increased risk of accidents.
Farmers often justify frontage subdivision as something
that helps maintain their income during a lean year.
However, programs like County-designated, New York
State Certified Agricultural Districts (and its favorable tax
treatment), were originally intended to help stabilize
farmers’ incomes and reduce the need for subdivision to
generate income.
Agricultural activity is often intensive. Farm work usually
starts early in the morning. Noise, dust, and odor is
unavoidable. Subdividing pieces of farmland for
residential use creates a situation where residents “come
to the nuisance.” The Town’s Code § 270-39 (Right to farm)
doesn’t necessarily decrease the chances of conflict
between new residents and long-established farmers.
Inefficient land use from piecemeal subdivision
Mark Twain said, “Buy land, they're not making it
anymore”. The Town of Ithaca makes up 30.3 square miles
(19,385 acres, 78.4 square kilometers), and that number is
unlikely to change. An inefficient lotting pattern consumes
farmland, open areas, and potentially valuable land that
could easily accommodate denser development, much
faster than if a more efficient lot pattern.
The Town’s subdivision regulations don’t control the size
and shape of lots, except to say that lot area, width, depth,
and orientation must be “appropriate,” and meet zoning
code minimum lot size and dimension requirements (Town
Code §234-24 C).
Land division in the Town often takes place on a piecemeal
basis, with no planning for efficient land use or future
subdivision. Many of the new parcels resulting from lot
splits are much larger than the minimum lot size under
zoning, but have a configuration or shape that prevents
later subdivision. Piecemeal lots also need longer roads
and utility lines to serve them – with drop length limits
imposed by the internet and television utility often coming
as a surprise during subsequent home construction –
increasing the cost of maintenance compared to a more
efficient lot pattern.
Frontage subdivision on Mecklenberg Road.
From an article about “selective communities” in Tompkins County.
Ithaca Journal, August 28, 1975.
7
Street layout
The subdivision code has few regulations about street
layout, except limiting block length to 1,500’ (about 460
meters) and cul-se-sacs to 1,000’ (about 300 meters),
unless the Planning Board “determines necessary.” One of
the many discretionary rules in the subdivision code states
“The lengths, widths, and shapes of blocks shall be
determined with due regard to the provision of building
sites suitable to the special needs of the type of uses
contemplated, zoning requirements as to lot sizes and
dimensions, need for convenient access, circulation,
control and safety of highway traffic, solar access and the
limitations and opportunities of topography.”
The code is silent on connectivity, aside from a
requirement that “The arrangement of streets in the
subdivision shall provide for the continuation of the
principal streets in adjoining subdivisions or for their
proper projection when adjoining property is not
subdivided.” (There’s no definition for a “principal street,”
however.) Otherwise, there’s no language that requires
connection to neighboring subdivisions, or a street pattern
with provisions for future connectivity.
Conventional and cluster subdivision that don’t connect, along with frontage
subdivision. South Hill, Town of Ithaca.
Inadequate street design and construction specifications
Most cities, towns, and villages in New York have official
street, sidewalk, and infrastructure design and construction
specifications. The Town of Ithaca is an exception. Aside
from requiring that public roads be paved, and able to
accommodate and support the weight of emergency
vehicles, there are no official road or sidewalk construction
specifications. The Public Works Department has one
“recommended” road profile, for a rural context road with
shoulders and ditches. The profile has no options for
sidewalks, curbs, or tree lawns, and it’s not binding.
Engineering and design specifications for new roads are
usually negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The Town is
also an outlier in not requiring subdividers to guarantee
new roads for a time after they’re dedicated to the Town.
Most subdivision codes set minimum construction
standards for private roads; usually that they must meet
the same standards as public roads. The Town’s
subdivision code has no requirements for private roads,
except a policy that they can accommodate and support
the weight of emergency vehicles. The result has been
private roads that deteriorate after a few years or have a
gravel surface despite carrying hundreds of vehicles per
day.
Lack of criteria for siting and quality of open space
The subdivision code requires at least 10% of the land area
in a subdivision to be dedicated to parkland or common
open space. This 10% minimum applies to both
conventional and cluster subdivisions, even though the
intent of a cluster subdivision is to preserve open space by
allowing smaller lots than the zoning code minimum.
There’s no criteria for the siting, accessibility, quality, or
connectivity of dedicated open space. Open space areas
in Ithaca’s subdivisions are often on remnant sites; an
afterthought after streets and lots are laid out. Open
space areas often consist of strips or odd-shaped parcels
hidden behind backyards. These areas are functionally
private, even though they may be publicly owned. Such
sites also aren’t defensible; being located so far outside
the obvious public realm (streets, sidewalks), they’re
difficult to police. Neighbors have opposed the
improvement of hidden parks in some cases, and the Town
has effectively abandoned them.
