HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Comprehensive PlanA VISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
2014
Comprehensive Plan
TOWN OF ITHACA
NEW YORK
ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2014
Cover design: Debra DeAugistine | Deputy Town Clerk
Top photo: Cayuga Lake, boats gather for the Ithaca fireworks show, 2 July 2012. Barbara Friedman
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/btf5/). Use per Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC
BY-NC 2.0) license.
TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ADOPTED 8 SEPTEMBER 2014
TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION 2014‐152
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE
Herbert J. Engman | Town Supervisor, Committee
Chair
Diane Conneman | Conservation Board (2002-2012)
Hollis Erb | Planning Board
Tee-Ann Hunter | Town Board
Patricia Leary | Town Board
David Kay | City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Committee
Diana Reisman, Village of Cayuga Heights Board of
Trustees
Peter Stein | Town Board (2004-2009)
Bill Sonnenstuhl | resident
Stephen Wagner | resident
Joseph Wetmore | resident
David Mountin (2008-2011) | Zoning Board of
Appeals (2008-2012)
TOWN BOARD
Herbert J. Engman | Town Supervisor
William Goodman | Deputy Supervisor
Rich DePaolo
Rod Howe
Tee-Ann Hunter
Patricia Leary
Eric Levine
The Town recognizes former Town Board members
who helped start this project.
Catherine Valentino | Town Supervisor (1996-2007)
Will Burbank | (2002-2008)
TOWN STAFF
Susan Ritter | Director of Planning
Daniel Tasman, AICP | Senior Planner
Michael Smith, AICP | Senior Planner
Christine Balestra | Planner
Nick Goldsmith | Sustainability Planner
Sandy Polce | Senior Typist
Former staff:
Jonathan Kanter, AICP | Director of Planning
Darby Kiley | Planner
Katie Stoner | Sustainability Planner
Nina Coveney | Planning Intern
SPECIAL THANKS TO
Susan H. Brock | Attorney for the Town of Ithaca
PREPARED BY
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
607.273.1747 | http://town.ithaca.ny.us
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan
TOWN OF ITHACA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Ithaca: the setting 3
1.1.1 Building on successes to shape the future 4
1.1.2 Creating a plan for the new century 5
1.1.3 Securing a sustainable future 6
1.1.4 Collaborating with neighboring municipalities 6
1.2 Plan development and organization 6
1.2.1 The importance of the Comprehensive Plan 6
1.2.2 The planning process 7
1.2.3 Concurrent planning initiatives 7
1.3 Community vision statement 8
CHAPTER 2 GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
2.1 Land use and development 12
2.2 Housing and neighborhoods 16
2.3 Natural resources and environment 18
2.4 Energy and climate protection 22
2.5 Agriculture 26
2.6 Recreation (parks and trails) 29
2.7 Historical resources 31
2.8 Transportation 33
2.9 Municipal services and infrastructure 38
2.10 Community services 41
2.11 Economic development 43
CHAPTER 3 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN 47
3.1 Reserve areas 50
3.1.1 Natural / Open 50
3.1.2 Rural / Agricultural 51
3.2 Neighborhood areas 53
3.2.1 Semi-Rural Neighborhood 53
3.2.2 Established Neighborhood 55
3.2.3 TND Medium Density 57
3.3 Activity areas 59
3.3.1 Enterprise 59
3.3.2 Campus 61
3.4 Focus areas 63
3.4.1 TND High Density 63
3.4.2 Inlet Valley Gateway 65
3.4.3 Area of Special Concern 66
3.4.4 Area of Special Concern 1: Emerson Center 66
3.4.5 Area of Special Concern 2: Country Club 68
3.5 Future land use / character map 71
CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION 73
4.1 Land use (LU) 77
4.2 Housing and neighborhoods (HN) 79
4.3 Natural resources (NR) 80
4.4 Energy and climate protection (EC) 82
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan
4.5 Agriculture (AG) 84
4.6 Recreation (RE) 85
4.7 Historical resources (HR) 86
4.8 Transportation (TR) 87
4.9 Municipal services and infrastructure (MS) 90
4.10 Community services (CS) 91
4.11 Economic development (ED) 92
APPENDIX A IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICES A‐1
A.1 Smart Growth A-3
A.2 Traditional neighborhood development A-8
A.3 Form- and transect-based codes A-10
A.3.1 Form-based codes A-10
A.3.2 Transect-based codes A-11
A.3.3 The SmartCode A-13
A.4 Unified development code A-15
A.5 Institutional zoning A-16
A.6 Design standards A-16
A.6.1 Architectural standards A-16
A.6.2 Site planning standards A-17
A.6.3 Landscaping standards A-18
A.7 Context sensitive solutions A-18
A.8 Complete streets A-18
APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS B‐1
B.1 Demographic profile B-3
B.1.1 Population B-3
B.1.2 Age and racial characteristics B-6
B.1.3 Education B-7
B.2 Land use B-9
B.2.1 Development history and trends B-9
B.2.2 Residential development B-11
B.2.3 Commercial development B-12
B.2.4 Industrial development B-13
B.2.5 Agricultural development B-14
B.2.6 Institutional development B-15
B.2.7 Sprawl B-20
B.2.8 Zoning B-21
B.2.9 Land use regulations B-27
B.2.10 Community identity B-34
B.3 Housing B-36
B.3.1 Households and household size B-36
B.3.2 Housing units B-38
B.3.3 Housing unit analysis: Town building permit records B-39
B.3.4 Housing types B-43
B.3.5 Structure age B-44
B.3.6 Housing values and sales B-45
B.3.7 Household income and affordability B-46
B.3.8 Aging in place B-46
B.4 Natural resources and environment B-48
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan
B.4.1 Topographic setting B-48
B.4.2 Lakes and streams B-51
B.4.3 Wetlands B-54
B.4.4 Geology B-56
B.4.5 Soils B-60
B.4.6 Terrestrial ecology B-65
B.4.7 Aesthetics and visual quality B-72
B.5 Energy and climate protection B-76
B.6 Agriculture B-80
B.7 Parks and recreation system B-82
B.7.1 Parks B-82
B.7.2 Preserves B-85
B.7.3 Trails and walkways B-85
B.7.4 Recreational services B-86
B.7.5 Future planning B-87
B.8 Historical resources B-88
B.8.1 Historical resources survey: structures and properties B-88
B.8.2 Historical markers B-90
B.9 Transportation resources B-93
B.9.1 Demographics and transportation B-93
B.9.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization B-94
B.9.3 Existing road network B-94
B.9.4 Traffic B-97
B.9.5 Road maintenance B-100
B.9.6 Automobile alternatives B-102
B.9.7 Air, rail and freight B-106
B.10 Municipal services and infrastructure B-108
B.10.1 Water supply B-108
B.10.2 Wastewater B-112
B.10.3 Stormwater B-115
B.10.4 Road maintenance B-116
B.11 Community services B-118
B.11.1 Fire protection and emergency services B-118
B.11.2 Police B-120
B.11.3 Town government facilities B-120
B.11.4 Schools B-121
B.11.5 Library B-121
B.11.6 Solid waste management B-122
B.11.7 Public health facilities B-122
B.12 Economic development B-123
B.12.1 General economy B-123
B.12.2 Employers B-124
B.12.3 Employment: major occupations B-125
B.12.4 Commuters B-126
B.12.5 Commercial and manufacturing profile B-127
APPENDIX C RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS C‐1
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan
APPENDIX D PUBLIC AND FOCUS GROUP MEETING SUMMARIES D‐1
D.1 Focus groups D-3
D.1.1 Neighborhood focus group D-3
D.1.2 Agricultural focus group D-4
D.1.3 Energy focus group D-6
D.1.4 Housing focus group D-7
D.1.5 Ecology focus group D-8
D.1.6 Health focus group D-9
D.1.7 Recreation/museum focus group D-11
D.2 Public information meetings D-12
D.2.1 Public information meeting 1 D-12
D.2.2 Public information meeting 2 D-16
D.3 Neighborhood meetings D-18
D.3.1 West Hill D-18
D.3.2 South Hill D-21
D.3.3 East Ithaca D-24
D.3.4 Northeast Ithaca D-26
APPENDIX E POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS E‐1
APPENDIX F GLOSSARY F‐1
F.1 Words and terms F-3
F.2 Acronyms F-9
APPENDIX G BIBLIOGRAPHY G‐1
APPENDIX H AGRICULTURE PLAN H‐1
APPENDIX I SCENIC RESOURCES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS I‐1
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 3
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Ithaca: the setting
The Town of Ithaca is a mosaic of rural, suburban, and urban landscapes
that surrounds the City of Ithaca. It is a college town, a farm town, a Finger
Lakes community, and a tourist destination renowned for its scenic vistas,
forested hillsides, gorges, waterfalls and Cayuga Lake. The Town is
fortunate to have three State Parks nearby and many small Town parks and
trails. It is a town where institutions of higher learning flourish, where
comparatively stable employment centers reside, and where there is easy
access to outdoor recreational opportunities, cultural events, shopping,
eclectic restaurants, and a thriving arts and music scene. This mix of rural
and small town charm with a cultural vibrancy and a nearby city vibe is
what makes the Town distinctive. It’s what residents value about living here
and what attracts newcomers to visit and stay.
Ithaca’s reputation for a high quality of life and for being one of the few
expanding economies in upstate New York draw people here. This growth
brings new businesses, new employers, and new ideas. An expanding
population means a broader base to support the arts, culture, and our many
non-profit organizations. The attractiveness of Ithaca has brought many
positive changes but it also brings the challenge of accommodating more
people well and in a sustainable fashion—preserving valuable farmland and
open space, and ensuring that the quality of life that brought people here in
the first place is not jeopardized.
Concerns about growth, and specifically where it should occur, was a central
theme of the Town’s first general land use planning document. The 1959
Ithaca Urban Area Plan was an intermunicipal undertaking by the City of
Ithaca, Towns of Ithaca and Lansing and the Village of Cayuga Heights.
The 1959 Plan expressed deep anxiety over the increasing dispersion of the population into the more rural areas and
away from an urban core and the potential impacts of that development pattern on the quality and character of the
Ithaca area. That plan described the residential land use patterns around the urban fringes as having assumed “the
characteristics of well-scattered confetti” and went on to state: “Most of the roads and highways in the Ithaca
countryside have become, in effect, long drawn-out city streets. New homes have sprung up at random on large lots
along the roadside and the overall effect is that of a loose cluster of houses clinging to the web of concrete and
asphalt that holds them together.” Despite raising alarms, the proposed ideas and recommendations expressed in the
1959 Plan were not translated into concrete actions that remedied the ongoing development patterns in the Town.
It would take 30 more years for the Town to commit formally to implementing regulations and policies to curb the
loss of open space. With the adoption of the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, protection of the Town’s
agricultural lands, natural areas, and environment was established as a high priority. The Plan’s subsequent
implementation has had many important successes. Conservation zoning (with its very low density requirements)
was introduced in 1996 to reduce the development potential on 1,000 acres of sensitive watershed in the Six Mile
Creek Valley. In recent years, conservation zoning has been expanded to other environmentally sensitive areas of the
Town and now covers approximately 3,870 acres of land.
Town of Ithaca at a glance
Settled: 1794 (Forest Home area)
Founded: 1821 (split from the Town of
Ulysses)
Area: 30.3 square miles (total), 29.1
square miles (land only)
Elevation: 382' to 1420’
Population (2010): 19,930
Households (2010): 6,988
Median household income: $55,934
(US Census ACS 2005‐2009)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 4
Agricultural zoned lands have also expanded and now total approximately 4,150 acres. Agricultural zoning
provisions feature both a low density provision (with mandated clustering) and a requirement for deed restrictions on
the remaining large parent parcels; the intended purpose is to keep agricultural lands in agricultural production.
Revisions to the Town Zoning Code as a result of the implementation of the 1993 Comprehensive Plan also included
a right-to-farm provision. Also, the Town implemented a voluntary Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program
for preservation of agricultural lands.
Cayuga Lake
1.1.1 Building on successes to shape the future
Implementation of the 1993 Plan has provided a strong foundation for protecting the Town’s open space and working
farmlands. To ensure continued protection of these valued resources and to accommodate a growing population,
more attention now needs to be turned towards the built environment–to places where development is appropriate
and where most future residents will live and work. Devoting more attention to the built environment and ensuring
that land is used more efficiently and that development is done more thoughtfully and sustainably not only keeps
open space preserved for future generations to enjoy, but also creates more viable places for people to live: places with
intentional neighborhoods that are coherent, more economically sustainable, and more livable, allowing residents of
all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds to call Ithaca “home”.
