Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1993-08-31TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD August 31, 1993 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk.j I The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 31, 1993, at the Women's Community Building, 100 West Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT. Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Stephen Smith, James Ainslie, Candace Cornell, Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , Louise Raimondo (Planner I) , Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT. Frank Liguori, Laura F. Marks, Joe Trinkl, David Stotz, John Whitcomb, Jeff Stimpson, Wendy Skinner, Shirley Raffensperger, Celia Bower, Jim Hilker, Clara Leonardo, Ellen Harrison, Richard Berggren, Geoff Eddlestone, Barbara Huesen, Bob Kellogg, Bernie & Eleanor Van Nederynen, Edward J. Conley, Margie Rumsey, Mary Russell, Sue Sowinski, Dave Auble, David Nutter, Doria Higgins, Jose Pires, Myrtle Whitcomb. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:16 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 16, 1993 and August 19, 19930 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DRAFT; DATED JULY 30, 1993 ". THE PLAN INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS: CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER II, INVENTORY; CHAPTER III, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS; CHAPTER IV, PLAN SYNTHESIS; CHAPTER V, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES; CHAPTER VI, ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE; AND APPENDICES. COPIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD ARE AVAILABLE AT TOWN HALL AND THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR REVIEW. Chairperson Grigorov addressed the public and stated "I'd now like to welcome you -to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. Many of you know it well, most of you here know it well, but for those who don't I'll briefly review what has been going on. Over four years ago, there was great public concern over what was seen as rapid development in certain parts of the Town. That pressure combined with New York State's requirements concerning comprehensive plans, brought the Town Board to hire a consultant to write a study of whether or not a plan in the form of one unified document, rather than the way we had it with maps, was F'17�1 N A L TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD August 31, 1993 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk.j I The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 31, 1993, at the Women's Community Building, 100 West Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT. Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Stephen Smith, James Ainslie, Candace Cornell, Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , Louise Raimondo (Planner I) , Dan Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT. Frank Liguori, Laura F. Marks, Joe Trinkl, David Stotz, John Whitcomb, Jeff Stimpson, Wendy Skinner, Shirley Raffensperger, Celia Bower, Jim Hilker, Clara Leonardo, Ellen Harrison, Richard Berggren, Geoff Eddlestone, Barbara Huesen, Bob Kellogg, Bernie & Eleanor Van Nederynen, Edward J. Conley, Margie Rumsey, Mary Russell, Sue Sowinski, Dave Auble, David Nutter, Doria Higgins, Jose Pires, Myrtle Whitcomb. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:16 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 16, 1993 and August 19, 19930 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF ITHACA ENTITLED "TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DRAFT; DATED JULY 30, 1993 ". THE PLAN INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS: CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER II, INVENTORY; CHAPTER III, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS; CHAPTER IV, PLAN SYNTHESIS; CHAPTER V, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES; CHAPTER VI, ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE; AND APPENDICES. COPIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD ARE AVAILABLE AT TOWN HALL AND THE TOMPKINS COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR REVIEW. Chairperson Grigorov addressed the public and stated "I'd now like to welcome you -to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. Many of you know it well, most of you here know it well, but for those who don't I'll briefly review what has been going on. Over four years ago, there was great public concern over what was seen as rapid development in certain parts of the Town. That pressure combined with New York State's requirements concerning comprehensive plans, brought the Town Board to hire a consultant to write a study of whether or not a plan in the form of one unified document, rather than the way we had it with maps, was Planning Board 2 August 31, 1993 needed. Many of you were at that public hearing held in November of 1989 to discuss these consultants findings and you'll probably recall that there was a great demand from the public and neighborhood associations that such a plan be developed. The Town Board then appointed a citizens committee which worked for more than two years with staff and consultants to write the plan. This Board received it in January of this year. We then held three public meetings in different parts of town which were very helpful to us in our review, which we have been doing ever since. We made a number of changes in the January draft plan that you first saw. This is really not the same plan. Many of them were in response to your concerns; both spoken and written. We are looking forward to your comments on the latest plan because it is not the same one we discussed at earlier meetings and we would be very interested to hear what you say. Floyd Forman, the Town Planner, will describe in a general way what some of these changes were." Town Planner Floyd Forman addressed the public and stated that "Nearly all of you have heard my presentation in the past concerning the Comprehensive Plan, so instead of going through it again, we will just suffice with some changes to the Plan. The Planning Board has made some changes, as Carolyn had mentioned to you,, from the comments that you people have made and sent in. The letters you people have sent in to the Planning Board. They have listened and made some changes to the plan. One of the changes that was made to the Plan was the suggestion to simplify and clarify the Plan and the Planning Board worked with a professional editor and tried to do that. Hopefully the plan that you see before you is indeed simpler and is more clear. There were some minor changes made to the map to reflect the map's role as a guide. The EPOD item was deleted and changed to Environmental Protection mechanisms. That was a suggestion that some of you made. There were revisions to Chapter 2. Many of the revisions were in the agriculture section and a lot of the changes were submitted by the farmers themselves. There were a number of changes made to Chapter 3. Many of the changes added the word consider. Instead of simply stating do something, the suggestion was to take a further look at it; to consider it. Revisions were made to Chapter 6 that mentioned the neighborhood meetings and the public comment that we already had on the Plan. Another revision to Chapter 6 stated that minor modifications to the Plan could be made by the Planning Board with a public hearing. Those are in a general sense the changes that the Planning Board made to the Plan. If any of you feel as though you need more detail, we can go through it, but instead of spending an awful lot of time speaking, the Planning Board would much rather hear what you all have to say." Chairperson Grigorov stated that the meeting would end at about 9:30 p.m., and asked that the public keep their remarks to five minutes until everyone had a chance to speak. If there were more than five minutes of information that the public wanted to give the Planning Board, they would be glad to accept written Planning Board 3 August 31, 1993 comments anytime between now and September 9th. The Chair asked that the public come to the microphone, and give their and address for the record. then name Ellen Harrison addressed the Board stating that she was delighted to attend the meeting, as one of the people who served as a volunteer on the Comprehensive Planning Committee (hereafter referred to as CPC) that did the draft that the Board received in January. Ms. Harrison then thanked the Planning Board for putting in significant amounts of time getting more input from the public and for improving the Plan. Particular thanks to Carolyn Grigorov and Stephen Smith who managed to sit through the whole Comprehensive Planning Committee process and also have now shepherded the Plan through the next. Ms. Harrison stated that she felt: that the Plan was a good sound guide that is responsive to the citizens in our town that will help guide the conservation and the development of our town for the next 20 years. Ms. Harrison then suggested that the Board leave the use for the proposed land use for the piece of Cornell University property that is along Game Farm Road and Route 366 as agricultural use. It seemed premature to Ms. Harrison to change that to an institutional use since the Board has not yet had a public hearing on Cornell's proposals for the land use district changes there. This is not a static document so the document should be written as things are now, which would mean that the land would remain agricultural and recognize that things may change if and when things are approved by the Board. Frank Liguori addressed the Board stating "First of all, I would like to commend the Planning Board for their systematic and very diligent review of the entire Comprehensive Plan proposal and the numerous constructive changes which have been made and are now being recommended. It seems