Woolf Lane Park; a Town park hidden behind backyards in northwest Ithaca.
Conflicting policies on phasing
The subdivision code allows subdivision phasing plans,
showing groups of lots to be approved as separate final
subdivisions over time. However, unofficial Town policy
discourages utility and infrastructure phasing. The
outcome favors small, scattered projects over larger
projects. With the Town’s moderate growth rate, and small
builders and developers with limited resources, this policy
makes it impractical to plan for or build all the
8
infrastructure for a larger subdivision or new
neighborhood at one time. Small builders have more
exposure to financial risk that could leave subdivisions
abandoned after recording.
Premature subdivision
The subdivision code allows platting and recording
subdivisions, with no guarantee that any improvements –
roads, utilities, stormwater facilities, and the like – will
ultimately be built. For final subdivisions, the Planning
Board now imposes a standard condition that the Town
won’t issue building permits on any lots until roads and
utilities are in place. Because any recorded tax parcel can
feasibly be bought and sold, the Town is exposed to the
many problems of a “paper subdivision” with unfinished or
defective improvements.
The subdivision code also have a provision to void any
subdivision if no improvements are made within 10 years
of approval. It’s possible for a subdivider to make
improvements very slowly to preserve vesting (also see
“uncertain vesting” below) and keep a plat “live” for years.
The Town has required financial guarantees for some
subdivision projects, referring to state law, but it’s not a
part of local law as in most other cities, towns, and villages
in New York.
Illegal subdivision
There have been many cases where someone hires a land
surveyor to create a survey and records it as a subdivision
plat with the Tompkins County Clerk; sometimes by lack of
awareness of a municipal review process, and sometimes
to deliberately subvert the municipal review process. There
are no provisions in the subdivision code to invalidate or
this kind of platting action, or block building permits for
an illegally platted subdivision.
Uncertain vesting
Vesting standards – the timeframe that a subdivision
approval is valid, and the conditions to make it permanent
– now vary wildly from common practice. They lock in
preliminary and final plat approvals for much longer
timeframes than state law (and most communities in New
York) require, and keep moribund proposals “active” for
years. This can also cause problems if there is a rush of
preliminary subdivision applications, following current
regulations, before the Town adopts new planning
regulations.
Subdivision review: unnecessary red tape
The subdivision code offers one platting process in the
Town; the formal number-lot subdivision. All subdivisions,
whether they’re conventional or cluster, or create 50 new
lots or one, require formal preliminary and final plat
approval by the Planning Board.
The subdivision code also lacks formal, separate major
subdivision and minor subdivision processes. Instead,
there are two unofficial levels of review: a combined
preliminary/final plat for smaller subdivisions, and separate
preliminary and final plats for larger projects. Staff
discretion determines what projects see combined or
separate review.
The code is also silent on lot line adjustment, lot
consolidation, or subdivision and road vacation. The Town
Engineer reviews and approves some lot line adjustments
that staff considers “minor.” The Planning Board reviews
others as a two-lot subdivision and lot consolidation –
instead of moving the lot line, it splits one lot into two,
and merges the new lot into the neighboring lot. As with
subdivision, staff discretion decides what process to use
for a lot line adjustment.
❹ A new subdivision code
Planning staff is conducting early research for drafting a
new subdivision code. Staff has reviewed subdivision
codes from around the United States, Canada, Australia,
and the United Kingdom, that include practices to address
some of the issues that Chapter 3 discusses, along with
considering original approaches. A new code will address
more than just those issues; it will also add new practices
for subdivision and placemaking in suburban and rural
settings. It will also draw on subdivision and
neighborhood design requirements in the New
Neighborhood Code and adapt them to development in a
rural and suburban context.
As well as addressing the existing code’s shortcomings,
recommendations of adopted plans, and implementing
contemporary best planning practice for subdivision, the
first draft of a new subdivision code will also include (but
not be limited to) provisions for these missing aspects of
the Town’s current subdivision regulations.
• Conventional, conservation, infill, and hamlet /
compound style subdivisions.
• Zoning amendment to allow density bonuses for
conservation, infill, and hamlet subdivisions.
• Efficient land division that won’t undermine future
development potential.
• Lot shape.
9
• Flag lots; situations that allow their use, bans on
stacking or neighboring flag lots, building orientation,
provisions for wider access drives to serve more than
one lot, and the like.