For far too long, development has been driven by the convenience of the automobile and by zoning regulations
mandating strict separation of uses. Rather than emulating the mixed use, walkable neighborhoods found in many of
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 5
the notable historical villages of New York State, residential development over the last 50 years in the Town has been
typified by physically disconnected subdivisions composed of single family houses on large lots–homogeneous and
accessible only by automobile. Steady demand for new housing has extended beyond the Town’s borders bringing
with it increased traffic without the potential for Town-directed mitigation. The Town's limited commercial
development is vehicle-oriented and usually far beyond the walking distance of most residents. Although there is a
growing system of recreational trails, sidewalks in residential and commercial areas are rare. The public
transportation system is a tremendous asset to the area but does not serve low density, isolated developments; this
makes most Town residents dependent upon motor vehicles for their transportation needs. Additionally, the lack of
housing options fails to satisfy the preferences and needs of our increasing demographically and economically diverse
residents. And, low density auto-dependent development comes at a high public cost with the long-term maintenance
of lengthy roads and utilities, as well as high environmental costs associated with the long-term dependence on fossil
fuels.
1.1.2 Creating a plan for the new century
A convergence of the social, environmental,
economic, and technological forces that has
taken place since the 1993 Comprehensive
Plan was adopted is changing the way people
view and interact with the places where they
live, work, and play. With a new century
comes a new sensitivity to the built and
natural environment that surrounds us. The
outcomes of development practices that were
the norm through the second half of the 20th
century are not necessarily appropriate for the
Town in the 21st century. New practices in
planning, development, civil engineering, and
natural resource protection have emerged—
along with more effective tools that better
help communities shape the built
environment and guide their destiny.
Concepts such as Smart Growth,
sustainability, new urbanism, light imprint
development, and context sensitive design were not well-known when the previous plan was adopted 21 years ago.
Resident surveys and comments at neighborhood workshops conducted during the generation of this updated
Comprehensive Plan reveal support for denser, more affordable, and more sustainable mixed use neighborhoods in
the Town. There is a growing preference among homebuyers and renters for living in communities that are walkable,
more compact, and more socially connected, rather than single family houses in low density suburban subdivisions.
This can be seen locally in the revitalization of many older neighborhoods in the City of Ithaca. The Ithaca area is
also a destination for a growing number of retirees who desire the uplifting social, intellectual, recreational, and
cultural environment offered by college towns. As with young adults, the next generation of retirees also seeks
communities where retirees will neither be physically or socially isolated nor dependent on a car for their day-to-day
needs.
The 2014 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recognizes these trends and creates the mechanism for the Town to
update and adjust its policies and regulations by using new planning concepts and tools to guide future development.
Ithaca Farmers’ Market
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 6
1.1.3 Securing a sustainable future
“Sustainability” means meeting the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. Prioritizing sustainability requires that we consider the way we grow and the effects on our people
(equity), our planet (environment), and our prosperity (economy).
The 2014 Comprehensive Plan focuses on creating a sustainable community. It recognizes that resources are finite
and that to best support a diverse and sustainable community, the Town must make wise choices about how to use its
natural, social, and economic resources. The Town’s prosperity depends on its educational institutions, tourism,
agriculture, and economic development consistent with Town goals instead of short-term, high-impact extractive
industries.
This plan offers the Town a way to do things better with more choices for where and how to live. A more compact
and more connected community can reduce the distances that people travel to work, to shop, or to find an affordable
home–and can reduce our carbon footprint. It can offer more viable multimodal transportation options, reduce
reliance on single occupancy vehicles, and increase connections to nearby employment centers and services. The
Plan supports local food production that reduces our use of fossil fuel. The Plan also demands that we be good
stewards of our natural resources so they remain available and plentiful for future generations.
This plan critically examines what works about Ithaca and what could be improved upon; the Plan consciously
proposes shaping a future that takes into account the reality of a world of resources—energy resources,
environmental resources, and financial resources—under growing strain.
As we look to the future and follow this Comprehensive Plan, we have an important opportunity to be more
intentional about the next stages in Ithaca’s growth.
1.1.4 Collaborating with neighboring municipalities
Municipalities in Tompkins County have been leaders in intermunicipal cooperation; they have extensive experience
in the mutual provisions of water, sewage treatment, municipal health insurance, property assessment, fire and
emergency medical response, the bus system, dog control, recreation, and youth services. Existing cooperative
relationships can be built upon to confront additional shared and challenging issues such as transportation, watershed
protection, environmental protection, climate change, and economic prosperity; these issues are regional in scale and
scope and need collaborative solutions. The Town of Ithaca—a keystone that is contiguous to the City and to all
other towns in the County except one—can provide leadership to ensure that a platform for continued dialogue is
maintained and that planning efforts are coordinated to benefit the collective future for the region.
1.2 Plan development and organization
1.2.1 The importance of the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a “living” document that guides the long-range physical development of the Town of
Ithaca over the next 10 to 20 years. The Plan includes analyses of existing conditions and of past and future trends.
It describes a vision for the physical, environmental, social, and economic characteristics of the Town, and it makes
recommendations so that vision can become a reality. Although not a regulatory document, the Plan serves as the
basis for policies and regulations regarding development and conservation. This Plan also serves as a tool to inform
and guide Town staff, boards, and elected officials on actions and decisions about land use, transportation, the natural
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 7
environment, and economic development. Local residents can use the Comprehensive Plan to monitor whether
development proposals and legislative initiatives conform to the vision and goals that have been set out in the Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed regularly to ensure that its goals and recommendations are still relevant.
As the conditions upon which the document is based change, it is reasonable to assume that its contents also may
need to be changed. Although intended to serve as a guide for the next 10 to 20 years, this Plan should be reviewed at
least every five years, with a more formal revision process to occur at the end of the 10- to 20-year planning period.
A community and the policies that shape its built environment must respond and adapt to the changes taking place
within and around it. For the Town of Ithaca to remain a livable, sustainable, and vibrant community in the 21st
century, it should have a plan that reflects the realities of the new millennium.
1.2.2 The planning process
Development of this Plan was led by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, which included: elected and
appointed Town officials; liaisons from the Village of Cayuga Heights and City of Ithaca; and several Town residents.
Support was provided by the Town's Planning Department.
Committee members (along with elected officials) toured the Town early in the planning process. Public information,
neighborhood, and focus group meetings were held to obtain information from stakeholders on issues such as
housing, transportation, environment, agriculture, education, and energy. Summaries of these meetings are included
in Appendix D. Additionally, a telephone survey was conducted with the assistance of the Survey Research Institute
at Cornell University. The survey focused on five main subject areas: quality of life; growth and development;
municipal services; budget priorities; and laws and policies. The survey also included an opportunity for general
comments and observations from residents. Results of the survey are summarized in Appendix C, and can also be
found on the Town’s website (www.town.ithaca.ny.us).
1.2.3 Concurrent planning initiatives
The Comprehensive Plan also draws from other local plans and studies from recent years. These include:
Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Tompkins County (2006)
Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus (2008)
Ithaca College Master Plan Report (2002)
North East Subarea Transportation Study (1999)
Route 96 Corridor Management Study prepared for Tompkins County Planning Department (2008)
Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (2004)
Town of Ithaca Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan (2012)
Town of Ithaca Baseline 2009: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report – Community (2011)
Town of Ithaca Baseline 2009: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report – Government (2011)
Town of Ithaca Government Energy Action Plan (2011)
Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan (1997)
Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventory (2010 draft)
Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan (2007)
Transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS) prepared by Cornell University
(2009)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 8
1.3 Community vision statement
This Plan update is intended to provide ways for the Town of Ithaca to achieve its vision of where it wants to be in
the next 10 to 20 years. The Steering Committee early in the planning process expressed its vision of where it sees the
Town now and where the Town should be heading in the form of a vision statement that forms the core of the Plan.
That vision statement has evolved through the planning process as a result of community participation and input.
The goals, objectives, and recommended actions in the specific sections of the Plan are intended to guide the Town
toward this common vision, expressed as follows:
The Town of Ithaca enjoys a diversity of urban, suburban, and rural characteristics including lakes, gorges, farms,
forests, parks, and trails; locally produced agricultural products, and accessible cultural, dining, shopping, and
recreational opportunities; a low unemployment rate, stable local major employers, dedicated town staff; and good
health care and other professional services. The Town’s West Hill includes innovative communities such as
EcoVillage, quality affordable housing with spectacular views, and excellent medical facilities, all nestled in between
the best farmland in the Town. South Hill is home to Ithaca College, natural features such as Buttermilk Falls, and
affordable continuing-care institutions like Longview. East Hill includes a large portion of the region's other major
educational institution, Cornell University, as well as small commercial centers and the largest part of the town's
population. Town residents span a range of ages and cultures, are well educated, and benefit from seasonal influxes
that affect their day-to-day experiences.
The Town wants its growth to be more sustainable and coordinated, focused in areas where appropriate services are
available or can be provided efficiently, and planned in a way that is attractive, environmentally sensitive, and
provides access to amenities where residents live, work, shop, and play. We want to encourage preservation of
natural areas and natural resources, and promote the use of renewable energy. Residents of all income levels and
backgrounds should enjoy a choice of housing and transportation options, including easy access to transit, walkways,
interconnected parks and trails, and safe neighborhoods; they should feel connected to their neighborhoods and larger
community and feel highly involved in decisions that affect the Town.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 9
CHAPTER 2
GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 10
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 11
GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals are broad statements that form the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendations are more
specific policies, programs, projects, and mechanisms that direct action toward achieving the goals. The goals and
recommendations represent the values and priorities of the community, and serve as a guide for evaluating future
planning decisions.
Goals and recommendations are organized into 11 policy areas:
Land Use and Development (LU)
Housing and Neighborhoods (HN)
Natural Resources and Environment (NR)
Energy and Climate Protection (EC)
Agriculture (AG)
Recreation (RE)
Historical Resources (HR)
Transportation (TR)
Municipal Services and Infrastructure (MS)
Community Services (CS)
Economic Development (ED)
The goals and recommendations of this plan are intended to shape the Town in a way that will result in a vibrant,
healthy, sustainable, and even more livable community with attractive, walkable, and socially inclusive
neighborhoods, open scenic vistas, preserved natural and agricultural areas, thriving educational and cultural
institutions, a modern transportation infrastructure that accommodates all users, a prosperous and diverse
population, and a distinct sense of place. Goals and policies are based on best contemporary planning practice,
Smart Growth principles, and the collective vision of the larger community.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 12
2.1 Land use and development
The Town of Ithaca is committed to establishing land use practices that promote a strong sense of place for its
residents. Land use and development practices provide the foundation for how a Town grows and changes, and
molds the community’s quality of life, character, and sense of place. The Town’s land use and development goals
anticipate a Smart Growth approach, encouraging pedestrian- and transit-oriented development by establishing
walkable, mixed use residential, office, and commercial areas that are connected by a multimodal transportation
system. These new areas will be interweaved with the Town’s existing conventional suburban neighborhoods,
commercial enterprises, and employment centers, and establish architectural standards in commercial, office, and
industrial areas to promote community identity. The Town is committed to protecting and preserving open space,
agricultural lands, and sensitive
environmental lands from additional
development. The Smart Growth approach
will support an enhanced quality of life for
Town residents, and will put into practice
the Town’s commitment to reduce energy
consumption and to meet its climate
protection and housing diversity goals.
An additional goal is to create new
institutional zoning for Cornell University,
Ithaca College, and other area institutions.
The intention of this new zoning is to
provide the institutions with the flexibility to
plan and develop their facilities, while
ensuring that surrounding areas are
protected from negative impacts such as
traffic, overshadowing buildings, noise, other
externalities from laboratory and research
facilities, and from expansion of
institutional uses into residential areas.
Goals and recommendations
Goal LU‐1: Shape and improve the quality of the built environment by focusing growth to provide for the
needs of Town residents while fostering a balanced mix of agricultural, open space and recreational,
residential, commercial, institutional, and office/industrial uses.
LU-1-A Avoid sprawl by focusing and promoting development in areas where adequate infrastructure and
services already exist or can be easily upgraded.
LU-1-B Preserve and protect lands that contain: steep slopes; Federal, State, or locally designated wetlands;
environmentally important areas such as quality wildlife or plant habitat; forests and woodlots;
agriculture; and areas listed on the inventory of Scenic Resources.
LU-1-C Limit intrusion of non-agricultural uses into agricultural and conservation areas. Buffer farms from
neighboring development.
Stapleton, Denver, Colorado (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 13
LU-1-D Limit low density residential uses to areas that have limited or no value as agricultural or conservation
areas, and which are also not anticipated to be served by public sewer and water.
LU-1-E Require development to take the form of cluster subdivision (also known as conservation subdivision) in
environmentally, agriculturally, and visually sensitive areas.
LU-1-F Establish more intensively developed mixed use neighborhood centers near large employers on East Hill
and South Hill.
LU-1-G Establish new mixed use neighborhoods in areas where they can be supported due to proximity to
utilities and adequate transportation networks.
LU-1-H Limit the acreage of land zoned for commercial and industrial uses in the Town to only the amount
realistically needed to meet current and future demand. Discourage strip commercial zoning and
speculative rezoning.
LU-1-I Restrict frontage (“strip”) residential development.
LU-1-J Redevelop or retrofit aging or abandoned industrial or commercial sites as mixed use, pedestrian-
oriented development.
LU-1-K Ensure that development is sensitive to the community’s scenic views (as identified in the Town’s Scenic
Resources Inventory).