very clear to me that you too sensed that: the draft that was given to you was much too complicated, much too ambitious and would result in unnecessary potential new regulations and micro- management of peoples activities. Perhaps even perpetuating an. unfriendly -user town. The Plan which is now proposed shows a greater understanding and sensitivity of the diverse nature of the Town as a whole and the very diverse interests in the Town. It is a far cry from that original document which created so much response from the public and with consistently overstated, in my judgement, the problems within the Town and therefore also overstated the solutions that would be necessary to deal with these problems. The draft plan itself never really demonstrated that there was a compelling need for drastic open space preservation concepts as exemplified in the plan. Particularly at the expense of the farmers and the land owners who have been good stewards of the environment and their land for many years, nor did it ever demonstrate that there was a compelling need to micro - manage the fiscal environment with aggressive new additional controls. The Planning Board proposed changes reflect the collective experience, the wisdom and the good judgement which has served this town so well over many years. They have softened Planning Board 4 August 31, 1993 an aggressive document considerably, and I think that they have done a very good job with it and I thank them for that. However, there is a need for some caution, as some of the extreme concepts could very easily resurface some time in the future. Sadly, the present Board has demonstrated an inclination, I'm talking about the Board majority and I am talking about the Town Board now, an inclination to stack the Planning Board with handpicked members that have their biases toward special interest concepts. Just this month the Town Board majority ignored the recommendation of a special committee, which they had chosen themselves, to interview candidates and make a recommendation, to the best of my knowledge the action to ignore the committee's recommendation is unprecedented in the Town of Ithaca. In the past the best candidate was always chosen regardless of the politics involved. Had this action taken place a few months ago, I seriously doubt if the Planning Board would have been able to provide a balanced review of the Comprehensive Draft Plan as you have. Paraphrasing a statement in Chapter 4 of the Plan itself, "It is important that a Comprehensive Plan reflect truly the balance of interests in the community." In my judgement that is also the essence of a good town government. Thank you very much." John Whitcomb addressed the Board by stating that he wanted "to commend the Town Planning Board for their diligent effort in working on this document and many months of public information meetings and long late night meetings and the time that they spent looking at the recommendations of the CPC, Comprehensive Planning Committee, and considering all of the view points in the community, and arriving at what: I believe is a consensus document. I think that the document strikes a balance between many competing interests. I also want to encourage you, on the Planning Board, as you are sure to be discouraged by some of your critics. You, no doubt, will be scolded for too little analysis by people who tuned in ]_ate and have little understanding or appreciation of the pain staking deliberate process under which the Plan was developed. Those who desire a developer driven las approach to land use choices will, no doubt, be unhappy tonight and accuse you of creating a restrictive elitist document. Those who want more stringent controls will accuse you of endorsing a status quo and not going far enough in controlling the rate of future growth. These criticisms ignore the history of the plan; the Plan has taken three years to write, and one of the reasons it took so long was because of the democratic manner in which it was developed. A committee was appointed that included people from all walks of life and all political persuasions. A professional consultant was hired who had shepherded many similar planning efforts throughout the state. Residents were surveyed, maps that have had little maintenance for 30 years were created, revised, or updated. A massive analysis of resources, of demographics, and of institutions was completed. Many opinions and alternatives were evaluated by the committee. Then of course there was the information meetings that were held for public comments, and their concerns were Planning Board 5 August 31, 1993 incorporated. Think about the last several months when you all (The Planning Board members) attempted to insure that everyone's interests were included and attempted to insure that it was a consensus document. Don't let anyone tell you that this plan represents a narrow point of view, you all know better and so do they. You and the CPC before you have rightfully provided a balanced framework for decision making that considers both the rights of existing residents, the rights of future residents and the rights of developers. For too long developers only have determined the nature of growth in the Town. And now with the advent of this plan, the Town, who is charged with fairly representing all the residents of the town is on a more equal footing. We expect government of all levels to be responsible in spending, in planning, and in protecting our environment. At the heart of this plan is responsibility; fiscal responsibility and environmental responsibility. We can not afford to continue extensions of infrastructure while ignoring efficient utilization of infrastructure that is already in place. What could be more fiscally responsible than focusing future growth and development in areas that are already served by water and sewer. And what's more irresponsible than allowing random haphazard growth to occur in rural areas, where the Town and every tax payer will eventually have to pay to provide services. Infrastructure costs millions, why not use what we've already paid for? Areas of the Town currently served by water and sewer have many times the capacity needed to serve our :residential and commercial needs for more than the next 20 years. Only four or five hundred acres is actually needed for residential and commercial development in the next 20 years. Of the over 9,000 developable acres, 2,000 acres are presently served by water and sewer, actually 2,300 acres. Some may question the need for such a comprehensive plan when only 500 acres out of 9,000 are going to be needed in the next 20 years, The questions ignores the historic pattern of development in the Town. From time to time, major developmental pressure has occurred in relatively small areas of the town, in the northeast, on East hill, and more recently on South hill. While the impact on the town as a whole was not major, impact on these specific areas was very significant. Developers and owners of large parcels have rights certainly, but so do residents of existing neighborhoods who have invested in their houses and their lots, they expect that the Town will look out for their interests too. The Plan also lay the groundwork for truly affordable housing. I suppose a Las no regulations attitude will encourage some affordable housing, there are some very good examples in neighboring towns. But I don't believe that responsible affordable housing just happens by itself. The Plan does provide incentives, they are found in Chapter 3 page 3, "higher density in areas already served will encourage affordability ". One of the biggest disincentives of affordability is land speculation, South Hill used to be affordable years ago, then out of state developers came in a bid the price of land beyond the reach of average residents. Responsible planning discourages speculation, as a sense of predictability associated with planning. Planning Board 6 August 31, 1993 This plan wisely setts transportation goals but defers specifics. There are important transportation issues in the Town, but these issues transcend municipal boundaries. For example, Forest Home is inundated with traffic, where does it come from? Some of it certainly comes from within the Town, but much of it comes from outside the Town, from the Village of Lansing, the Town of Lansing. Solutions require intermunicipal discussion, currently an inter municipal committee, the MPO, is considering transportation issues on an area wide basis. Why should we in the Town duplicate human energy and spend great sums of money on redundant efforts. The Cornell GEIS is also an important step. For the first time in history, the Town is being proactive with Cornell, a major employer. Together we are discussing plans for responsible growth for precinct 7, the area between Route 366 and Ellis Hollow Road. Thank you, the Planning Board, for providing the Town with this plan. It will serve as a framework for responsible decision making for many, many years to come. Thank you" (Exhibit #1) Celia Bowers addressed the Board stating that she "would like to congratulate the Planning Board for all of their hard work." The members of the West Hill Neighborhood Association hoped unanimously that the Plan would pass. Ms. Bowers went on to say that "the average citizen feels that their needs are being taken into account. I think the Plan is extremely well balanced, I think the Town, for the first time, is trying to balance development, balance conservation, balance agriculture, balance upscale housing, balance affordable housing. I think that this is essential as we move forward; that we have to look and make sure that our town remains an affordable, pleasant and healthy place to live. One of the arguments I put forward against the plan is that I have heard several developers say 'Well, if this plan goes through, we'll just build in neighboring towns'. I would urge you to look at that