• Required alternatives to frontage development along
collector and arterial roads in rural and agricultural
areas.
• Buildout plans (“ghost plat”) for subdivisions that are
platted for development at a much lower density than
what current or anticipated zoning allows, and
otherwise piecemeal subdivision activity.
• Buildout plans for agricultural lot splits, to ensure the
parent or remnant lot is large enough to support a
viable agricultural operation.
• Lot size averaging, which allows lot sizes to vary from
code minimums and maximums if the average falls
into an acceptable range.
• Placing a higher priority on conservation in the Town’s
rural and exurban areas, and recreation in suburban
areas.
• Parks / open space; amount, siting, shape, function,
accessibility, connectivity, street frontage, overall
quality, and the like.
• Street names.
• Private roads; situations that allow their use, imposing
the same construction and design standards as for
public roads, conditions for Town dedication, and the
like.
• Prohibition of gated subdivisions.
• Topsoil preservation.
• Clear criteria for what types of land division actions
need a certain approval process.
• An administrative review process for lot line
adjustment, lot line consolidation, lot creation for
utilities, and infill subdivision that meets certain
criteria.
• Formal review for subdivision along collector and
arterial roads, and areas of scenic importance, where
development has the most impact on rural character.
• Recommended design sequence for different
subdivision forms (conventional, cluster/conservation,
etc.).
• Context sensitive street design standards.
• Reference street and infrastructure construction
specifications.
• Requiring complete improvements (roads, utilities,
parks / open space, etc.), or some kind of financial
guarantee (performance bond, etc.) covering the cost
of all improvements, before final plat approval and
recording.
• Phasing process and timeframes.
• Vesting timeframes.
• Zoning Code amendments to resolve any conflicts.
Layout, language, and appearance of the new subdivision
code will follow an internal style guide. Code language will
be in plain conversational English, using active voice, and
simple terms instead of longer, more formal Latinate forms
where possible. The code will use graphics, tables,
bulleted lists, and flowcharts where they will help explain a
requirement or option.
❺ Proposed subdivision code
organization
The following is a possible outline for a new subdivision
code. It’s based on the organization of neighborhood
design and subdivision regulations in the New
Neighborhood Code. As the code is drafted, its
organization will probably change somewhat, so this
shouldn’t be considered a final outline.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Town
adopt a unified development code, which would combine
zoning, subdivision, and other planning-related
regulations into one document. However, because there is
a more urgent need for updating the Town’s subdivision
regulations, Planning staff will work on drafting a new
subdivision code first. Modular organization will allow the
new subdivision regulations to be easily moved into a
future unified development code (likely Town Code §270,
which would replace the Town’s current zoning code) with
few changes. The following outline shows the proposed
organization of new subdivision regulations as both a
freestanding document, and a module in a future unified
development code.
As with the Town’s New Neighborhood Code, organization
is based on scale of topic, from the largest land area to the
smallest. Articles and sections relate to specific code
functions and topics.
Article 1: Introduction
234-100 Title
234-105 Purpose
234-110 Applicability
.01 Jurisdiction
.02 Compliance
.03 Public buildings, structures, uses, and land
234-115 Severability
234-120 Relationship to other planning regulations
234-125 Code approach
.01 Modular organization
.02 Scale of land use
10
Article 3: Zones
Article 5 Community design and lot layout
(“Subdivision” as verb/action vs “subdivision” as
noun/outcome? Use different term for verb?)