Goal LU‐2: Create, reinforce, and respect a strong sense of place through the form of the built environment.
LU-2-A Adopt architectural design requirements to promote high quality, human-scaled architecture. Encourage
construction of efficient and environmentally sustainable buildings with a timeless visual appeal.
LU-2-B Implement site planning requirements to promote human-scale development and social connectivity, and
to discourage less attractive and less enduring alternatives (such as vehicle-oriented development where
parking visually dominates the site).
LU-2-C Establish standards for landscaping and screening.
LU-2-D Revise sign requirements to ensure that the Town continues to be protected from visual pollution that
results from excessive and inappropriate signs and clutter, while still providing adequate flexibility for
agritourism and special community events. Ensure that sign regulations conform to current legal
doctrine.
See also: NR-2-D (tree preservation)
Goal LU‐3: Maintain and enhance the established character and sense of community of existing
neighborhoods.
LU-3-A Ensure that new development and uses in existing neighborhoods are compatible with the established
character and scale of development.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 14
LU-3-B Encourage infill development and redevelopment opportunities that take full advantage of the existing
infrastructure, yet respect the established character and scale of the built environment.
LU-3-C Establish new and additional systems of communication between Town government and neighborhoods
to ensure early awareness of and input into the Town’s decision-making process regarding proposed
developments and land use changes.
LU-3-D Work with neighborhood groups to determine important characteristics of their community; maintain
and enhance these characteristics.
LU-3-E Encourage private initiatives to maintain or improve neighborhoods (such as neighborhood cleanups,
tree plantings, supervision and maintenance of play areas, and adopt-a-park and adopt-a-road
programs).
LU-3-F Work with the City of Ithaca and other adjacent municipalities to connect and enhance the existing
neighborhoods that cross municipal boundaries.
See also: RE-1-B (provision of parks and trails), TR-2-A (road design, speed, and traffic calming)
Goal LU‐4: Require that new development in designated areas on the Future Land Use map take the form of
traditional neighborhood development (TND).
LU-4-A Scale new neighborhoods to be within a 5- to 10-minute walk (¼ to ½ mile) from a common destination.
Define the edges of neighborhoods, but also provide for easy access to open space.
LU-4-B Promote a wide cross-section of uses, densities, and building types in new neighborhoods. Site more
intensive uses closer to a common destination; intensity and density generally should decrease with
distance from the common destination.
LU-4-C Require new neighborhoods to contain a mix of uses and recreation spaces that support the daily needs
of residents. Locate mixed uses in the appropriate areas and in suitable building types.
LU-4-D Ensure that a variety of housing types and prices are provided that support a broad range of household
types, sizes, lifestyles, life stages, and household incomes in new neighborhoods.
LU-4-E In new neighborhoods, require that civic uses be located in areas of high public visibility, prominence,
and accessibility.
LU-4-F Scale blocks to accommodate a variety of building types and to encourage walking.
LU-4-G Site building types of like scale, massing, and uses to face one another on a given street. Face primary
building entrances towards streets, open courtyards, or public spaces such as parks or plazas.
LU-4-H Incorporate suitable sustainable development practices such as light imprint development, low impact
development, and alternative energy production in the design and construction of new neighborhoods.
LU-4-I Consider neighborhood identification and branding programs including gateway features, special
signage, public art installations, and other features, to reinforce the identity and character of existing and
new neighborhoods in the Town.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 15
See also: TR-2-G (street design following traditional neighborhood development principles), TR-6-A (Complete
Streets)
Goal LU‐5: Recognize in the planning process the presence and character of Cornell University, Ithaca
College, Cayuga Medical Center, and other large institutions.
LU-5-A Implement institutional zoning to recognize and accommodate the unique land uses and built
environment at colleges and universities. The intentions are: to allow institutions the flexibility to plan
and develop their facilities; to promote best planning practice for institutional sites; and to protect the
character of surrounding areas. Consider institutional zoning for other large institutions.
LU-5-B Work with Cornell University, Ithaca College, Cayuga Medical Center, and other large institutions to
ensure that their development plans conform to the Town Comprehensive Plan, while supporting the
missions of their institutions.
Goal LU‐6: Use contemporary, effective tools that reflect best current planning practice to guide the form of
the Town's built and natural environments.
LU-6-A Adopt a new zoning code that includes all aspects of land use and development regulations that are now
located throughout the Town code into one document. Consider a unified development code.
LU-6-B Require a form- or transect-based zoning code to guide the development (where appropriate) of new
neighborhoods and the redevelopment and retrofitting (where appropriate) of existing neighborhoods.
Consider including form-based regulations in a larger zoning or unified development code.
LU-6-C Adopt new subdivision regulations that are suited to a growing community with a diverse range of land
use patterns and physical environments. Consider including subdivision regulations into a larger unified
development code.
LU-6-D Review, revise, and add to as needed, all of the Town’s development standards to ensure that they reflect
current best planning practices and legal doctrine. Remove or revise standards that are barriers to
implementing this Comprehensive Plan.
LU-6-E Revise the zoning code to implement a simplified and more logical categorization of zoning districts,
permitted uses, and siting requirements.
LU-6-F Ensure that all land use regulations are written in clear, plain, and consistent language that will be easily
understood by all users, including laypeople. Use tables, charts and illustrations where possible.
LU-6-G Review the Comprehensive Plan and all land use regulations on a regular basis, to keep ahead of
emerging land use trends, best planning practice, and potential legal issues.
LU-6-H Work closely with adjacent municipalities, Tompkins County, Tompkins County Council of
Governments (TCCOG), Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), and other
appropriate regional agencies and organizations regarding land use planning and development decisions.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 16
2.2 Housing and neighborhoods
A cornerstone of a community’s quality of life is its housing and neighborhood opportunities. Citizens desire safe,
secure, high-quality housing and neighborhoods. Although housing in the Town is largely a function of the private
sector, the Town is responsible for assuring that housing provides for affordability and diversity, including special
needs and multigenerational needs.
The Town of Ithaca is committed to fostering
neighborhoods that are livable, affordable,
walkable, transit-oriented, and sustainable.
To meet that commitment, the Town’s
housing and neighborhood goals include a
Smart Growth approach, which encourages
more density, diversity, and mixed uses in
existing neighborhoods.
The Smart Growth approach also promotes
efficient, mixed use development with a
variety of housing types, sizes, and prices that
provide for a diversity of incomes, ages, and
household types. Complementary services
should be interspersed within new housing
developments. Development will be located
near and connected to existing multimodal
transportation facilities (e.g. pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, trails, and public transport)
and employment centers. New residential
mixed use development will be constructed with respect for and preservation of the natural features of any proposed
development site. Finally, new development will be encouraged to locate within target areas designated as
appropriate for such development.
The housing goals also include promoting Universal Design for seniors and those who want to age in place, and
adopting a multi-pronged approach to increase the supply of housing that is affordable to median income residents.
While the supply of housing geared to low income residents has increased in recent years, housing affordable to
residents in the median income range continues to be in short supply.
Goals and recommendations
See also: LU-1-B (protection of sensitive lands), LU-1-E (cluster/conservation development on sensitive lands), NR-2-
D (tree preservation), EC-2-B (green building standards), EC-2-C (energy code)
Goal HN‐1: Promote the availability of diverse, high‐quality, affordable, and attractive residential
neighborhoods.
HN-1-A Ensure that adequate amounts of suitable land in appropriate locations are zoned to meet the Town’s
share of regional housing needs.
Commonland Community
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 17
HN-1-B Focus new housing development closer to the City and in areas where public transit is available.
Designate locations for new housing that will connect with the Town’s existing and future planned
neighborhoods, parks, trails, and transportation system.
HN-1-C Explore future locations for senior housing that are located conveniently to commercial and professional
services and public transit routes. Include both moderately priced units and market rate options for
seniors. Encourage mixed-age housing and housing that accommodates Universal Design/Aging in
Place principles in all developments.
See also: LU-1-F, LU-1-G (new mixed use neighborhood areas), LU-4-D (housing variety), HN-2-B (zoning and
housing options)
Goal HN‐2: Encourage a balanced blend of high‐quality housing opportunities, including moderately priced
housing to provide a range of prices to accommodate the local workforce.
HN-2-A Require developers to provide a certain percentage of residential development as moderately priced
housing affordable to households in the median income range (80% to 120% of Tompkins County
median household income), and/or consider using density bonuses and other modifications of
development standards (e.g., raise maximum building heights) to encourage developers to create
moderately priced housing units. Moderately priced units should be indistinguishable in appearance and
functionality from other housing and should not be isolated from other housing.
HN-2-B Modify the Town’s Zoning Code to allow smaller lot sizes and encourage smaller residential units and
other strategies in residentially zoned areas to provide housing options that will not preclude moderately
priced housing.
HN-2-C Consider pursuing legal or other mechanisms to ensure that affordable and moderately priced housing
remains affordable over the long term, while allowing opportunities for owners to take a modest
advantage of increased equity. Strategies might include: zoning regulations; housing trusts; deed
restrictions; internal subsidies of lower priced units by higher priced units within private developments;
or other mechanisms that allow a reasonable profit as property changes hands, while keeping the resale
price below market rate.
HN-2-D Continue working with the major employers in the Town, including Cornell University and Ithaca
College, to promote housing opportunities for their employees near their places of employment.
Continue working with Cornell University on their commitment in the Cornell/Community Housing
Initiatives program to fund housing programs and projects that will support moderately priced housing
opportunities in the Town.
HN-2-E Seek grants from Federal, State, and other agencies and foundations to fund housing that are affordable
to those at or below moderate income ranges and also use strategies that do not depend primarily on
Federal or State subsidies, means testing, or third-party agency involvement.
HN-2-F Consider establishment of a housing trust fund or land bank that could be used to support housing
projects in the Town that are affordable to families at or below median income. Consider ways that the
Town can help provide funds to decrease development costs (density bonuses, assistance with
infrastructure, housing trust fund programs, etc.).
See also: LU-4-D (housing variety in new neighborhoods)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 18
2.3 Natural resources and environment
The Town of Ithaca is enriched by a wide
diversity of natural features and open space.
The abundance of woods, waterfalls, gorges,
open fields and meadows, and lakeshore
contribute greatly to the quality of life in the
Town and serve as important habitat for
plants and wildlife. Residents value the
Town’s natural areas and scenic resources.
Ninety five percent of the respondents in the
2009 Resident’s Survey stated that their
quality of life was enhanced by the existence
of natural areas; 91% stated the same for
scenic views. However, our extraordinary
natural heritage is challenged by changes to
the landscape caused by development
affecting the viability of the natural areas,
water quality, and the Town’s scenic beauty.
The Town of Ithaca is committed to the
preservation and growth of diverse natural
areas throughout the Town. The Town
recognizes that natural areas need to be identified, designed, and preserved with an eye towards richness and diversity
in native animal life, native plant life, and ecological communities. Sufficient land must be set aside for the range of
needs of the specific native species that live in that ecosystem, with well-planned interconnecting natural corridors to
allow for the natural migration of the flora and fauna. Natural areas should be developed with the needs of the
plants and animals that inhabit them taking priority. We must ensure that these areas, features that attracted many of
the Town's residents to move here in the first place, are also vibrant for future generations to enjoy.
Although the Town has achieved many of the goals in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan aimed at open space and natural
resource protection, most notably the adoption of a Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, there are still more
challenges and work to be done if we are maintain the character and quality of life as it relates to the natural
environment.
Goals and recommendations
Goal NR‐1: Identify and target natural and environmental resources for preservation and protection.
NR-1-A Inventory, identity, and comprehensively map the Town’s natural areas and open spaces, including
riparian areas, gorges, biological corridors, forest cover, steep slopes, ecological communities, wetlands,
wildlife habitats, etc. Expand the Town’s knowledge of its valuable resources beyond basic existing land
use information and known Unique Natural Area boundaries. Maintain and update the inventory over
time.
Coy Glen Creek
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 19
NR-1-B Establish criteria and a mechanism for classifying the significance and importance of natural areas and
habitat types. Include rarity as a consideration as well as high-quality common habitat/plant
communities/ecosystems, such as those especially large and contiguous, isolated from human activities,
old, or lacking harmful invasive species, or those providing connections between other important
habitats.
NR-1-C Update the 1997 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan to reflect new or expanded natural areas or
open space targeted for protection (through purchase, easements, conservation zoning, etc.) subsequent
to the inventory and classification process described above. Include possible new planning approaches
and necessary funding mechanisms.
NR-1-D Identify and designate additional natural and/or scenic resource areas that warrant Critical
Environmental Area designation as a way to highlight them and to ensure that environmental impacts of
proposed development will be thoroughly assessed.
Goal NR‐2: Protect open space with appropriate land use regulations and development strategies.
NR-2-A Establish buffer areas between development activities and large contiguous protected areas such as
Buttermilk State Park, Robert H. Treman State Park, Eldridge Wilderness, Land Trust preserves (e.g.,
Lick Brook Nature Preserve) and Cornell University natural areas.
NR-2-B Focus development to within targeted areas to protect against habitat fragmentation.