argument and realize it for what it is. You have the responsibility for setting developmental and other goals for this municipality, you don't have the authority over others. Perhaps the best way that the Town of Ithaca can work with its neighbors is to put forward a balanced plan for development here, and perhaps then, our neighbors will see that this works, and they can follow our example. Thank you very much." Laura Marks addressed the Board by stating that she "would like to thank everyone who's been involved in this process, and especially Shirley Raffensperger who has fostered an heir to where it's safe to have the democratic process work so well. We've included comments from all sorts of opinions and they're incorporated in this plan and I appreciate the balance that the Comprehensive Planning Committee and the Planning Board have brought to all of the opinions. In my opinion, it's not strong enough. I would prefer to have a comprehensive plan more like that of Boulder Colorado, which has much more environmental legislation in it. But this is Ithaca, and our community is not that of Boulder Colorado, and our plan reflects the Ithaca community, our Planning Board 7 August 31, 1993 aspirations and visions across the board. So I support the adoption of this plan and hope that the implementation process of the plan has the integrity that has created it." Ms. Marks stated that: she had a few editorial comments that she did not wish to burden the Board's time with. Ms. Marks then stated that she supports the Plan as a reflection of the community that wrote it. David Stotz addressed the Board by reading directly from what is hereto attached as Exhibit ##2. Mr. Stotz then thanked the Board. Board member Candace Cornell responded to Mr. Stotz that she was sorry that he had not spoke at any of the other meetings, earlier in the process, so that the Board may have incorporated some of his ideas sooner. Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Stotz where specifically he meant by "the Cornell Land between Route 366 and Ellis Hollow Road". Mr. Stotz responded that there were two points that he was trying to make. It is common knowledge that Cornell will be developing toward the Northeast, that is the area between Route 366 and Ellis Hollow Road. One of the issues that seems to be facing the Town more and more is traffic. The amount of traffic that is passing through the north /south corridor linking eastern heights and Slaterville Road and the mall and the northeast area. The object of good planning is really to try to locate people as close to their place of employment as possible, and given that the thrust of development of Cornell is going to be in that region, between 366 and Ellis Hollow Road, one would tend to look at the area surrounding that to see how the Board are planning on designating that land. Candace Cornell asked Mr. Stotz what specific area around there, that Cornell does not already own, would be effected by the Plan. Mr. Stotz responded that the Plan, as it is outlined in the colored map, designated all the area around that particular region as being agricultural. Ms. Cornell stated that Cornell owns that land. Mr. Stotz responded that Cornell may own the land in question, but how much discussion had the Board had with Cornell while formulating the Plan. in terms of development? Was there ever any suggestion made by the Board broaching the idea that perhaps Cornell wanted to use some of that agricultural land for housing? Ms. Cornell stated that she did not believe that was in the scope of the Plan. Ms. Cornell added that they have considered transportation. The Plan actually outlines objectives for the future, and if the plan is passed, then the Board will begin Planning Board 8 August 31, 1993 studying the transportation problems, and a number of additional problems. The Plan is not meant to solve the transportation problems or any of the problems, it is meant to begin the implementation of further studies and for further recommendations. Chairperson Grigorov asked the Board if anyone else wanted to address any of his comments specifically. Chairperson Grigorov stated that Cornell is doing a GEIS on the area in question now, and the situation was not exactly as Mr. Stotz had described. Jerry Weisburd addressed the Board stating that he is a developer and objects to the people casting developers as someone who is against the public. "The Town of Ithaca is the Town of Ithaca mostly because of developers, most of the housing was built by developers. And I feel like if the Town of Ithaca is going to be something that we're going to be proud of in the future, it's by working with developers not by saying well we'll try to keep the adjacent town from allowing you to build there as well. I think it is a much better attitude to say how can we work together so we can achieve something that works for everybody. I would also remind people that developers don't work in a vacuum, if what they produced is unappreciated it doesn't go anywhere. When they do something and people buy their houses and people move into these communities it's because they like them and that's probably why Ithaca works, because people have moved into houses which developers built and. people like and they are there. With regard to the last series of comments that was made, what I find undermines almost all of it is the notion that there is not now restrictive land use planning and zoning. Some 11 or 12 years ago, it took us about five months to get a 125 unit subdivision approved on Slaterville Road, more recently, we went for a realignment of lot lines along the lake, we had three lots and it took us 9 months. There exists a great deal of regulations. The fact is that when you go in front of the Planning Board, as I have many times, and there are people in the audience, which there are many times, that don't want what you're proposing, that land is the most precious land, that land is what needs to be open space, that land is contains the most endangered species in the world, always. What the Comprehensive Plan tries to do is set a hierarchy. It says that we have spotted things in these areas and not in those areas so that there is a level playing field so when someone gets up and says actually this land is incredibly valuable and should be on the national register. You can point to the Comprehensive Plan and say show me, there is something there. I also take issue with the notion that the Comprehensive Plan is solely one -sided in order to protect open space. I think that a great deal of what has gone on in these meetings is the notion that open space is the setting aside of land and to be paid for by the people that own the land. I think that's a misconception and I think the Plan, at least from when I was working on it, expresses something different. It says that the cost of providing open space should be borne fairly. Well, if it is borne fairly, then you can't take it from somebody Planning Board 9 August 31, 1993 because that is contrary to the Plan itself. It also says that if you are going to provide open space there will be mechanisms which will allow it to happen in a fair way, such as incentive zoning, such as possibly transferring development rights. These are things which the Plan states we will be looking into, so it is certainly not a question, black and white, we're going to create open space and tough. The idea, I hope, and I hope as we get into the implementation will be that we'll always be looking for a balanced approach, that we'll be trying to provide open space, that we won't be putting the cost: of that on the people that own the biggest pieces of land and the people that have been paying a high amount of our taxes, that instead will look through incentive zoning through possibly transferred development rights, ways of balancing it, ways of setting aside open space, yet ways of providing housing and especially affordable housing. I know most of you probably realize that in the last 40 years, the City of Ithaca has gone from having 50% of the population of the county to now 250, and that is because all of the growth has occurred outside the city. And I certainly hope that we don't get into that more and more of that donut syndrome, where we are in fact forcing development out. I think it's important that developers and planners and environmentalists work together to come up with way that we can provide all the things that we want, and I think that the Plan is ® a good first step in that direction myself. Thank you." David Nutter addressed the Board by stating that he was the Chair of the Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation. Mr. Nutter then summarized what is hereto attached as Exhibit #3. Mr. Nutter then thanked the Board for it's time. Noel Desch addressed the Board by reading what is hereto attached as Exhibit #4. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Grigorov then stated that she had received a letter from Town resident Dooley Kiefer, and the most important thing that she wanted to bring out was "among the most vocal critics of the plan and the planning process are persons basically concerned about what they view as the "taking" issue -- persons who believe that property rights are essentially absolute. Where in the Plan is this issue addressed ?" is her question. The Chair then stated that Ms. Kiefer believes that it is important to deal with this topic explicitly and include the recent Supreme Court rulings. Ms. Kiefer also believes that the philosophy of the plan is not sufficiently enunciated and has written a statement in philosophy that she feel should be included in the beginning of the Plan. Chairperson Grigorov then stated that the Board would look into this issue as the comments from this meeting are studied. (Exhibit #5) Bruce Brittain addressed the Board with three points. 