234-300 Overview
234-305 How to use this article
234-310 Community context areas
.00 Overview
.05 Rural context area
.10 Estate context area
.15 Suburban / village context area
.20 Traditional neighborhood context area (reference
NNC)
234-310 Subdivision types, forms, and layout
.00 Overview
.05 Conventional subdivision
.10 Conservation subdivision
.15 Rural residential subdivision
.20 Infill residential subdivision
.25 Traditional neighborhood (reference NNC)
.30 Features common to all subdivision types (could
include content of 234-320 – street layout)
234-320 Street layout
.00 Overview
.05 Access
.10 Alignment
.15 Blocks
(more)
234-325 Street types and design
.00 Overview
.05 Street types and context
.10 Street elements and design
.15 Existing streets, context, and type
.25 Street names
234-330 Parks and common open space
.00 Overview
.05 Required parkland
.10 Park types
.15 Park location, siting, and access
.20 Park ownership
.25 Park names
234-335 Lot layout
234-340 Utilities
.00 Overview
.05 Required utilities
.10 Utility location
.15 Utility equipment facilities234-340 Stormwater
management
.00 Overview
.05 Performance standards
.10 System design
.15 Context sensitive practices
Article 7 Lots and buildings
Article 9 Site improvements
Article 11 Stormwater management
Article 13 Uses
Article 15 Historic preservation
Article 17 Nonconformities
Article 19 Planning actions and permission
237-1900 Overview
270-1905 Building permit
270-1910 Business licensing (operations permit)
270-1915 Certificate of appropriateness
270-1915 Site plan
270-1920 Special use
234-1925 Land division / platting
270-1930 Zoning change (rezoning)
270-1935 Planned development zone
270-1940 Traditional neighborhood development
regulating plan (cross reference)
234-1945 Street name change
270-1950 Variance and appeal
270-1955 Development code change
Article 21 Code enforcement
Article 23 Code interpretation
234-2300 Overview
234-2305 Interpreting regulations
.05 Conflict
.10 References to other laws or regulations
.15 Language
.20 Examples
.25 Photos and graphics
.30 Resources, guides, and industry standards
11
234-2310 Interpreting measurement
.05 Area
.10 Distance
.15 Height
.20 Lot and site dimensions
.25 Setback and build-to area
.30 Yards
.35 Zone boundaries
.40 Other features
234-2315 Glossary
❻ What comes next
The outcome of this project will be the draft of a new
subdivision code that replaces Town Code Chapter 234,
ready for Town Board review (and ultimately approval).
Planning staff will collaborate with Code Enforcement &
Zoning, Engineering, and Public Works Departments, and
will release a full draft subdivision code, or full articles, for
review by the Codes and Ordinances Committee.
Tasks and schedule (tentative)
• Requirements defined and documented; project
kickoff: 10 May 2023
• Discuss potential public engagement process; finalize
work plan and schedule; clarify roles and
responsibilities: 14 June 2023
• Stakeholder interviews: late summer 2023
• Review: first draft 13 September 2024; revisions 8
November 2023; final draft 10 February 2024.
(2/10/2024)
• Local law suitable for Town Board adoption along with
updated application forms and OpenGov processes:
12 June 2024
1
Project: Amendments to Town Code 234 Subdivision of Land
May 3, 2023 DRAFT
1 Project summary
This project will revise the existing Subdivision of Land Chapter (Town Code Chapter 234) to
better align with the 2014 Comprehensive Plan and contemporary best planning practices. This
project involves replacing the current Chapter 234 (link here: Subdivision of Land) with a new
Subdivision code, not just making amendments to the existing law within its existing structure.
The Town’s Subdivision regulations were last comprehensively amended in 1993. Revision has
been included in Codes and Ordinances Committee work plans since 2007. This project was
rated the highest recommended action for the Codes & Ordinances 2023 Work Plan.
Planning Department staff will prepare a draft, a revised draft, and a final draft of the new
subdivision code, in consultation with the Code Enforcement and Zoning Department,
Engineering Department, Public Works Department, and Attorney for the Town.
2 Policy issues
Subdivision review is a technique that controls division of land into smaller lots, layout of lots
and streets, amount and siting of parks and open spaces in a subdivided area, and construction
of related infrastructure.
The Town first adopted subdivision regulations in 1955. In 1993, there was a major update to the
Town’s subdivision regulations. However, that update was built on the earlier foundation of the
1955 code. Much of the current code was drafted before the Town adopted its current policies
and plans. Increasingly, the code may not provide an effective and efficient response to many
anticipated development issues.
The draft code that results from this project will address and help implement numerous goals
and recommendations in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan; 1996 Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Plan, and 2012 Agricultural and Farmland Preservation Plan.
Work will also include examination of complementary Code sections (e.g., Chapter 230: Streets
and Sidewalks; Section 153-3: Fees in lieu of recreational land.)
The Project is also intended to address the following, including but not limited to:
• Absence of an administrative review process for simple actions that don’t create new lots.
• Absence of regulations addressing lot shape, efficient land use, future development
potential, and minimum development density.
• Counting the access strip or “pole” on a flag lot as part of lot area.
2
• Street layout requirements that allow long cul-de-sacs, and long distances between
intersecting streets inside a subdivision, with limited provisions for connectivity.
• Current subdivision provisions do not define or provide guidance for road infrastructure or
higher housing densities than under conventional zoning; benefits to the Town (as
compared to conventional subdivision) should be re-evaluated and enhanced.
• No criteria for the quality, siting, or form of open space in conventional and cluster
subdivisions.
• Allowing cluster subdivision in the form of frontage lots.