NR-2-C Develop regulations for timber harvesting activities of a certain scale; such regulations should require the
submission of a sustainable forest management plan that includes preservation of enough healthy,
diverse species for an ongoing forest.
NR-2-D Adopt standards for tree preservation, clearing, and replanting for development activities. Provide
incentives for maintaining healthy, diverse species of trees. Require a tree inventory,
replacement/planting plans, and construction standards to protect retained trees.
NR-2-E Continue to ensure protection of Unique Natural Areas through the development review process and its
associated environmental assessment (State Environmental Quality Reviews), conservation zoning, and
other mechanisms.
See also: LU-1-B (protection of sensitive lands), LU-1-E (cluster/conservation development on sensitive lands), LU-
2-C (landscaping standards)
Goal NR‐3: Acquire or assist in the acquisition of open space throughout the Town.
NR-3-A Partner with existing and future nature conservation groups on establishing permanent protection of
environmentally sensitive areas in the Town.
NR-3-B Use funding mechanisms such as the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) or fee-simple land
purchase to acquire or preserve important natural areas or open space.
NR-3-C Encourage private property owners to establish conservation easements to protect environmentally
sensitive lands and open space. Encourage land owners to donate to the Town or other entities, such as a
land trust, environmentally important lands.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 20
Goal NR‐4: Support private and intermunicipal efforts to protect wildlife and open space.
NR-4-A Promote incentives such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), to encourage development
or improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. [Note: The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
administers WHIP and provides technical and financial assistance to landowners for the development of
upland, wetland, aquatic, and other types of wildlife habitat].
NR-4-B Support and collaborate on intermunicipal/regional efforts to develop protection plans for contiguous
expansive areas of natural resources that extend beyond municipal boundaries. Such areas might
include wildlife habitat, biological corridors, Cayuga Lake and other lakes and streams, wetlands, mature
forests, and other important mixed ecosystems (e.g., the Emerald Necklace effort led by the Finger Lakes
Land Trust).
Goal NR‐5: Support and actively engage in efforts to control the threat of invasive species.
NR-5-A Manually remove invasive species and where necessary allow the judicous use of herbicides and
pesticides on Town-owned land following Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program standards and
tree harvesting, as needed. Develop management plans for invasive species on Town-owned lands.
Monitor trends in invasive plants growing along Town roadways and on Town-owned property.
Proactively plan for the consequences of a Town-wide invasive insect infestation and the resulting
damage to trees and forests
NR-5-B Encourage use of native diverse landscaping which includes a variety of plant species.
NR-5-C Educate residents (through the Town newsletter, informational displays at Town facilities, brochures,
etc.) about invasive species found in the Town or those likely to spread into the Town. Include how to
identify these species, what can be done to prevent their spread, and what should be done if they are
found. Include hands-on removal programs as appropriate.
Goal NR‐6: Protect water resources and seek to improve water quality.
NR-6-A Incorporate low impact development, light imprint development, and green infrastructure standards to
reduce the amount of impervious surfaces and offsite stormwater runoff.
NR-6-B Continue to support water quality testing and evaluation of major streams and Cayuga Lake to ensure
protection of our area’s water bodies.
NR-6-C Monitor regulations, policies, and practices to ensure the health of Cayuga Lake and its value as a
natural resource.
NR-6-D Maintain Cayuga Lake as a natural area capable of supporting a diverse and healthy ecosystem and as a
source of potable water.
NR-6-E Acknowledge the “impaired water quality” designation and listing of the southern end of Cayuga Lake
by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, and strive to improve water quality through
policy making.
NR-6-F Oppose using the waste water treatment plants to receive and handle large volumes of industrial or other
hazardous waste products.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 21
NR-6-G Continue to help support and participate in organizations like the Cayuga Lake Watershed
Intermunicipal Organization and the Stormwater Coalition of Tompkins County to share resources;
work cooperatively with other municipalities to protect Cayuga Lake.
NR-6-H Establish regulatory mechanisms to protect wetlands; place particular attention on those wetlands that
are not currently addressed by State or Federal wetland protection laws.
NR-6-I Reevaluate methods and policies related to the maintenance of roadside ditches, including decisions
related to the closing/piping of ditches. [Note: Ditches are the dominant conveyor of stormwater and
their role in water quality and stormwater runoff is a critical consideration.] Educate members of the
public on the need to take responsibility for the care and maintenance of ditches on their property.
See also: RE-1-C (Cayuga Lake access), MS-4-A (stormwater management plan, stormwater-related laws)
Goal NR‐7: Preserve scenic resources that contribute to the Town’s unique character.
NR-7-A Finalize the Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis Report which identifies, catalogues, and provides
analyses of the Town’s significant scenic areas.
NR-7-B Pursue protection of critical scenic resources by purchasing lands or acquiring conservation easements.
NR-7-C Adopt development standards intended to protect scenic resources.
NR-7-D Promote the appreciation of scenic resources through education by developing scenic overlooks and
educational signage in parks, neighborhoods, and public spaces. Construct overlooks and signage in
such a way that they are an enhancement and amenity to neighborhoods and other locations.
See also: LU-4-I (neighborhood branding)
Goal NR‐8: Protect existing air resources and maintain the air quality for the health and safety of Town
residents.
NR-8-A Consider enacting regulations that address and reduce air quality impacts from outdoor wood burning.
Such regulations might include: building permits for installation of outdoor wood boilers; setbacks from
neighboring properties; prohibited use in residential zones; and mandated seasonal-only use.
NR-8-B Enact regulation to limit the cumulative air quality impacts from industrial, diesel, or other similar
operations.
NR-8-C Explore adopting a motor vehicle idling law.
Goal NR‐9: Protect neighborhoods from noise disturbances and pollution including the cumulative impacts
of noise.
NR-9-A Prevent noise pollution through ongoing enforcement of community noise regulations.
NR-9-B Establish performance and design standards to address and reduce effects of noise pollution.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 22
2.4 Energy and climate protection
The Town of Ithaca is committed to protecting and
enhancing its economic, environmental and
community resources, to benefit future generations
while at the same time addressing the needs of today.
The Town Board has endorsed sustainability and
climate protection as overarching principles to guide
long-term decision-making; elements of these
principles are infused throughout this Comprehensive
Plan.
The guiding principles for the Town’s sustainability
efforts are as follows:
The Town leads by example through integrating
energy efficiency, sustainability, and climate
protection into its daily operations.
The Town enacts and implements policies and
regulations that integrate sustainability and
climate protection into building and construction
practices and land use planning.
The Town engages in partnerships that strengthen
sustainability efforts internally and community-
wide.
The Town provides education and outreach to its
constituents to promote sustainable practices,
energy efficiency, and conservation, and to
encourage public participation.
The transition to a more sustainable future for the Town of Ithaca goes beyond the work of government. Residents,
business owners, and organizations each have a part to play in creating the community we aspire to live in. Though
the Town government cannot do it alone, it will provide leadership to the community as we move forward. The long-
term goals articulated here support the guiding principles and provide a framework to advise future decision-making
and policy development. The actions that accompany these goals are specific activities to be implemented to achieve
the long-term goals.
Goals and recommendations
Goal EC‐1: Incorporate sustainability and climate protection into long‐term planning.
EC-1-A Institutionalize sustainability in Town operations. Consider continuing a sustainability position and
creating an internal sustainability committee. Distribute sustainability-related tasks to existing staff as
necessary.
EC-1-B Conduct greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories at regular intervals to assess emissions from government
operations and from the community at large. Streamline and facilitate data collection.
Residential wind turbine, Town of Ulysses
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 23
EC-1-C Implement the Government Energy Action Plan 2011 to achieve a 30% reduction in GHG emissions
from government operations by 2020. Update the Energy Action Plan (EAP) on a regular basis and
consider incorporating long-term actions in future Plans to meet the existing goal of reducing
government GHG emissions 80% by 2050.
EC-1-D Set short- and long-term goals for community-wide GHG emissions reductions. Develop and implement
a Community EAP to meet reduction goals, and update Plan on a regular basis. Maintain a citizen
committee to advise on the implementation and update of the community EAP and other sustainability-
related issues.
EC-1-E Maintain membership in ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability for continued access to climate
action planning tools, technical assistance, training, and networking.
See also: LU-4 (mixed use/traditional neighborhood development), LU-6 (best planning practice)
Goal EC‐2: Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions in buildings and infrastructure.
EC-2-A Consider using policy instruments and regulations to reduce energy use in existing buildings. For
example, building owners could be mandated or encouraged to perform energy audits and energy
efficiency improvements, and to track energy usage.
EC-2-B Consider adopting a building code to require all new construction projects and major renovations to
incorporate green building techniques and achieve specific energy efficiency standards.
EC-2-C Partner with local organizations and businesses to create, promote and maintain incentives, financing
options, and education and outreach campaigns that support energy efficiency in new and existing
buildings. These products could be marketed to building owners, tenants, developers, builders, code
enforcement officers, and other populations.
EC-2-D Ensure municipal buildings and facilities act as a model of good energy efficient practices. Track energy
usage on a regular basis. Conduct energy audits and implement recommended upgrades. Adopt a green
building policy for all major renovations and new construction projects. Provide education for
employees about behavior change to reduce energy use.
EC-2-E When replacing lamps in municipal streetlights and traffic signals, investigate use of LED lamps or other
high-efficiency equipment. When specifying replacement technologies, take into account the full life
cycle costs, including energy and maintenance costs. Also take into account the spectrum of light
produced, and its effect on visibility and aesthetics and the health of humans and wildlife. Encourage
NYSEG to improve the efficiency of the streetlights it controls.
Goal EC‐3: Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions related to the treatment and distribution of
water and wastewater.
EC-3-A Conduct comprehensive energy audits of municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities and
infrastructure, and implement recommended upgrades. When replacing equipment, use the most energy
efficient equipment that is economically viable when taking into account full life cycle costs. Explore
other changes to the water supply system in order to improve overall efficiency.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 24
EC-3-B Work with Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission (also known as Bolton Point) to
establish a water rate structure that incentivizes consumers to reduce usage.
EC-3-C Develop and implement an education and outreach program to encourage water conservation and
efficiency community-wide. Consider using policy instruments and regulations as well.
Goal EC‐4: Reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions in the transportation sector.
EC-4-A Partner with local organizations and businesses to support programs that educate residents, businesses
and Town government employees about cleaner operating and more efficient vehicles and vehicle use.
EC-4-B Adopt a municipal green fleet policy that: includes a vehicle replacement plan that specifies vehicles that
are smaller, more energy efficient, and well-maintained; reduces vehicle miles traveled by Town
government vehicles through greater efficiency, planning, and cooperation; and reduces idling in
municipal vehicles.
See also: LU-4-A (pedestrian sheds), LU-4-B (mixed uses in new neighborhoods), TR-2-G (street design following
TND principles), TR-6-A (Complete Streets), TR-6-B (neighborhood design and automobile dependence), TR-7-B
(automobile dependency)
Goal EC‐5: Encourage and facilitate the production and use of renewable energy.
EC-5-A Adopt renewable energy goals for the community and for government operations, to guide decision-
making (e.g. meet a certain percentage of the Town government’s energy needs with renewable energy
sources by 2025).
EC-5-B Revise Town regulations to facilitate local renewable energy production and use (e.g. revise Town Code,
streamline the permit process, reduce permit fees).
EC-5-C Work with other municipalities, local utility companies, businesses and organizations to develop
financial incentives for the installation and use of renewable energy systems. Explore models for
community-owned renewables.
EC-5-D Partner with local organizations and businesses to support programs that provide resources and
information on renewable energy technologies, installation, and financing.
EC-5-E Generate renewable electricity on Town property. Consider integrating renewable technologies in all
new Town buildings and significant renovations; address this early on in the planning process. Consider
using power purchase agreements (PPAs) or lease agreements to make solar photovoltaic installations on
Town property more economically viable. Consider installing biomass systems when replacing boilers.
EC-5-F Consider the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs) to offset a portion of GHG emissions related
to Town government electricity usage until Town-operated renewable systems can be installed.
Encourage residents and businesses to purchase RECs.
Goal EC‐6: Reduce GHG emissions related to waste generation and purchasing.
EC-6-A Adopt a waste reduction policy for municipal operations to strengthen existing practices, and consider
implementing a compost program in Town facilities.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 25
EC-6-B Partner with local organizations and businesses (e.g. Tompkins County Solid Waste and Finger Lakes
ReUse) to support programs that encourage Town residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and
compost.
EC-6-C Work in cooperation with other municipalities to eliminate duplicate recycling, reuse, and composting
services.
EC-6-D Adopt a sustainable purchasing policy for Town operations that calls for the procurement of products
and services that have a reduced negative impact on human health and the environment as compared
with their conventional counterparts, and are sourced from or provided by locally owned businesses
when possible and legally permitted. Encourage local businesses to consider similar policies.
See also: CS-4-A (waste management and curbside composting), CS-4-B (demolition material reuse and recycling),
CS-4-C (promote recycling and solid waste center)
Goal EC‐7: Build a resilient community by preparing for and adapting to the unavoidable impacts and costs
of climate change.