1) Planning Board 10 August 31, 1993 Regarding the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map, specifically, the area of the GEIS, Cornell Orchards area. Mr. Brittain stated that he was disappointed to see that area go from being designated as agricultural to being designated as development land because he would not like to see the GIS process subverted by essentially declaring that will be development land before the GIS is complete and before it had been considered by the Board. 2) regarding the revisions to the Plan. Mr. Brittain stated that he felt the Plan had "its teeth taken out of it." 3) regarding the amount of money it has taken to put the Plan together. The Plan may not be ideal, but it is relatively complete, we can either try to make a major revision of it or we! can take it and revise it as we go to try to make it a more workable plan; which is what Mr. Brittain urges the Board to do. Mr. Brittain then thanked the Planning Board. Board member Candace Cornell addressed the public stating that in her view the Plan is not a static plan and that as the needs change the Plan will be able to adapt to the changes. Nothing is eves- perfect. Dave Auble addressed the Board stating that he felt that his comments, suggestions and concerns were basically ignored. Mr. Auble's main concern. was his own property on the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map, which is fifty acre parcel. In the earlier version of the plan it was suggested that his parcel be changed from multi - family and commercial to low density residential which was called rural residential or 1 house or less per acre. Mr. Auble had consistently complained that this was a violation of the principles of the Plan which indicated that more dense development should take place! where there are utilities and other infrastructure. Mr. Auble stated that he did not believe that bike paths and walk ways were given enough attention within the Plan. Mr. Auble felt that the Board should take the common sense approach and that the Plan should be done over by Planners not by politicians, and then brought back to the public. At this time, Mr. Auble thanked the Board. Chairperson Grigorov stated to Mr. Auble that she was disappointed that Mr. Auble did not feel that his remarks had any effect on the Board because there were some changes made in the map to make it more consistent. Mr. Auble responded that he felt that the Planning Board did an excellent job of reviewing what they were given, but it was difficult to work with and it wasn't done in a manner that made it possible to come out with a good plan. Chairperson Grigorov then stated that regarding the commercial use that was mentioned, the only things that are marked as commercial on the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map is actually commercial already. The Plan does not try to decide where neighborhood commercial areas will be. Planning Board 11 August 31, 1993 Mr. Auble responded that he must disagree because there is a corner of his property that is marked as commercial on the map and it is not being used as commercial. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the map is just a general area map, not specifically designating areas. The Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map is not a zoning map. Mr. Auble stated that he interpreted that as an attempt to make the map somewhat deceptive. He feels infuriated at things that are not clear cut and that the Town did not consult him with what they would propose to do with his property. Chairperson Grigorov responded that a zoning map would be clear cut and that this was not a zoning map. Jim Hilker addressed the Board stating that he had been to the public information meetings and submitted some comments on the Plan, but every time he comes to a meeting and feels that he is beginning to understand the Plan, something is said or done that makes it confusing to him again. Mr. Hilker felt that the document was more clear cut and regulatory in its earlier stages and the changes that have been made are more flexible. Mr. Hilker continued by stating that the whole plan needs to be looked over one more time before being recommended to the Town Board because he did not feel that it is complete as it appeared in the July 30, 199:3 draft version. Mr. Hilker concluded by stating that the Town needed to look at economic development, employment growth, and things like that before going too far into implementing a land use document. Elsie McMillan addressed the Board stating that she did not feel that there was a wide diversity of people involved in the making of the Plan as it is now, many people perceive that the Boards and the Committees that pulled this together were very heavily weighted for one faction in the Town instead of being very broadly based, it was not as balanced as it might have been in the various committees and boards. Ms. McMillan then stated that the reason for the Town government and the reason for the zoning and everything is so that it can help the people of the Town do the things that they would want to do in the Town safely and soundly. Ms. McMillan finds that there is room in the document to turn down anything because it is nebulous and general. It is not specific enough. Board member James Ainslie responded by stating that he represents agriculture on the Town Board and that he represents agriculture on the Agriculture committee for the comprehensive Plan, it was not slanted one way or the other, the members got a surveys of the farmers in the area., so our conclusions were not slanted at all, they were a composite of what the farmers felt in the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board 12 August 31, 1993 Ms. McMillan stated that she was not singling out any committee, she just had a feeling that it was not as balanced as it could have been (Conservation Advisory Council). Mr. Ainslie added that if you have neighborhood meetings and if people do not come out to them or are not interested or are too busy, it is a poor excuse because if they were really interested they would come out to the meetings. Frank Liguori complemented the Board on working out some of the rough edges because he thought that the original draft plan was too strict. Ed Conley addressed the Board by complimenting the Planning Board and all those who contributed to the Plan. Mr. Conley stated that "I think that over all what you are doing is creating a guide, a guide to the future for the Town of Ithaca and for the Town Board and for everything else. I feel that a planning goal or a long range planning document is just that, that's exactly what it is and that's what you're creating." "Your adopting does nothing except open it up for further studies, further refinement and decisions to be made by the Town Board and future Town Boards. I hope that you strongly consider passing your plan, passing a plan and then continuing your process of looking at all of the information you have gotten from all. your public hearings. I think it is a good plan basically and I think that everybody recognizes it can't be implemented totally and there are things that continue to be needed in refining that Plan and that is always going to be the case. You are never going to come up with The Plan that everyone is going to want to see. I encourage you to continue what you are doing and adopt the Plan and then it will be up to Town government and its committees and the Planning Board to further refine it. I compliment you all and I thank you very much for doing it." Shirley Raffensperger addressed the Board by stating that "What I really want to do is congratulate the Planning Board on your very hard work and your very careful consideration and the care that you've taken in improving, and I think improving immensely, the document, the very good document, that came to you. And so I just wanted to express my personal appreciation to you for all those extra hours you put in recently. Thank you." Evan Monkmeyer addressed the Board stating that South Hill would have a neighborhood that contains the commercial as well as the business enterprises at the primary and secondary intersections. If that is eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan and take away the commercial zones or limit them restrictively you are going to be taking away the concept of neighborhood. Neighborhood means family, churches, institutional uses surrounding the commercial, parks. One fact that frightens Mr. Monkmeyer about the Plan is that in 1982 he proposed to a Planning Board before this Town that he wanted to put a bicycle path between King Road East and Ithaca College on our private lands, and proposed to pay for the cost of that, and Ithaca College came in a said that this Planning Board 13 August 31, 1993 plan was premature, if the Board is going to pass a plan here, then it must take a stance and say this is going to be a neighborhood and this is how it is going to evolve and that if some higher authorities with more political power come in and say no, we do not want this, that the Board should stand their ground. Mr. Monkmeyer felt that there should be more parks and ball fields on South Hill. Mr. Monkmeyer concluded by stating that he felt that the Board had done a good job, and keep up the good work, but he did not want the Board to pass the Plan at this meeting. Chairperson Grigorov then asked if there were anyone else from the public that wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Grigorov then asked that the Public get their written comments in to the Board by September 9, 1993 for consideration of the Board at a later meeting and thanked everyone for coming. Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8:49 p.m. and adjourned the Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting regarding the Town of Ithaca Draft Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully Submitted, .