• Current requirements are 10% open space required for cluster subdivisions with a parcel
with at least 10,000 sq ft of open space; conventional residential subdivisions require
parkland only if the Planning Boards finds a need for it.
• Allowing (and sometimes encouraging) private roads.
• No design or constructions standards for private roads.
• Absence of phasing and vesting timeframes.
• Spell out needed improvements (roads, utilities, etc.) or a financial guarantee to assure
infrastructure completion, which the Town routinely requires per NY Town Law requirements.
As well as addressing recommendations of adopted plans, and following contemporary best
planning practice, the draft code may also include provisions for the following missing aspects
of the Town’s current subdivision regulations.
• Clearer criteria for what types of land division actions need a certain approval process.
• An administrative review process for lot line adjustment, lot line consolidation, lot
creation for utilities, infill subdivision that meets certain criteria, and exempt subdivisions.
• Discretionary review for subdivision along collector and arterial roads, and areas of
scenic importance, where development has the most impact on rural character.
• Recommended design sequence for different subdivision forms (conventional,
cluster/conservation, etc.).
• Requirements for an efficient land division pattern that won’t undermine future
development potential.
• Lot shape requirements.
• Consideration of flag lots; situations that allow their use, bans on stacking or
neighboring flag lots, etc.
• Required alternatives to frontage development along collector and arterial roads in rural
and agricultural areas. I don’t understand what this is for or will accomplish. Maybe more
information to better understand the topic?
• Buildout plans for subdivisions that are platted for development at a much lower density
than what current or anticipated zoning allows.
• Buildout plans for agricultural lot splits, to ensure the parent or remnant lot is large
enough to support a viable agricultural operation.
• Lot size averaging, which allows lot sizes to vary from code minimums and maximums if
the average falls in an acceptable range; Planning Board may allow deviation from
3
height, bulk, area, depth, frontage, and other requirements if authorized by the Town
Board.
• Consider limiting lateral extensions into County-adopted, State-certified Agricultural
Districts.
• Placing a higher priority on conservation in the Town’s rural and exurban areas, and
recreation in suburban and urban areas.
• Standards for open space; amount, siting, shape, function, accessibility, connectivity,
street frontage, overall quality, and the like.
• Identify protocol for street naming.
• Requirements for private roads; situations that allow their use, imposing the same
construction and design standards as for public roads, conditions for Town dedication,
and the like.
• Ownership of private roads.
• Prohibition of gated subdivisions.
• Topsoil preservation.
• Reference street and infrastructure construction specifications.
• Spell out current Town practice per NY Town Law requirements for complete
improvements (roads, utilities, parks / open space, etc.), or surety (performance bond,
etc.) covering the cost of all improvements, before final plat approval and recording.
• Phasing process and timeframes.
• Vesting timeframes.
• Graphics that visually describe and clarify regulations.
• User-friendly organization and layout.
3 Resources
Anticipated impact on Town Resources: All Planning staff; Attorney for the Town; select Code
Enforcement and Zoning Department, Engineering Department, and Public Works Department
staff as assigned.
Codification visual / graphics standards may require professional services from General Code or
other but most will be completed in-house by Senior Planner; any professional services will be
acquired in accordance with the Town of Ithaca Procurement Policy and budget process.
4 Key deliverables
The outcome of this project will be the draft of a new subdivision code that replaces Town Code
Chapter 234, ready for Town Board review and potential approval.
4
Provisions in the draft code will be organized in such a way that allows the resulting subdivision
regulations to be integrated into, or become part of a future unified development code, with
few changes.
4 Tasks and proposed committee schedule
Draft requirements defined and documented; project kickoff – May 10, 2023 COC meeting
Visioning process and conceptual storyboard development – Planning staff presentation and
study session – June 14, 2023
Identify stakeholders and schedule interviews – July 2023
Discuss potential public engagement process; finalize this scope of work and schedule; clarify
roles and responsibilities – July 12, 2023
Develop stakeholder and public engagement strategies
Stakeholder interviews – August 2023
Interim deliverable review
• Initial draft (Q3; 9/13/2023); internal review cycle 10/2023
• revised draft (Q4; 11/8/2023); internal review cycle 11/2023 to 1/2024
• final draft (Q1; 2/14/2024); final internal review cycle 3/2024
• Draft Local Law suitable for Town Board adoption; completed environmental review;
updated application forms and OpenGov processes – June 12, 2024
Public engagement
• Planning staff to discuss and recommend public engagement activities including all
public meetings, notices, workshops, online engagement, and other outreach tools
# # #
Version Control
1.0 – Planning Department