EC-7-A Work with the Tompkins County Planning Department and other municipalities in the County to
develop a county-wide climate change adaptation plan. Develop a climate change adaptation plan that
provides specificity under the County-wide framework to prepare for the impacts and costs of climate
change within the Town of Ithaca.
EC-7-B Adopt new or modify existing policies so that the anticipated effects of climate change are considered
when changes are made to Town infrastructure (e.g. increase the height of bridges over waterways and
of pipe diameters of culverts and other stormwater conveyance systems).
EC-7-C Require the planting of street shade trees in appropriate areas to counteract the urban heat island effect
of parking lots and roads.
See also: LU-2-C (landscaping standards), NR-2-D (tree preservation), AG-3-B (community gardens)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 26
2.5 Agriculture
Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca is
very diverse. Agricultural enterprises
include dairy, vineyard and winery,
direct-marketed produce (via area
farmers markets, u-pick operations,
and roadside stands), field crops,
forest crops, landscaping and nursery
stock, Christmas trees, greenhouses,
horses, beef, chickens, fiber, corn-
maze sound gardens, and
community-supported agricultural
(CSA) operations. There are newly
developing farm operations, farms
20-50 years old, and several
multigenerational farms. Farming in
the Town is concentrated in the
western part of the Town along the
borders of Enfield and Ulysses, and
crosses these boundaries. Portions of South Hill are also actively farmed and Cornell University uses areas of East
Hill for agriculture and agricultural research.
Farmland, and the farmers who work it, make a major contribution to the well-being of all Town residents. In
addition to the direct contribution to the local economy through the production of local products and employment of
workers, local farmers also make significant indirect contributions to the local economy through the purchase of
equipment and supplies, and through the relatively low demands on costly public infrastructure. The rural character,
which is enjoyed by Town residents and is essential to the local tourist industry, is provided largely by local farmers
and State parks. Perhaps most importantly, farmers in the Town of Ithaca have established a tradition of stewardship
of the land and its resources.
Town farmers are committed to continuing farming and to keeping their land in agriculture. The Town needs to have
a proactive approach to keeping agriculture viable and needs to work with farmers on issues that impede their ability
to remain or become more profitable.
The Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan outlines a vision for agriculture in the Town. The
vision statement from the Plan is also the basis for the goals and recommendations that are found below. The
Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan vision statement declares that:
“The Town of Ithaca recognizes that agriculture is an integral part of the Town’s economy and environment, provides
locally grown food and other agricultural products, and enhances the quality of life for Town residents. The Town
proactively promotes a diversity of farm types; seeks the long-term preservation of the Town’s agricultural land
resources; supports the economic viability of the farming community and the profitability of each farm; values the
local public agricultural research and educational resources; and encourages the general public to understand and
support local agriculture.”
Farm in the West Hill area
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 27
Goals and recommendations
The Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan contains a detailed list of recommendations under
each of the goals listed below. The following recommendations were selected from that expanded list. The first five
goals come directly from the overall Vision Statement for agriculture for the Town. The entire Agricultural and
Farmland Protection Plan is included in Appendix I.
Goal AG‐1: Ensure long‐term protection of agricultural land resources for agriculture, open space, and scenic
resources.
AG-1-A Continue implementation of the Town’s current agricultural conservation easement acquisition program
(PDR) for appropriate agricultural parcels that have been targeted in the Policies and Procedures Manual
for the Agricultural Land Preservation Program.
AG-1-B Consider enlarging setbacks for non-farm residential dwellings in the agricultural zone to provide spatial
and vegetative buffers between the houses and agricultural activities (such as crop production, animal
pasturage, and hunting).
AG-1-C Require vegetative buffers on non-agricultural land so that farm lands have maximum space and so that
trespassing and movement of pesticides to and from farmlands is prevented and dust control is
enhanced.
AG-1-D Support the Town of Ithaca’s Agricultural Committee.
See also: LU-1-A (infrastructure and development), LU-1-C (farmland encroachment and buffering)
Goal AG‐2: Retain and encourage a diversity of economically viable farm types.
AG-2-A Review and revise regulations pertaining to structures to accommodate farm operations (e.g., sprinkler
law, use of rough-cut timber, property maintenance law).
AG-2-B Encourage shared farm infrastructure development (storage and processing facilities, slaughter and
processing facilities, mobile market, locations for CSA dropoff and pickup, etc.).
Goal AG‐3: Promote the availability of locally grown foods and other agricultural products for all residents,
including limited‐income families.
AG-3-A Accommodate farm stands, year-round farm markets, greenhouses, value-added product operations,
home food production, u-picks, CSA, and agritourism sites.
AG-3-B Require or encourage community gardens in larger new housing developments; provide community
gardens, including raised beds, irrigation water, and other facilities to encourage participation of all
residents, on Town lands and elsewhere.
Goal AG‐4: Encourage public understanding and involvement.
AG-4-A Continue support for agricultural and gardening programs for youth (e.g., community gardens, and 4-H
Clubs).
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 28
AG-4-B Heighten public awareness through the use of the Town’s website, newsletter, and signage regarding
speeding and other traffic issues affecting farmers (e.g., animal and equipment movement).
AG-4-C Encourage household production of food (gardens, orchards, vines, and small food animals such as
rabbits and hens).
AG-4-D Notify applicants for building permits of their adjacency to or location within the Town’s agricultural
zone and the County’s agricultural districts, and provide them with a copy of the right-to-farm law.
Goal AG‐5: Promote wise land use and agricultural waste management.
AG-5-A Encourage ongoing relationships between farmers and resources such as Cornell Cooperative Extension
and Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District for farm management and sound farming
practices.
Goal AG‐6: Protect the environment and human and animal health from the negative impacts of large
concentrated animal‐feeding operations (CAFOs).
AG-6-A Lobby State and Federal legislatures to allow towns to regulate CAFOs through local laws and
ordinances.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 29
2.6 Recreation (parks and trails)
Recreational opportunities are
important to the general health and
welfare of the community.
The Town of Ithaca park and trail
system consists of a wide variety of
types and sizes of facilities. These
facilities include many neighborhood
parks, one developed community
park, four nature preserves, three
multiuse trails, and several
walkways. The existing Town parks
provide a range of recreational
facilities including play structures,
ballfields, playfields, sledding hills,
picnic areas, nature trails, and even a
community garden in one
undeveloped Town park. The
multiuse trails and walkways provide off-street alternatives for joggers, bikers, and walkers, as well as commuting
paths to work, school or shopping.
The Ithaca area is also fortunate in having two large City parks, four State parks, Village parks, and the non-publicly
owned open areas of Cornell University, Ithaca College, and the Finger Lakes Land Trust, as well as numerous other
public and private recreational facilities within or near the Town of Ithaca. Both Buttermilk Falls State Park and
Robert H. Treman State Park are located within the Town of Ithaca.
The recreational needs of the community are considered a priority. The Town has started to develop a network of
parks and trails throughout the community; as the Town continues to grow, it must constantly reassess the
recreational opportunities available for residents now and in the future.
Goals and recommendations
The 1997 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan outlined goals and objectives regarding the development and
maintenance of the Town’s recreational opportunities. Many of these goals and objectives (or recommendations) are
still relevant to the Town’s future park and trails system, and have been carried over here with additions.
Goal RE‐1: Provide an integrated system of parks, recreational facilities, and open space throughout the
Town, with linkages among trails, parks, nature preserves, stream corridors, and utility rights‐of‐way.
RE-1-A Prepare and adopt an updated Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, using the 1997 Plan as the
foundation.
RE-1-B Continue to locate and develop a cost-effective and interconnected network of public parks and trails to
provide active and passive recreational opportunities for Town residents. Continue the Town’s support
for the Black Diamond Trail, Gateway Trail, and extension of the South Hill Recreation Way.
Coordinate park and trail development with the efforts of surrounding municipalities.
Eastern Heights Park
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 30
RE-1-C Encourage increased public access to the recreational resources of Cayuga Lake.
RE-1-D Consider future maintenance costs when planning the development of any new parks, trails, or
preserves.
RE-1-E Modify existing subdivision regulations to allow the required 10% reservation of park setasides to be
used in a variety of ways, including preserves, natural areas, or greenways in addition to the currently
allowed small pocket parks or cash contributions. Establish an option for payment in lieu of a park set-
aside, where legally allowed, including a formula for determining a fair payment amount to be held in
reserve for park, open space, and recreational purposes, including the acquisition of property.
RE-1-F Require new parks and common open space to be amassed into meaningful, quality spaces. Require
parks and common open space to be contiguous to the maximum extent practicable, and located where
they are visually and functionally part of the public realm.
Goal RE‐2: Provide recreational opportunities for all Town residents.
RE-2-A Provide recreational opportunities near residents’ homes and workplaces.
RE-2-B Provide recreational activities and programs for Town residents.
RE-2-C Maximize mutually beneficial intermunicipal cooperation and partnerships between the public and
private sectors to deliver high-quality recreational services for Town residents.
RE-2-D Aggressively pursue recreation-oriented grant opportunities.
See also: LU-3-E (private neighborhood improvement initiatives), RE-1-B (provision of parks and trails)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 31
2.7 Historical resources
The Town of Ithaca has a rich
history with many cultural and
historic resources that contribute to
the life of the community and a sense
of place. The many old stately
buildings of the late 1800s and early
1900s, built in such architectural
styles as Gothic Revival, Federal,
Italian Renaissance and Greek
Revival, are community treasures
and provide visual reminders of our
past. These residences, schools, and
businesses were built during a period
when attention to the aesthetics and
architectural details strengthened the
community character—a trait often
missing in today’s typical
subdivisions and commercial
developments. Historical markers installed throughout the Town denote important landmarks, such as former Native
American settlements, early farmsteads, and water-powered mills that once flourished throughout the Ithaca area.
These connections to our past help us maintain our historical memory; they provide a link to our cultural heritage
and a better understanding of the people and events that shaped the Town’s development.
As the Town grows and changes, the tangible evidence of our history becomes more threatened. The impact of
traffic, utility, and infrastructure changes such as electrical wires, road materials and road widths, incompatible
architecture, fragmented land uses, and other issues need to be evaluated and addressed carefully. Protecting historic
and cultural resources through proactive planning efforts will ensure that the Town maintains and enhances its unique
sense of place for current and future generations.
Goals and recommendations
Goal HR‐1: Preserve, enhance, and promote the Town’s historical resources.
HR-1-A Develop a historic preservation program using the inventory conducted by the Historic Preservation
Planning Workshop at Cornell University and the recommendations outlined in their Final Report for the
Intensive Level Survey (2005).
HR-1-B Explore appropriate mechanisms or incentives to ensure that existing historic buildings, structures, and
resources in the Town are preserved and protected. Explore grant opportunities to assist local residents
in upgrading and improving historic structures that have come under disrepair.
HR-1-C Consider developing and designating a local historic overlay district to protect local historic structures
and sites.
Town Hall
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 32
HR-1-D Explore the benefits of participating as a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the program of the
NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. [Note: To participate in the CLG program,
the Town is required to create and adopt a historic preservation ordinance designed to protect historic
structures].
HR-1-E Work with historic preservation
groups, such as Historic Ithaca,
to coordinate protection of
historic resources.
HR-1-F Ensure continued maintenance
of existing Town-owned
historical markers that are
located throughout the town.
HR-1-G Promote awareness of local
history, including Native
American and other early
settlements and industries.
See also: LU-4-I (neighborhood branding)
House in Forest Home neighborhood
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 33
2.8 Transportation
The Town of Ithaca adopted its
Transportation Plan in 2007 which grew
out of recommendations from the 1993
Comprehensive Plan and recognition of the
need for a close look at the Town’s
transportation system. A number of other
transportation studies have been completed
since the 1993 Plan, including the
Northeast Subarea Transportation Study
(NEST, 1999), Forest Home Traffic
Calming Plan (2007), Cornell University
transportation-focused Generic
Environmental Impact Statement (t-GEIS,
2008), and the Route 96 Corridor
Management Study (2009).
It has become clearer than ever that
consideration of the interrelationships
among transportation, land use, housing, and energy consumption are critical to finding the best balance of
sustainable growth and development in the Town. These issues also have to be examined on a regional scale and in
cooperation with other municipalities in the area. A good example is the amount of commuter traffic; approximately
14,000 in-commuters originate from outside of Tompkins County and travel through the Town and City of Ithaca on
a regular basis for work. Important in these efforts is the provision of choices to residents, commuters, and visitors.
Per the mission statement of the Town’s Transportation Plan, the Town is committed to fostering a transportation
system that enhances the quality of life in the Town. The Town, in collaboration with other municipalities and
agencies, can start developing a multimodal transportation system that reduces the dependency on single occupancy
motor vehicles (SOV) through carpooling, ride sharing, and perhaps park-and-ride lots, as well as making it easier for
residents to choose walking, biking, and transit for their routine transportation. Walking, biking, and transit need to
be planned as complete networks so that people see them as viable transportation options for getting to routine
destinations, not just as recreation.