�Gaz A15 . C /% StarrRae Hays, Recording Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board 09 07,193 14:35 $607 255 9499 0FC FOR RESEARCH Z001 Straterr►ent of John G. Whitcomb, HE: Town of (t1�aO3 *comprehensive Plan Public Hearing. August 31, 1993. I would like to take tl;(s opportunity to thank the Planning Board for the tedious hours spent reviewing and improving the document we are discussing tonight. I want to congratulate you on a dnr..urnent that strikes a middle ground, a balance between many oornpeting interests. I also want to encourage you as yrrr, are sure to be discouraged by your critics You will no doubt be scolded for too little analysis b and have little understanding rappreciation y Y ,people who tunes n late deliberate process bander which the A n was develQped�! Those lgi a developer driven, laissez faire approach to land use choices w l; no o eSire doubt accuse you tonight of creating a restrictive, elitist document, These who want more stringent controls will accuse you of endorsing the status quo and not going fa.r enough in controllin the rat: of future growth. These criticisms ignore the history of Ihg plan. This plan has taken three years to write. One of the reasons it look so long was tile I emocratic mariner in which it was developed. A committee was appointed that included people from all walks of life and all political persu3asions. A professional consultant was hired who had shepherded nearly 30 Similar planning efforts in this sta: Maps that had little maintenance for 30 years were® c' were and ed. updated. A massive analysts of resources, of dealographics, and of institutions was completed. Many options and alternatives were evaluated. Then there were the many information meetings that were held where public cornments and their concerns were incorporated. Just think about the last several months when you all attempted to insure that everyor�e'a interests were considered in order to achieve consensus, Don't let anyone tell you this plan represents a narrow viewpoint. You all know better and so do they. You, and the CPC before yr . have rightfully provided a balanceO framew ork for decision making considers that residents, the rights of future residents, and the orights eofl develof existing too long, developers only have determined the nature of growth in the Per Town. Now, with the advent of this plan, the Town (who is rharged with fairly representing ALL residents) is on a more equal footing. We expect governmental: all levels to be RESPONSIBLE in its spending, in Hs planning, and in protecting our environment. At the heart of this plan EXHIBIT #1 09/07/93 14.06 '0607 255 9499 OFC FOR RESEARCH <wwL041 S /3t/93 �t ® is responsibility, fiscal and environmental responsibility. We can not afford to continue extensions of infrastrur:tUre, while ignoring the efficient utilization of what is already in place. What could be more fiscally responsible than focusing future growth and development in areas that are already served by water and sPwpr? What is more irresponsible than allowing random, haphazard growth to occur in rural areas where the Town and every taxpayer will eventually have to pay to provide services? Infrastructure costs millions. Why not use what wa have already paid for? Areas of the Town currently served by water and sewer have many times the capacity needed to serve our residential and commercial needs for more than the next 20 years. Only 400 -500 acres are needed during the next 20 years. Of over 9000 developable acres, 2300 acres are presently served by water and sewer. Some may question the need for such a comprehensive plan If we're only going to need 500 acres. This question ignores the historic pattern of development in the Town, From time to time major development pressure has occurred in relatively small areas, the Northeast, East Hill, and more recently, Soirth Hill_ While the impact on the Town as a whole was not major, impact on these specific areas was very significant. Developers and owners of large parcels have rights = but so do residents of existing neighborhoods who have invested in their houses and lots. They expect the Town to look out for their interests too. This plan also lays the groundwork for affordable housing. I suppose a laissez faire, no regulations attitude will encourage some affordable housing. There are some good examples in nearby Towns. But I don't believe responsible affordable housing just happens by itself, The plan does provide incentives, (pg; 111 -3.) Higher density in areas already served by utilities will encourage affordability. One of the biggest dj&lrcentives to affordability is land speculation. South Hill used to be affordable. Then out of state developers came in and bid the price of land beyond the reach of average residents. Responsible planning disCOUrages speculation. There is a sense of predictability associated with planning. This plan wisely sets transportation goals but defers specifics. There ARC important transportation issues in the Town but these; issues tran,oend municipal boundaries. For example, Forest Home is inundated with traffic. Where does it come from? /Much of it comps from the Town and Village of Lansing. Solutions require intermunicipal discussion. Currently an intermunicipal committee, the "MPQ" is considering Z003 n �J IJ `. O9/07/93 14.07 'x'607 255 9499 OF( FOR RESEARCH transportation issues on an area wide basis. Why duplicate hurnan energy and great sums of money on redundant efforts? The Cornell /LEIS process is also an importart step. For the first time in history, the Town is being proactive with Cornell, the major employer_ Together, we are discussing plans for responsible growth in precinct 7, the area Uel.ween Rt. 366 and Ellis Hollow Road, Thank you for providing the Town with this plan. It will serve as a framework fur responsible decision making for years to Come. [004 Let me say that I am for effective planning. Good planning should include essential environmental protection and stable, orderly growth for the common good. My argument is that this particular plan will not benefit the Town at all and only protects the interests of a narrow segment of our community. It is a plan far better suited to a large metropolitan suburban community. The full implementation of its excessive regulations will tax our residents wallets and their tempers. Some specific points......... innuendo, and hyperbole. It is built von� assumptions ethat eare questionable at best. Sec.I p.l states that "the planning effort arose from perceptions regarding development ". What are these perceptions? How did they come about? Are they some vague ideas that the Town is experiencing out -of- control growth and that soon we will see nothing but tacky developments, filling stations, and fast food chains. If so, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, for the next 20 years - at the current rate of growth - we will only need 500 of the 9000 developable acres currently available. That's less than 6% of the total developable land and less than 2% of our current total open land! Under current zoning it will take over 3 and 1/2 centuries to reach the point where there will be no acceptable land on which to build a single family house and even then we will have thousands of acres of "open space" remaining. Hardly a scenario for out -of- control growth! Maybe these "perceptions" have to do with all of the recent talk of certain Town Board members bemoaning the terrible "urban sprawl" that has descended upon use Where exactly is this "urban sprawl "? Is it the tree lined streets and manicured lawns of the Northeast? Maybe those isolated and widely scattered fruit stands and nurseries of Inlet Valley are the first beginnings of vast urban decay. Could it be perhaps that "urban sprawl" is insidiously disguised among the well planned, sited, and architecturally pleasing dwellings of Chase Farm or Deer Run? The fact is that we have no urban sprawl in this Town, and at the current rate of development it is extremely unlikely that we will experience even the beginnings for decades to come. If anything we have rural sprawl - acre after acre of farmland, woodlands, and parks - over 1 3/4 acres of living and playing space for every man, woman and child currently living in the Town - not even counting Cayuga Lake and nearby State parks. This talk of urban sprawl is nothing more than hyperbole designed to achieve certain objectives by playing to residents, fears. I believe that these "perceptions" were born of gross exaggerations put forth by a small number of extremely vocal Town residents. And I am convinced that this alarmist rehetoric significantly shaped the EXHIBIT #2 public responses to the questionnaire which influenced the scope and direction of this plan. The authors skewed these "perceptions" to reflect a public policy agenda subscribed to by a minority of this Town's residents. This agenda limits housing opportunity, economic development, job opportunities, and effective transportation solutions under the guise of environmental concern and the need for "open space ". Let me remind you. It is elitist, hypocritical and immoral to promote the issue of environmental protection to the detriment of the common good. As our own Jack Taylor so aptly stated in a recent radio address: "With all its present popularity, conservation can easily become an elitist attitude which caters to the whims of an affluent society, but conservation stewardship cannot tolerate such arrogance ". Second, this plan will inhibit rather than promote moderate income housing in the Town. Sec II. p.14 states: "The Town is gentrifying; young families are no longer able to purchase a home here. Unless proactive steps are taken the percentage of middle income Town residents will decline." Sadly, your plan will only worsen this trend. By removing large pieces of land for "open space" you drive up the cost of what remains - that's elementary economics. And by increasing the required size of building lots through your proposed land use changes you will definitely increase the cost of houses. This will keep low and moderate ® income people out of our Town. housing the r In effect, you will deny in ousng e vey social and economic diversity many of us so ardently defend in our work places and social institutions. We would be creating a "Scarsdale" of Tompkins county - a place where only the well -off can afford to live, while those of lesser means travel long distances to outlying areas contributing in no small way to increased traffic congestion and air pollution. I an appalled that members of this Town Board recently referred to concerns regarding the lack of moderate income housing in this Town as nothing more than "a political buzzword" This comment is especially shocking in light of this plan's own warnings! Third, this plan is backwards. To plan land use restrictions without first knowing employment, housing, and transportation projections is like giving someone directions without knowing their destination. Housing, shopping, and transportation locations are mostly determined by where people work. All land use planning - within the context of environmental protection and topographic constraints - should begin with an assessment of where people will make their livelihoods now and in the future. From this assessment should flow projections of possible housing areas in close proximity to such work locations that meet the goals of diminishing air pollution and traffic congestion by reducing commuting distances. Following on, shopping and neighborhood scale commercial development should be sited to ® minimize the travel distance from potential homesites - again with the intent to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. Finally, a transportation plan (which your plan totally neglects) D �i �� 2 3 public responses to the questionnaire which influenced the scope and direction of this plan. The authors skewed these "perceptions" to reflect a public policy agenda subscribed to by a minority of this Town's residents. This agenda limits housing opportunity, economic development, job opportunities, and effective transportation solutions under the guise of environmental concern and the need for "open space ". Let me remind you. It is elitist, hypocritical and immoral to promote the issue of environmental protection to the detriment of the common good. As our own Jack Taylor so aptly stated in a recent radio address: "With all its present popularity, conservation can easily become an elitist attitude which caters to the whims of an affluent society, but conservation stewardship cannot tolerate such arrogance ". Second, this plan will inhibit rather than promote moderate income housing in the Town. Sec II. p.14 states: "The Town is gentrifying; young families are no longer able to purchase a home here. Unless proactive steps are taken the percentage of middle income Town residents will decline." Sadly, your plan will only worsen this trend. By removing large pieces of land for "open space" you drive up the cost of what remains - that's elementary economics. And by increasing the required size of building lots through your proposed land use changes you will definitely increase the cost of houses. This will keep low and moderate ® income people out of our Town. housing the r In effect, you will deny in ousng e vey social and economic diversity many of us so ardently defend in our work places and social institutions. We would be creating a "Scarsdale" of Tompkins county - a place where only the well -off can afford to live, while those of lesser means travel long distances to outlying areas contributing in no small way to increased traffic congestion and air pollution. I an appalled that members of this Town Board recently referred to concerns regarding the lack of moderate income housing in this Town as nothing more than "a political buzzword" This comment is especially shocking in light of this plan's own warnings! Third, this plan is backwards. To plan land use restrictions without first knowing employment, housing, and transportation projections is like giving someone directions without knowing their destination. Housing, shopping, and transportation locations are mostly determined by where people work. All land use planning - within the context of environmental protection and topographic constraints - should begin with an assessment of where people will make their livelihoods now and in the future. From this assessment should flow projections of possible housing areas in close proximity to such work locations that meet the goals of diminishing air pollution and traffic congestion by reducing commuting distances. Following on, shopping and neighborhood scale commercial development should be sited to ® minimize the travel distance from potential homesites - again with the intent to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. Finally, a transportation plan (which your plan totally neglects) D �i �� 2 consisting of road networks, public transportation systems, bike paths, and walkways should be planned linking such work sites, ® residential and shopping areas together. Only at this point should possible land use restrictions be considered. Even the Greater Ithaca Neighborhood Association acknowledged in August 1988 that good planning "involves hard choices concerning commercial enclaves and industrial parks, the capacity of school facilities, and the size and location of highways" You have not made any of these choices, yet you have partitioned up the land in such a definitive way that when these choices are finally made their implementation will be blocked by ill advised land use restrictions. What will you do then? Commission another $200,000 study? Let me give you some examples of how your plan lacks logic. Everyone knows that Cornell's development thrust is going to be to the northeast in the area between Rt.366 and Ellis Hollow Rd. Over the course of the next 20 years there is the potential for substantial numbers of people to be employed in this area. Yet when we look at your land use plan we find that the entire area surrounding this site is planned agricultural. A future Cornell employee wanting to build anywhere near their place of employment would need a lot of over one acre in size and could never look forward to the provision of water and sewer. ® Agricultural zoning in this area is also inconsistent with current Town, Bolton Point Water System, and Cornell plans to improve the water distribution system in this region - water service would be there, but agricultural land use restrictions would prevent its distribution. Would it not have been wiser to anticipate this potential development and then work with local residents, Cornell, and possibly even Dryden, to plan land use accordingly in the surrounding area? What is a possible effect of failing to plan a minimal commute alternative for this Cornell expansion? In all probability large numbers of additional people will move into the closest residential areas, which according to your plan's restrictions are the Northeast and the Eastern Heights, Snyder Hill Rd. areas. What will that mean for that old Pine Tree Rd., Judd Falls Rd., problem traffic corridor. More "traffic trashing" of Forest Home and Northeast neighborhoods? Another example is your restrictive and excessive designation of agricultural land on West Hill just at a time when "octopus" intersection improvements will make this area a very desirable place to live. In closing I urge this Board to reject this incomplete plan and ® revisit the planning process in a logical way that is consistently focused on the common good and guided by the balanced viewpoints of all our residents. �-- � 3 David M. Nutter, Chair is Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation c/o Jon Meigs, Bicycle Coordinator Planning Department, City Hall 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14350 August 14, 1993 Carolyn Grigorov, Chair Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mrs, Grigorov: It This letter is in reference to the Town of Ithaca Draft Comprehensive Plan, particularly regarding references to bicycling. I would like to commend the committee which did the extensive work creating this document and to endorse their many recommendations, to: encourage bicycling use bikeways to encourage reduction in car use create a Bicycle Circulation Plan complement adjoining bikeways work with the "County Bike Commission" + use a Transportation Plan to guide project selection *. classify roads according to function and future k document current usage by bicycle riders separate bike & ped. paths from high volumes use signage & traffic controls for bikes encourage plan conformance by developers use of motor traffic require bike parking at commercial and employment facilities require bicycle access to commercial and employment centers This said, I would like to offer one correction, ask for some clarifications, fill a major omission, offer three additional recommendations, and request minor modifications to several others. First, the correction: the name of the planning group referred to on pages II -21 and III -21 and in Appendices D & E should be, I believe, the Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation (TCBT). The: group's name was changed some time ago to reflect more clearly our interest and scope. I am currently the chair, but we can also be contacted through the City of Ithaca Bicycle Coordinator (see above). In addition, George Frantz of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department has been working with the TCBT on his own time. We would welcome a formal commitment from the Town toward this cooperative intermunicipal and citizen planning effort. The TCBT is comprised of bicycle users and planners from several municipalities plus Cornell and ( 1 ) EXHIBIT #3 w Y State Parks. We have met regularly for several years to discuss issues, keep