Long-term planning needs to shape development into patterns that make transporting people over large distances less
necessary. Smart Growth zoning will reduce the amount of future sprawl development in our community and help
organize our neighborhoods in a way that makes public transportation feasible. In addition, the Town must
encourage development where it is needed, based upon proximity to employment centers, services and existing
infrastructure—not just where it is inexpensive to build. Minimizing the need for automobile-based transportation is
one of the most sustainable ways to solve our transportation problems. Segmentation of our community, where
home, school, work, and recreation are separated, leads to increased car dependency. Low density housing is difficult
to service with public transportation. Mixed use communities increase the potential for use of all alternatives to SOV
trips.
Changes to land use regulations and the effects of their eventual implementation can take many years. In the
meantime, the Town seeks to establish and implement policies and programs that will facilitate the provision of
alternatives to automobile transportation. These policies, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities in road projects,
facilitating transit access, and promoting alternatives to SOV use, can be developed in the near future and
implemented concurrently as part of road improvements, site development, and future planning studies.
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) bus, Tower Road
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 34
Goals and recommendations
Goal TR‐1: Develop and maintain a multimodal transportation system that provides for the effective
movement of people and goods.
TR-1-A Develop a transportation system that serves the mobility interests of the Town’s residents and businesses,
while recognizing the interests of through traffic.
TR-1-B Use the Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Maps in Volume II - The Appendices of the 2007
Transportation Plan to guide the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Town.
TR-1-C Assume the costs of construction and maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that serve a
broader population beyond the adjacent neighborhoods.
TR-1-D Work with other entities to improve the safety, aesthetics, and convenience of walking and bicycle
connections in priority locations in the Town.
TR-1-E Continue to expand and improve the multiuse trail network in the Town and work with Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council (ITCTC), Tompkins County, and other entities to expand the County-
wide trail network.
TR-1-F Work with TCAT, ITCTC, and major employers, to develop a park-and-ride system.
TR-1-G Consider increasing funding to TCAT to ensure adequate levels of transit service in the Town. Work
with TCAT to improve transit service frequency to underserved areas of the Town and rural areas of the
County.
TR-1-H Continue to provide funding for Gadabout to ensure continued service for senior citizens and the
disabled in the Town.
TR-1-I Encourage use of carpool, vanpool, and car share from the public and private sectors.
TR-1-J Devise traffic demand management strategies to reduce peak hour demand on roadway capacity. Work
with employers to provide incentives to reduce peak hour single occupancy vehicle use.
See also: RE-1-B (park and trail system)
Goal TR‐2: Develop and maintain a transportation system that promotes livable, healthy, and attractive
neighborhoods.
TR-2-A Control traffic speed through road design standards, traffic calming, and reduction of road widths (street
diets). Incorporate low-speed designs along residential and neighborhood streets when they are
reconstructed.
TR-2-B Work to beautify streetscapes, restore roadways to a human scale, and improve the character and
livability of the neighborhoods through which they pass when modifying and rebuilding roads in
residential areas.
TR-2-C Consider the effects of traffic volume on the quality of life in new and existing neighborhoods.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 35
TR-2-D Use a context sensitive approach for road planning and design. Implement design standards that
consider the purpose of a road, adjacent built and natural environment, and desired character, to ensure
roads are in harmony with their setting. Work with New York State and Tompkins County to apply
context sensitive design solutions when designing roadways.
TR-2-E Work with TCAT to minimize disruptions caused by buses in residential neighborhoods, while
nevertheless providing adequate transit service to the neighborhood.
TR-2-F Address truck traffic patterns that route through residential areas; to do this, work with Tompkins
County, New York State, the City of Ithaca, ITCTC, Cornell, local businesses and other regional
stakeholders to minimize the impacts of truck traffic on residential neighborhoods.
TR-2-G Require roads in new development to follow principles of traditional neighborhood design, with a grid
of streets that provides a high level of connectivity rather than looping streets, permanent cul-de-sacs,
pods, and other elements that make interconnectivity difficult. Where appropriate, require alleys to
provide access to garages and loading areas, and a convenient location for utilities and trash collection.
TR-2-H Require mitigation plans for projects likely to generate significant truck and heavy vehicle traffic, or
require offsite worker parking and equipment staging areas.
Goal TR‐3: Strive to provide a safe transportation system and to prioritize safety and security in the
implementation of every transportation‐related goal.
TR-3-A Continue to evaluate intersections with poor sight distances; make improvements as necessary.
TR-3-B Regularly request crash information from the Department of Motor Vehicles to update the crash
database. Identify hazardous locations and take steps to mitigate problems, including notification to the
owner of the road, if not the Town.
TR-3-C Continue to petition the County and State for speed limit reductions in appropriate locations.
TR-3-D Adopt access management requirements to control access points to the Town's streets. Ensure access
management requirements are compatible with, or where legally permitted, stricter than County and
State standards.
See also: TR-2-A (road design speed and traffic calming), CS-2-B (traffic enforcement)
Goal TR‐4: Effectively maintain the transportation system.
TR-4-A Strive to ensure that sufficient capital resources are available to maintain the transportation system.
TR-4-B Preserve current rights-of-way for the transportation system. Identify and pursue planned rights-of-way
needed to enhance connectivity.
TR-4-C Require developers and subdividers to dedicate rights-of-way and construct portions of proposed
collector roads and extensions that cross or touch their property.
TR-4-D Update the 2007 Transportation Plan periodically to reflect changes within the transportation system
and the consequent evolution of transportation-related problems, needs, and solutions.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 36
TR-4-E Regularly update the Official Map. [Note: this map shows existing and planned roads, parks, and trails
in the Town.]
TR-4-F Continue to allow the Public Works Department the flexibility to set its own schedule of roadway
improvements, consistent with Highway Expenditure Agreement with the Town Board, practice
preventive maintenance wherever possible to save money over the long term, and operate in an
environmentally sensitive manner.
Goal TR‐5: Coordinate with other local and regional organizations to promote a regionally coordinated
transportation system.
TR-5-A Continue to explore opportunities for increased intermunicipal sharing of facilities, equipment, labor,
knowledge, and expertise.
TR-5-B Support the establishment of community and regional pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the
Town and County.
TR-5-C Continue the Town’s strong level of participation in the ITCTC.
TR-5-D Continue to support the findings of Cornell University’s t-GEIS and Transportation Impact Mitigation
Strategies where appropriate. Continue to work closely with Cornell, ITCTC, TCAT, and other entities
in supporting the Cornell/Community Transportation Investment Initiative Program.
Goal TR‐6: Promote future development patterns that reduce the need for and use of automobiles and
which encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation.
TR-6-A Design streets in accordance with Complete Streets principles – built and maintained in a way that
accommodates not only motor vehicles, but also pedestrians of all ages, bicyclists, and public
transportation vehicles.
TR-6-B Design neighborhoods to reduce automobile dependence and to encourage modal shifts to walking,
cycling, and public transportation.
TR-6-C Examine the existing sidewalk and trail system and pursue opportunities to make connections within the
system. Retrofit existing streets with sidewalks and/or bicycle lanes where practical. Explore the
establishment of new multi-use pathways independent of the roadway network that would allow
pedestrian and bicycle mobility away from motor vehicle traffic.
TR-6-D Consider transportation impacts when making land use decisions, and consider land use impacts in
terms of land use patterns, densities, and designated uses when making transportation decisions.
TR-6-E Evaluate parking area requirements to reduce development of excessive pavement and to encourage
multiple uses of paved areas.
TR-6-F Continue to work with TCAT and developers to ensure that new development in the Town is served by
transit where possible; key issues are adequacy of access for buses in site plans, provision of bus stops
and shelters, and route extensions or service enhancements where feasible.
See also: LU-3-A (development scale). LU-4-A (pedestrian sheds)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 37
Goal TR‐7: Protect the environment, including the significant natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic
resources of the Town, when planning any changes to the transportation system.
TR-7-A Consider the environmental consequences of transportation decisions; minimize negative impacts on the
natural environment whenever reasonable and to the greatest possible degree.
TR-7-B Work to reduce the negative effects of overdependence on motor vehicles, including detriments to open
space and air quality, by reducing the total number of vehicle miles driven, the number of individual
trips, and the average distance and duration of trips.
TR-7-C Assess the need for wildlife crossings.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 38
2.9 Municipal services and infrastructure
Municipal services and infrastructure
are a vital but frequently less noticed
part of the day-to-day life of the
Town. Having high quality
municipal services and reliable
infrastructure, such as water, sewer,
drainage systems, and roads, are
essential to our community’s quality
of life and sense of safety. Meeting
expectations for existing services and
infrastructure is an ongoing
challenge that requires constant
attention and continued
coordination with local partners.
Costs for improving, expanding, and
maintaining these services and
infrastructure, as well as the facilities
used to plan and carry out these
functions, are ever increasing and
necessitate the implementation of strategies to help control costs. Rising energy costs alone are likely to strain limited
resources and require vigilant attention to incorporating sustainable approaches in the delivery of services and
operation of infrastructure and facilities. This includes concerted efforts to promote, educate, and incentivize the
conservation and wise use of resources by utility and service users.
The expansion of services and infrastructure to meet the needs of our growing community requires careful
consideration. Expanding infrastructure to serve new areas has important fiscal implications and can have profound
effects on the community character. Town land use policies can play a positive role in reducing the need to expand
services and infrastructure. A policy that channels future development into areas with existing services and restricts
new service to planned growth areas can avoid the ill effects of development in which demand is spread out to less
dense areas, creating excessive costs that are ultimately shouldered by all service customers. The availability of
reliable and high-quality services combined with rising energy and material costs are also motivating factors likely to
direct and encourage development to concentrate in designated places.
Meeting the expectations for municipal services requires both short- and long-term planning. Capital planning and
strategic asset management approaches are effective tools to help set goals and to ensure that scarce financial
resources are properly allocated, and that consideration of the community expectations for services are evaluated in
the decision-making process.
The Town is committed to continuing to provide high-quality and reliable services in a sustainable manner for the
safety, comfort, and enjoyment of its residents, business owners, institutions, and visitors.
Town employees providing leaf collection service
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 39
Goals and recommendations
Goal MS‐1: Provide quality and reliable infrastructure and services in a cost‐effective, sustainable,
responsible, and efficient manner – meeting current needs and anticipating needs of the future.
MS-1-A Continually update the five-year capital improvements plan (CIP) for financing the maintenance, repair,
and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and municipal facilities, as well as the construction of new
infrastructure. [Note: The CIP is an important tool for planning, prioritizing and budgeting of capital
needs for such things as buildings, utility systems, roadways, and heavy equipment.]
MS-1-B Develop and adopt a long-range water and sewer master plan, consistent with the land use goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, for the operation, maintenance, and extension of water distribution and
wastewater collection facilities. The plan will document existing service conditions and identify short-
and long-term water and wastewater servicing strategies and associated capital projects to serve the
developed areas of the Town.
MS-1-C Investigate additional opportunities for shared municipal services with other Tompkins County
municipalities where not precluded by other existing agreements. Where desirable, consolidate
municipal services and/or cooperate with other government agencies to limit the duplication of services
and the costs of providing such services.
MS-1-D Continue to seek and promote additional public and private funding sources for infrastructure
repair/maintenance/development to offset the cost of improvements and construction. Examples might
include bonding for long-term project funding needs and Federal, State, or private grant opportunities.
MS-1-E Continue to work cooperatively on joint projects with the City of Ithaca and Town of Dryden
concerning the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility, Cayuga Heights concerning the Cayuga
Heights Waste Water Treatment facility and with the four other members of the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermuncipal Water Commission on the Bolton Point Water System.
See also: LU-1-A (infrastructure and development).
Goal MS‐2: Maintain, assess, and repair/replace/retrofit/rehabilitate existing public infrastructure, facilities,
equipment, and services.
MS-2-A Monitor and evaluate the water distribution system; assess and evaluate complaints by customers and
annual system maintenance measurements.
MS-2-B Monitor the wastewater collection system by conducting periodic flow measurements within the sewer
system to determine adequate capacities and quantities.
MS-2-C Continue the Town’s proactive maintenance of Town roads, sidewalks, and trails through repair, snow
removal, cleanup, and other appropriate activities, to the service levels identified by the Town Board.
MS-2-D Perform annual pavement condition surveys of Town roads and determine necessary preventive and
corrective maintenance measures to ensure safety and maximize pavement life.
See also: TR-2-H (mitigation plans for construction-related truck/equipment traffic)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 40
Goal MS‐3: Based on sustainable development principals that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
limit expansion of public infrastructure and services.
MS-3-A Limit extension of infrastructure into areas not designated for intensive development except when
required for public health and safety. Ensure that extensions are consistent with the needs expressed in
the Comprehensive Plan, sustainable development principals, and adopted Town policies or industry
standards.
See also: TR-6-D (transportation impacts in land use decisions)
Goal MS‐4: Ensure the capability of public and private stormwater management infrastructure and facilities
to provide reasonable protection to property and natural systems from flooding and to minimize degradation
to water quality by reducing contaminants in stormwater runoff.