informed, and coordinate plans. We have worked on safety and bike - ability issues on various roads and projects, and we have also been active with the new MPO, the Ithaca- Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). This Past February we presented a proposal to the ITCTC for an initial set of bikeways to connect Ithaca and the other major population centers in the county. The request for clarification in the Draft Comprehensive Plan has to do with terminology. The terms bike route, bikeway, and bike path have been used in the document, but it is not clear from the context that they were used with their standard meanings, and they may have been used as if interchangeable. Surprisingly, bike lanes are not mentioned. For the sake of clarity I urge that certain standard language be adopted. Under specific recommendations I will suggest which term seems most appropriate. The different meanings are: A bike path is designated and signed for bike use, physically separated from any road, and with motor vehicles prohibited. A bike lane is a portion of a road or a paved road ;shoulder designated and ,s:igned for bike use and separated from motor traffic by a stripe on the pavement. is* A bike route is a road designated and signed for bike use but without separation from motor traffic, although usually there are wide lanes, provided to enable motor vehicles and bicycles to pass without conflict. A bikeway can be any of the above facilities and is the inclusive term for• any designated way for bikes to travel. The ommisslon is in the inventory section on page iI -21, Which does not cover' bicycle usage or fra IIities. There I would suggest Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Transportation be described separately, as they differ i.ri many fundamental respects, including speed, distance traveled, and engineering and safety requirements (Indeed, carelessly putting pedestrians and i:)icycle riders together leads to Ball rc�?]S cont li tS) The Bicycle Transportation section would describe the prevalence and the demand for bicycling, the available facilities, and how they should be developed in the future. It. could be excerpted from following: Prevalence: Bicycling is a very popular and growing mode of transportation in the Ithaca area. In the Town, bicycling may even be more prevalent than pedestrian travel. While bike use is considerable on the low and level roads adjacent to the City, ® such as NYS Routes B9 & 13A, bicycling is very prominent as a (2) 0 0 0 means of commuting to the colleges, especially Cornell, as well as in nearby residential and commercial areas. The rising use of bikes trend of over a decade sales. Local biking is populations associated has estimated that half popularity of "mountain not just for off -road riding. weather vehicles allow in the Ithaca area is part of a national in whici: bike sales have outstripped car accentuated by the presence of with Cornell and Ithaca College: Cornell its resident students own bikes. The bikes" in recent years (30% of sales) is These sturdy, low- geared, all - people to climb our steep hills and use bikes for transportation motor traffic year - round. road Demand: While bike use is already substantial, there is reason to believe that, with better facilities, bike use would be much greater, and the safety of current bike users would be enhanced. Responses to question 35 of the 1990 Town residents survey reflect this desire, asking for better road shoulders, bike routes and sidewalks. Similarly, a Cornell report (Cornell Cycles, A New Call for Transportation Alternatives, 1992) found by far the biggest obstacles to local biking were danger from vehicles and inadequate infrastructure, two closely related problems. With good bike facilities, the danger from motor vehicles is greatly reduced, and more people will opt to travel by this low -cost, low- impact. mode. This is significant because most trips made 'by residents of the Town and immediately adjacent jurisdictions are likely to be of an easy distance for biking. It. should be assumed that for any type of trip in the Town, a significant portion of people will choose to travel by bike, and that, with the addition of encouragement and ensured good facilities, bicycle -use will rise. Available facilities: The Draft Comprehensive Plan only mentions "dedLoated bike routes ", which omits the vast majority of bike facilities. There are currently several sections of bike paths in the Town, but no signed bike lanes or bike routes of which I am aware. Bike paths can provide important and popular links and alternatives, but they are and will probably remain a small minority of actual bike facilities, both in extent and usage. It is important not to overlook the places where bikes are most generally used and which allow bikes to be used for any destination. Bicycle riders legally travel on the road, and they III LAC, U Ldje the road u to LA 1.4G � 111UGG lA Ulley pl efer liJ / 11 1 U 1C7 usable. these road facilities for be well enough maintained, not have sufficient usable Therefore motor traffic roads and road shoulders comprise the major portion leads to conflicts and bicyclists. (e.g. arterials be provided. of existing motor a with low bicycle and facilities. (e.g. In many cases, They may not the roads may these road facilities for be well enough maintained, not have sufficient usable biking are not adequate. but more significantly, width for the level of motor traffic and either the current or the demanded bicycle traffic. This behavior by motorists speed is high bike lane should leads to conflicts and bicyclists. (e.g. arterials be provided. and dangerous If and collectors) On roads motor a with low and /or illegal traffic volume or paved shoulder or traffic volume and speed (e.g. residential) a wide lane can accommodate both (3) bikes and passing motor traffic. In both cases standards are is available from AASHTO and in Chapter 18 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual. Because these types of bike facilities are simply modifications of existing roads, they are easier and less expensive to implement• than separate bike paths, and they make the full extent of the current road system accessible to bicycling. 0 C] What is important to bike riding is that there be a smooth, obstacle -free path on the road for bike travel. It must be of adequate width that bike riders and motorists are not in conflict, and neither is required to swerve during passing. Also, the "rules of the road" should remain in effect for all parties at all.times, including turning movements. Therefore I urge the addition to the Draft Comprehensive Plan in Chapter III, section F. Transportation, the following recommended actions under either objective 1, reduced need for cars; 2, appropriate transportation network; or 3, accident prevention: * Ensure that the road system is usable by bicycle by including, for roads with high motor traffic volume or speed (e.g. arterials and collectors), bike lanes or paved shoulders adequate for bicycling, and for roads with lesser motor traffic volume and speed (e.g. local residential), wide shared lanes so that motor vehicles and bicycles can pass one another without conflict. * Maintain road edges and paved shoulders and keep them clear year -round for bicycle use. And I urge the addition of the following recommended action to section C. Housing and Residential Land Use, objective 2, Neighborhoods which are quiet, clean, and safe and that have low traffic, low vehicle speeds, and attractive landscaping: * Encourage neighborhood design which promotes the use of mass transit, bicycles, and pedestrian travel instead of automobiles. Because the efficiency dependent, and distance is decision whether to drive o be very appropriate added t section 4, discouragement o of mass transit is very density major factor in many people "s bike or walk, a similar clause would section g. Growth Management, sprawl, recommendation c, densities: * and which encourage the use of mass transit, bicycles, and pedestrian travel instead of automobiles. I also urge the following minor changes to recommendations in Chapter III: * E -2.a: Under Community Commercial after "autos," insert "bicycles,". * E -2.c: After "vehicular access," insert "auto and bicycle ". ;et] • 0 I� E -4.c: After "road access" insert "by auto and by bicycle" * E -4.d: Before "parking" insert "motor vehicle and bicycle * E -4.f: Change "pedestrian/bicycle paths and sidewalks" to "pedestrian ways and bikeways ". * F_l.c: Change "County Bicycle Planning Committee" to "Tompkins Coalition for Bicycle Transportation". * F.l.e: Change "pedestrian or bicycle paths" to "pedestrian ways, bikeways". * F.2.b: Change, I[ to which roads are used by pedestrians and bicyclists" to "extent of use and desired use of roadways by pedestrians and bicyclists 11 . (It is this second larger figure, the demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities which must be planned for. The Town desires to 'encourage these activities instead of driving, but many people who would like to walk or bike are now reluctant because they feel it's too unpleasant or unsafe.) * F.2.g: Add: "Ensure that bicycling is encouraged, not interfered with, by the Streetscape Plan." (Some streetscape features, including curbs, poles, and pavement surfaces and widths, can be hazards if this is not taken into consideration.) * F.2.h: After "vehicular" insert It bicycle, After "sidewalks" insert bikeways," * F.4.a: After ":road widths" insert "(except to provide for bicycle use, as with wide shared lanes, paved shoulders or bike lanes)" . Thank -you for your consideration the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Draft that I believe they are in the spirit written. Sincerely, �� David M. Nutter, Chair Tompkins Coalition for 293 Station Road Spencer NY 14883 (607) 564 -7766 of these modifications to Plan. I am happy to say of what has already been