MS-4-A Implement the Town’s Stormwater Management Plan in compliance with New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Phase II Stormwater Regulations. Enforce, administer, and
update as necessary the Town’s Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Law.
MS-4-B Maintain and update a comprehensive inventory of public and private stormwater management facilities
and infrastructure; create a program for routine inspections and maintenance. Develop a strategy to
assess infrastructure needs, and to prioritize solutions for the repair, upgrade, and improvement of the
Town’s stormwater infrastructure.
MS-4-C Ensure that landowners protect and maintain privately held stormwater infrastructure and facilities to
established standards. Provide education and outreach programs to inform businesses, homeowner
associations, and residents about the existence, purpose, and maintenance requirements of their
stormwater infrastructure and facilities and the full range of green stormwater management options
available, taking into consideration site specific conditions.
MS-4-D Provide appropriate staffing to enforce provisions of the Stormwater Management and Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Law to ensure compliance with Federal, State and locally adopted programs and
regulations.
MS-4-E Complete a Town-wide urban watershed model for use in assessing existing drainage issues and potential
impacts from proposed new development on the stormwater collection and treatment system.
MS-4-F Establish Town policy that prescribes when and under what circumstances the ownership for stormwater
facilities and infrastructure will become the Town’s responsibility; keep in mind the practicality of long-
term maintenance and operation for certain types of residential developments.
MS-4-G Pursue a permanent and equitable funding mechanism for the administration of the Town’s stormwater
management program. Study options such as inspection and permit fees, forming stormwater
management districts, creating stormwater utilities, etc.
See also: NR-6-A (low impact development)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 41
2.10 Community services
The community facilities and
services available to Town residents
are important factors in maintaining
and enhancing a high quality of life
in the Town of Ithaca. As
development occurs, the strain on
existing schools, libraries, parks,
emergency services, and local
government functions increases;
these facilities and services often
need to be expanded for new
residents and businesses.
The Town of Ithaca requires and
depends on a variety of public, volunteer, and private services for fire protection, public safety, and police services.
The Town also relies on private services for its public health and educational facilities. It is important to encourage
and maintain high- quality fire protection, public safety, and police services and public health facilities that provide
excellent healthcare options for Town residents.
Quality schools and educational institutions that provide students of all ages with the skills necessary to be successful
and productive are also a critical part of a thriving community. The Town is fortunate to be home to a university, a
college, and a large public school system and a variety of alternative education options and is committed to engaging
students in civic life. Work study, service learning and internship opportunities are consistently offered to students
with staff, board, and committee members providing training and oversight. Secondary school students have
benefited from educational materials developed with the Town to augment their study of government. The Town
welcomes and encourages student engagement in its operations and at public meetings
The Town of Ithaca is committed to assuring that the required public safety, police, and fire services and facilities are
available now and in the future to meet the needs of existing and future Town residents. The Town is also committed
to supporting existing and future public health facilities, schools, and other educational institutions.
Goals and recommendations
Goal CS‐1: Maintain and strive to improve the Town government’s ability to serve its citizens.
CS-1-A Encourage inter- and intramunicipal cooperation and communication to provide high-quality services at
reasonable costs. Continue joint development of mutually beneficial services and facilities and
cooperation with shared equipment with neighboring municipalities and the county.
CS-1-B Ensure that Town residents are well informed in Town matters through continued distribution of the
Town newsletter and regular updates on the Town website.
CS-1-C Ensure that Town officials, boards, committees, and staff are well versed in the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, and support professional and educational development for all officials and staff to
serve the community well.
Rescue Engine 202, Village of Cayuga Heights (Village FD web site)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 42
CS-1-D Continue to support public libraries. Explore opportunities for local residents to use libraries at local
educational institutions.
Goal CS‐2: Ensure that fire protection, public safety, and police services in the Town of Ithaca are adequate.
CS-2-A Explore options for an increased presence of public safety officials in the Town.
CS-2-B Partner with existing public safety officials to ensure enforcement of vehicle safety and traffic laws in the
Town.
CS-2-C Explore ways to reduce fire protection costs to residents, such as continuing negotiations for current fire
contracts, establishing a Town-sponsored fire department, and investigating shared services with other
non-partnered municipalities.
CS-2-D Update the Town’s Zoning Code to reflect the most recent fire code regulation changes.
Goal CS‐3: Integrate public school facilities planning with Town land use planning.
CS-3-A Work with the Ithaca City School District so that land can be reserved for schools when planning future
development and so that school facilities will be in harmony with the Town’s vision of future land use.
Goal CS‐4: Minimize the impact of solid waste on Ithaca’s residents, businesses, and the natural
environment.
CS-4-A Continue coordination with the Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division for the removal
and management of the Town’s solid waste. Implement a townwide program to test residential curbside
composting in partnership with the Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division.
CS-4-B Explore the option of a construction and demolition ordinance that requires the diversion from landfills
of a proportion of all waste associated with construction, demolition, and renovation projects (e.g.,
shingles, ceramic tiles, sheetrock, toilets/bathtubs/sinks, treated wood, wallboard) either through
recycling or reuse.
CS-4-C Promote use of the newly renovated Recycling and Solid Waste Center to help Tompkins County reach
its goal of diverting 75% of waste from landfills by 2016 and 80% by 2030.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 43
2.11 Economic development
Economic development is a means of enhancing the
well-being of the community as a whole. It includes
the creation and retention of jobs and support for
workplace practices that promote broad-based
economic prosperity with a focus on alleviating local
poverty.
Local tax policy has minimal effect on the decision by
corporations to locate or remain in a community. The
quality of life, cultural and recreational opportunities,
educated population, and natural attractiveness of the
Ithaca area have consistently been cited as
inducements to live here.
The Town welcomes the creation and growth of
sustainable, locally focused businesses—ones that use
local resources, employ local people, and create
products and services to benefit the local market and
beyond. The Town welcomes businesses that
complement our community character, including
those that take advantage of our farms to create value-
added food products, our natural areas and parks to
bolster tourism, and the high level of education in our
local population to enhance technology and the green
economy.
The Town values its entire labor force and the
employers who respect the right of workers to
organize and bargain collectively.
The Town recognizes the important contributions of our institutional and educational service employers, including
research spinoff companies. The Town acknowledges that our local economic future will be even stronger if it is
supported by a solid base of smaller companies and businesses that are locally owned and operated and which
employ local construction workers and employees. Local businesses create a multiplier effect, in that the profits
derived and the wages earned are likely to be invested locally. And businesses that are committed to the local
economy have a greater stake and interest in the long-term viability of our community. The Town wants to focus on
sustainable businesses that are committed to being part of the community over the long term and not short-term or
extractive industries that create infrastructure demand and lingering costs to the community far beyond the life of the
business.
Maintaining and encouraging job growth is also important to the Town. Our community is fortunate to have a
relatively stable employment base with many well-paying jobs. Yet, we still have many who are underemployed or
who must work more than one job. By continuing to support the creation of quality and diverse job opportunities—
ones that that provide benefits, prospects for advancement, and wages at or above a living wage—the Town can help
to provide employment opportunities for residents across all skill levels and socioeconomic groups.
South Hill Business Campus
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 44
Goals and recommendations
Goal ED‐1: Promote a stable, sustainable, and diverse local economy.
ED-1-A Encourage the continued vitality of existing employers, full employment, wage levels that keep families
out of poverty, and the incorporation of marginalized citizens into the economy.
ED-1-B Foster a positive entrepreneurial environment for business start-up and expansion.
ED-1-C Consider ways to streamline development review, permit processing, and code enforcement within
shorter timeframes; clarify and simplify regulations; eliminate redundant layers of control; and ensure
predictability (also discussed in the Land Use Section, Goal 6).
ED-1-D Support workers in attaining fair labor practices.
ED-1-E Support the mission of the Town’s major public and non-profit institutions which: contribute to a
diversified economy; bring living wage jobs, new activity and capital into the economy; develop and
promote advanced technology; and provide substantial public benefits and needed services to area
residents.
ED-1-F Support artists, arts organizations, and institutions because of: their potential contributions to a healthy
business climate; their role in creating a cultural environment that attracts other living wage employers,
as well as tourists, to the region; and the substantial benefits they provide to the region’s quality of life.
ED-1-G The Town should lead by example by considering the local economic impact of layoffs, attrition, wage
levels, and level of benefits and by giving priority in purchasing and contracting when legal and
practicable to locally based business with positive employment practices.
ED-1-H Work to increase communication among government agencies, businesses, organized labor, institutions,
and other entities that might provide economic opportunities. The aim is to enhance the common
understanding of issues related to employment growth, business competitiveness, public policy goals and
program implementation. Promote partnerships between government and business.
ED-1-I Support agricultural economic development, including a strong agritourism industry, based on the
findings of the Town’s Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan.
ED-1-J Support sustainable businesses rather than short-term, high-impact extractive industries.
Goal ED‐2: Establish a cohesive and sustainable economic development policy for the Town of Ithaca.
ED-2-A Articulate a socially equitable long-term economic development strategy that builds on local competitive
advantages and promotes environmental stewardship and economic justice.
ED-2-B Participate in a larger, regionally coordinated economic development planning strategy, which includes
businesses, organized labor, institutions, Town officials, officials from neighboring communities, and
area residents.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 45
ED-2-C Engage Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD) in cooperative efforts to develop viable economic
incentives and initiatives tailored to the Town’s unique conditions; adapt TCAD’s major economic goals
to fit the Town’s needs.
ED-2-D Work to reduce poverty by supporting economic development efforts that provide worker training and
recruitment of businesses that offer employees the opportunity to be elevated.
ED-2-E Promote regional industry clusters that will draw on local advantages to access local and wider markets.
ED-2-F Evaluate publicly supported economic development programs and incentives on their long-term benefits
and impacts, including long-term employment at living wages. Give weight towards projects that
practice outstanding site and architectural design, promote redevelopment of brownfields and greyfields,
and do not exacerbate urban sprawl.
ED-2-G Ensure equitable public economic development investments, which prioritize infrastructure and
supportive services that promote the vitality of all local businesses or an industry sector, rather than
individual businesses.
ED-2-H Support tax policies that encourage business development and growth based on the area’s workforce,
economic vitality, natural beauty, cultural attractions, and generally high quality of life, rather than tax
breaks that shift funds from the general public to specific profit-making entities.
ED-2-I Provide funding to nonprofit agencies contracting with the Town that encourages those agencies to
employ staff at or above the living wage.
ED-2-J Actively pursue increased financial support from prominent local tax-exempt institutions to substantially
offset existing and future costs of infrastructure and beneficial services.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 47
CHAPTER 3
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 48
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 49
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
The future land use plan establishes the framework for development as a general, conceptual guide. It designates
desired development patterns based on the aspirations of this Plan.
The future land use plan is considered a guide for zoning and future development in the Town, and should be closely
adhered to. However, each proposed development should be judged upon its merit, how it is compatible with and
complementary of existing and future development, as well as other goals and policies set by this Comprehensive
Plan. On the map, edges of each of the character districts should be interpreted as somewhat undefined. Parcel lines
are intentionally not shown, to demonstrate the distinction between the comprehensive planning process and its
implementation through zoning and neighborhood regulating plans.
This Plan defines ten character districts in four groups: reserve areas, neighborhood areas, activity areas, and focus
areas. Character districts are areas that share a similar built and natural environment, including mix and intensity of
land uses, type and prevalence of open space and natural features, and form of development.
Reserve areas Activity areas
Natural / Open Campus
Rural / Agricultural Enterprise
Neighborhood areas Focus areas
Semi-Rural Neighborhood TND High Density
Established Neighborhood Inlet Valley Gateway
TND Medium Density Area of Special Concern
Character district descriptions below include the purpose or desired character of the district, criteria justifying its
location, approximate location, mix of uses, approximate residential density, current zoning equivalent, and transect
zone equivalent based on the rural-to-urban transect model described in Appendix A: Implementing Best Practices.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 50
3.1 Reserve areas
Reserve areas are locations with natural and agrarian assets, viewsheds and/or rural character that should be
protected from urbanization.
3.1.1 Natural / Open
Purpose:
The Natural/Open character district is
intended for lands that should be kept in a
natural or semi-natural state. The integrity of
features such as wetlands, mature woodlands,
watercourses, steep slopes and viewsheds will
be preserved. To the maximum extent
possible, structural improvements will be
limited. Uses will be mainly of a passive
nature, related to the aesthetic, educational,
recreational, and scientific enjoyment of the
land.
Criteria:
This character district is assigned to largely
undeveloped and uncultivated areas that are
deserving of special attention for preservation
and protection. It includes land approximating or reverting to a natural state, environmentally sensitive lands,
important natural areas, large parks and preserves, and land unsuitable for settlement or agriculture due to
topography, hydrology, or soils condition.
Location:
Lands in this category are located throughout the Town, with the amount generally increasing with distance from the
Ithaca city line.