Bicycle Transportation (5) Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov Chairperson Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Carolyn, August 31, 1993 I have reviewed the August 2, 1993 memorandum and the environmental assessment enclosures submitted to the Planning Board by Project Manager Ronald Brand. I find that the recommendation of a negative declaration of environmental significance is unfounded. The basis for my conclusion is that the draft comprehensive plan is insufficiently complete to accurately document the impacts as required in Part 2 of the long form assessment. I note that all of the questions in insufficient documentation in the "small to moderate ". Furthermore, be within standards acceptable to that no plan currently exists it is 1 permit will be sufficiently large statement. Brand's Part 2 submittal are answered "yes ". However there is plan to support the conclusion that all of the impacts will be the Part 3 narrative provides no assurances that the impacts will the DEC, the community, or the region. Since the town states kely that the amount of development that the proposed plan will to require the completion of a generic environmental impact What is needed before the environmental assessment can be completed? isThe plan synthesis (Chapter W) provides no estimates of the level of community services needed to support current and/or projected future population. There are well known standards that planners use to calculate the amount of commercial, school, water, sewer, highway, park and other services that are and/or will be needed to meet the objectives of the plan. Such services will have an environmental and fiscal impact on the town and surrounding area as the result of the adoption of the plan. Necessary tables must be prepared with this information and an explanation that can be used to accurately assess the impact as required in Part 2 of the SEQR document. Nowhere in the plan does the town discuss or attempt to measure the impact of growth patterns that will occur in the adjoining municipalities as a result of the adoption of the Town Comprehensive Plan. The New York State SEQR law requires such an assessment to be made. This is no different than an applicant within the Town of Ithaca having to measure the impacts of an action on adjoining lands. The major changes in land use policy proposed in the plan are likely to shift development into adjoining municipalities thereupon inducing significant sprawl to these areas. A comprehensive measurement of the impact due to the proposed major changes in land use policies is required. One proactive step the Town of Ithaca should take is to obtain resolutions of endorsement of the plan from the Planning agencies of the adjoining municipalities. We question why presentations of the plan have not been made to these agencies? We presume that copies of the plan will be made available to these agencies and an appropriate comment period such as 45 days be made available to them. ® v Tompkins County government is preparing a Comprehensive Plan. No statement is included in the town draft plan that states whether or not each plan is compatable with the other. Why should the people of the town be caught between two differing land use plans? EXHIBIT # 4 r • Nowhere in the plan is any assessment made of the ability of the community to support the current or any future employment base. Without such an assessment the validity of the town's land use policies are subject to serious question. Tompkins County government together with the business community is preparing an economic strategy. The authors of the town plan should assess the impacts of the findings of that strategy on the ability of the town to retain a vital economic base. Where, for example, does the plan provide the town with the flexibility to site industrial development that might be needed to respond to changes in economic trends? • There is still no assessment of the cost to implement the plan. It was promised that this would be available a year ago. How can the townspeople be expected to support a very ambitious plan without knowing its affordability? In closing, let me express our appreciation to the Planning Board for your efforts to improve the workability of a plan that was essentially handed to you cold. Over the past four months you have improved it considerably. Although it has taken the town well over three years to prepare the current draft it would be unfortunate to have the legal status and ease of implementation seriously threatened by a rush to adopt an incomplete plan. The investment in a few months more work to incorporate the suggestions listed above will be well worth the effort particularly for the Planning Board since you are the ones who most need a complete and user friendly document to assist in all of your decisions. Also, don't make the mistake of violating the town's own Environmental Protection laws. Courts ® are increasingly requiring municipalities to take a hard look at the impact of their actions.There is increasing precedent for requiring environmental impact statements on new laws witness the judge's decision to require such a statement before the NAFTA law is inacted in Washington. We respectfully request that this letter be included as part of the public record of this hearing and the environmental assessment comment records. Very truly Yours Noel Desch • max' a k V i August 31, 1993 To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Dooley Kiefer Subject: Comments on draft Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (dated January 19, 1993) I very much support development of such a plan. The Town needs such a tool to articulate its vision of the Town's future and guide development decisions. In general, the "goals" statements are very good. Some specific comments /suggestions /questions: 1) The boldfaced, italicized goals in Chapter III are particularly important, and should be specifically included in the Executive Summary. I suggest they simply be inserted, as a bulleted list, at the end of the second paragraph on the draft Executive Summary. (An. Exec. Sum. can :be more than one page long') 2) On page V -3:E there is a list of priority.actions; they should be updated by having any that have been started (or completed, such ® as the Conservation Board designation) have that information, together with a date, added, perhaps in parentheses. 3) Among the most vocal critics of the plan and planning process are persons basically concerned about what they view as the "taking" issue -- persons who believe that property rights are essentially absolute. Where in the plan is this question addressed? I believe it is .important to deal with this topic explicitly (and include the recent Supreme Court rulings ?) _ 4) The Town Plan should Ihave a clear statement of philosophy somewhere near the beginning. Such a statement would summarize the residents' vision of the Town's future characteristics and attributes and serve as a template. This could be accomplished by inserting a new section "B" on page I -1 of Chapter I. Attached to this page of comments is my attempt at such a statement. A statement of philosophy is important up front to give the reader /user of the :Plan a feel for the overall approach. It should not be necessary to read the entire document to get this "feel ". 5) On page I -1, -the second paragraph's second sentence sounds as though the balance is to be between "growth" on the one hand and "development" on the other. Is that what is meant? 6a)Does the "rural residential" category still 6call for lot sizes of only one acre? That is barely large enough for a septic system. How is this different from suburbia? is b)Is the "agricultural zone" still lacking in lot size recommenda- tion? A "special permit" process is no guarantee of anything. EXHIBIT #5 Y f ! 0 for 8/31/93 DRAFT Statement of philosophy for the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan to be added as a new Section B on page I -1 B. Statement of .philosophy. ' The.Town'.s:Comprehensive Plan is-guided by a. set of general principles._that; represents the residents' collective vision.-of the Town's future. _The _Town's statement of philosophy is embodied in the following general principles that underlie the specific goals, object ves& and .strategies contained in'the'rest�'of the_ Plan, and that will be used to guide development and control growth decisions 'in .the Town p f Ithaca:- 1) The semi- rural, p�rimarily.residential character of the Town will,be maintained. The City of Ithaca should continue to function as the commercial center of the Town, and as the location of Town government. 2) The Town will,be sensitive to the.rights of individuals of varying back- grounds and.beliefs'and status..to live and work in the town. 3) The Town will be ,sensitive to the need to maintain the.economic. viability of individuals and families residing in the town. 4) A sense of "belonging" will be fostered and a sense of "neighborhoods" will be maintained. Specifically, attention will be given to ways in which a sense of community can be.developed and maintained -- between and among people, between people and their representatives in government; between: and among communities within the town; between people and the-natural environment. 5) Primary attention will be paid to quality of life. Residents should be able to peacefully enjoy their homes and have reasonable access to livelihoods. 6) Town officials will be sensitive to the need to conserve natural resources, recognizing the need to act as responsible stewards of the Town's natural physical inheritance so that it will be available and may be enjoyed by future generations in perpetuity. 7) The Town recognizes that there is no absolute right of a property owner to do anything he /she wishes to with his /her property, rather, permitted uses will reflect the general good of the community, as enumerated above.