Uses:
Parks (predominantly passive recreation), conservation areas, nature preserves, arboretums, open space, low impact
recreation, natural sciences research and education, limited agroforestry and forest gardening, uses necessary for
resource management and conservation, sparse residential development on a case-by-case basis.
Residential density:
≤1 unit (primary)/15 acres
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: C, AG, PDZ
Rural-urban transect: T1 (natural)
Cascadilla Creek near Pine Tree Road
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 51
3.1.2 Rural / Agricultural
Purpose:
The Rural/Agricultural character district is envisioned to be a bucolic, sparsely settled area that may be cultivated or
adapted for human use in an open or semi-natural state. Agriculture and other uses consistent with a rural setting
will be the defining features of the landscape. The right to farm will be respected, and agritourism and related value-
added operations will be encouraged to keep agricultural uses viable. New concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFO) should be discouraged.
Farm in the Town of Ithaca
Building footprints should be small in relation to the underlying lot, and clustered or grouped where appropriate to
preserve contiguous open lands and rural vistas. Residential and non-agricultural buildings should be sparsely
located, and sited in a pattern that honors environmental features and agricultural uses. Frontage subdivision should
be greatly restricted.
Criteria:
This district is assigned to areas with a rural or agrarian character, where agriculture and related uses are prevalent or
desired. It includes, but is not limited to, areas ideally suited to agricultural uses due to soils, topography, or
microclimate.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 52
Location:
Agricultural character districts are concentrated in the western part of the Town along the borders of Enfield and
Ulysses, portions of the South Hill area, and agricultural, equestrian, and animal husbandry research areas at Cornell
University.
Uses:
Agriculture, agritourism and secondary value-added operations, equestrian uses, agricultural and animal husbandry
research and education, open space, low impact recreation, sparse residential development.
Residential density:
≤1 unit (primary)/12 acres, higher if tightly clustered.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: C, AG
Rural-urban transect: T2 (rural)
Farm in the Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 53
3.2 Neighborhood areas
Neighborhood areas are locations where residents live, play, work, and interact with each other.
3.2.1 Semi‐Rural Neighborhood
Purpose:
The Semi-Rural Neighborhood character district is intended to accommodate limited low-impact residential
development in a semi-rural setting, while preserving the open character of the surrounding countryside. Desired
development forms include larger lot development with significant preservation of open space; and clustered
development with a variety of detached and semidetached housing close to urbanizing and developed areas where
utilities exist and more frequent public transit service may be available.
Development should be integrated into the surrounding agricultural and natural landscape, and sited to have a low
visual impact from arterial and collector roads and viewscape corridors. Large contiguous parcels of agricultural,
forest and/or environmentally sensitive land in a development area should be preserved. Acreage lot development
should be discouraged, and frontage subdivision greatly restricted. Public sewer and water service should be limited
to cluster development close to urbanizing and developed areas, where their availability will not encourage or
exacerbate acreage or frontage development.
EcoVillage
Criteria:
This district is assigned to areas with value as open space but which are subject to development because acreage or
frontage development has taken place and infill opportunities are limited. Urban services such as public sewer and
water, or frequent public transit service, are very limited or unavailable.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 54
Location:
Lands in this category are located throughout the Town.
Principal uses:
Single household residences, accessory units, multiple household residences in cluster developments, open space.
Supporting uses:
Agriculture and agritourism, parks and
recreation facilities, limited artisanal/cottage
industrial uses, very limited low-intensity
commercial and office uses, home
occupations.
Residential density:
Average: 1.5 units/acre gross, may be higher
if located near utilities, transit or employment
centers *
Open space (public/common): ≥50% of
development site
* - density throughout a development,
including open and civic space.
Density does not include accessory units or
bonuses for affordable housing.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: LDR, AG, PDZ
Rural-urban transect: T1 (natural), T2 (rural), T3 (neighborhood edge
West Hill
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 55
3.2.2 Established Neighborhood
Purpose:
The Established Neighborhood character district is intended to acknowledge existing developed neighborhoods. No
significant changes to the character of established neighborhoods are anticipated as a result of this plan. Infill and
redevelopment sites should be developed at a density that takes full advantage of existing infrastructure, yet remains
sensitive to the established character of its setting. Commercial uses should be limited. Sidewalks should be
considered for areas where there is significant pedestrian traffic in competition with other modes of transportation
within the roadway footprint. Bicycle lanes or shared lane markings should be established on arterial and collector
streets where topography allows. Expansion of streets with limited or no interconnectivity is strongly discouraged.
Criteria:
This district is assigned to areas already developed primarily with single household residences, townhouses and
apartment complexes; and associated civic and recreational uses.
Northeast Ithaca
Location:
Lands in this district are located throughout the Town, with the amount generally decreasing with distance from the
Ithaca city line. The largest concentrations are in Northeast Ithaca, East Hill east of Slaterville Road, along the
Cayuga Lake shoreline, and South Hill southeast of Ithaca College.
Principal uses:
Single household and multiple household residences, accessory units.
Supporting uses:
Schools, places of worship and assembly, limited low-intensity commercial and office uses where appropriate at
prominent intersections, public and private parks and recreation facilities, home occupations.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 56
Residential density:
Range within neighborhood: 1-10
units/acre gross *
Average for neighborhood: 2-4
units/acre gross *
Open space (public/common):
≥10% of neighborhood or
development site
* - density throughout a
development, including open and
civic space.
Density does not include accessory
units or bonuses for affordable
housing.
Zoning districts with similar
characteristics:
Current zoning code: MDR, HDR,
LR, MR, NC, PDZ
Rural-urban transect: T3
(neighborhood edge), T4 (neighborhood general)
Forest Home
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 57
3.2.3 TND Medium Density
Purpose:
The TND Medium Density character district
is intended to be the setting for compact
mixed use neighborhoods based on traditional
neighborhood development design principles.
This includes a mix of housing types, lot
sizes, and price ranges that appeal to a wide
variety of households, built to create
intentional, cross-generational neighborhoods
with linkages and proximity to services,
employment, nearby neighborhoods, public
transit and recreational areas. Most
residences will ideally be within a ten minute
walk to a small mixed use center.
Development will ideally incorporate human
scale design; an interconnected street network
providing a variety of routes for local traffic;
visually prominent public spaces, and other
features that foster a sense of community.
Criteria:
This district is assigned to areas that can
support new neighborhoods due to proximity
to utilities and adequate transportation
networks. These areas also have large
unsubdivided parcels of land that make land
acquisition, and planning and development of
a cohesive mixed use neighborhood much
more feasible than in other parts of the Town
where there the land ownership pattern is
more fragmented.
Location:
Lands in this district are located in the West
Hill area, the South Hill area in the vicinity of
Ithaca College, outside of the South Hill
Center district, and west of the Inlet Valley
Gateway district.
Principal uses:
Mixed use: residences (single household and accessory units, bungalow courts and pocket neighborhoods, attached
units, small apartment buildings, live-work space, elder housing), limited commercial and office development at
planned neighborhood centers.
Serenbe, Georgia (UGArdner, Creative Commons CC BY‐NC 2.0)
Stapleton, Denver, Colorado (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 58
Supporting uses:
Schools, places of worship and assembly,
parks and recreation facilities, limited
artisanal/cottage industrial uses, limited
agriculture, home occupations.
Residential density:
Range within neighborhood: 2-14 units/acre
gross *
Average for neighborhood: 5-8 units/acre
gross *
Open space (public/common): 10%-25% of
neighborhood typical; more on case-by-case
basis.
* - density throughout a development,
including open and civic space.
Density does not include accessory units or
bonuses for affordable housing.
Zoning districts with similar
characteristics:
Current zoning code: MDR, HDR, PDZ
Rural-urban transect: T3 (neighborhood
edge), T4 (neighborhood general), T5
(neighborhood center)
Highlands Garden Village, Denver, Colorado (DT)
Serenbe, Georgia (UGArdner, Creative Commons CC BY‐NC 2.0)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 59
3.3 Activity areas
Activity areas are locations where larger groups of people gather to work, research, study, and learn.
3.3.1 Enterprise
Purpose:
The Enterprise character district is intended to be a location for industrial, office and research uses. Development
should be in an attractive complex of related buildings. The amount of land zoned for industrial, office and research
facilities should be limited to only the amount needed to realistically meet future demand.
South Hill Business Campus
Criteria:
The Enterprise character district is assigned to areas that are currently occupied by light industrial, office and
commercial research facilities in a campus-like setting.
Location:
Lands in this character district include the Therm International facility site and South Hill Business Campus, both
close to the city line in the South Hill area.
Principal uses:
Offices, research facilities, light and skilled manufacturing with little or no environmental impact beyond its site.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 60
Residential density:
Not applicable.
Zoning districts with similar
characteristics:
Current zoning code: LI, PDZ
Rural-urban transect: SD (special district)
Therm International
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 61
3.3.2 Campus
Purpose:
The Campus character district is intended for lands of large institutions developed in a campus-like setting. This
includes areas with extensive coverage by buildings, parking lots, and other improvements; physical plant and support
facilities; stadiums and athletic fields; and lawns, quads, and formally landscaped areas.
Development of institutional campuses, and adjacent lands controlled by the institution, should be guided by master
plans that reflect best practice in campus planning and land stewardship. Institutional zoning should be implemented
to replace the patchwork of zoning districts that now underlie the lands of Cornell University, Ithaca College and
other large institutions.
Criteria:
The Campus character district is assigned to the core campuses
and developed areas of college/university lands, and existing
medical facilities and research organizations sited in a campus-
like setting.
Location:
Lands in this character district include the more intensively
developed areas of Cornell University and Ithaca College; and
the sites of Cayuga Medical Center, Paleontological Research
Institute/Museum of the Earth, and Finger Lakes School of
Massage (Oddfellows Complex/I.O.O.F. Grand Lodge site).
Principal uses:
Colleges, universities and other institutes of higher learning;
hospitals and supporting facilities; research and teaching
museums.
Supporting uses:
Housing related to the institution.
Cornell University
Odd Fellows Complex / Museum of the Earth
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 62
Ithaca College
Residential density:
Density and location of student, faculty and other related housing should be established by an approved campus plan.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: C, AG, C, LDR, MDR, HCR, NC, CC, OPC, PDZ
Rural-to-urban transect: SD (special district)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 63
3.4 Focus areas
Focus areas are locations with unique characteristics and opportunities for development and redevelopment.
3.4.1 TND High Density
Purpose:
The TND High Density character district is
intended to be the setting for dense mixed use
neighborhoods based on the rural-to-urban
transect and traditional neighborhood
development design principles. This includes
a mix of higher density housing types that
appeal to a wide variety of households, built
to create an intentional neighborhood with
linkages and proximity to services,
employment, public transit and recreational
areas. Most residences should be within a ten
minute walk to a mixed use area.
Development should incorporate human scale
design; an interconnected street network;
visually prominent public spaces; and other
features that foster a sense of community.
EAST HILL CENTER
East Hill Plaza, surrounding outparcels, and
areas west of East Lawn Cemetery and the
Cornell Equestrian Center should be
redeveloped or retrofitted into a dense, more
pedestrian friendly mixed use neighborhood.
A proposal for redevelopment of the East Hill
Plaza area is described in the 2008 Cornell
Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus
document. While that plan incorporates
some of the design principles described above,
it should not be considered an officially
endorsed plan or regulating document.
SOUTH HILL CENTER
The area south of Ithaca College should be
developed as a denser mixed use
neighborhood. Existing vehicle-oriented strip
commercial development should be
redeveloped or retrofitted into a more
pedestrian friendly form over time.
Crocker Park, Westlake, Ohio
Highlands Garden Village, Denver, Colorado
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 64
Criteria:
This district is assigned to areas that are
ideally suited for substantial mixed use
development due to proximity to utilities, key
thoroughfares, and major activity centers.
Location:
East Hill Center: This district is centered on
the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Ellis
Hollow Road, about 0.5 miles east of the
Ithaca city line.
South Hill Center: This district is centered on
the intersection of Danby Road (NY 96B)
and King Road.
Principal uses:
Mixed use: residences (single household and
accessory units, bungalow courts and pocket neighborhoods, attached units, small apartment buildings, live-work
space, elder housing, student housing), commercial and office development at planned neighborhood centers.
Supporting uses:
Schools, places of worship and assembly, parks and recreation facilities, limited artisanal/cottage industrial uses,
home occupations.
Residential density:
Range within neighborhood: 6-30 units/acre gross *
Average for neighborhood: 8-16 units/acre gross *
Open space (public/common): 10% - 20% of neighborhood typical; more on a case-by-case basis.
* - density throughout a development, including open and civic space.
Density does not include accessory units or bonuses for affordable housing.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: HDR, MR, NC, CC, LC, PDZ
Rural-to-urban transect: T4 (neighborhood general), T5 (neighborhood center), T6 (town center)
Stapleton, Denver, Colorado
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 65
3.4.2 Inlet Valley Gateway
Purpose:
The Inlet Valley Gateway district is intended to be a setting for a mix of office, small-scale retail, hospitality, and
tourism and agritourism uses, with low-impact light industrial, artisanal industrial, and skilled trade uses.
The scale, architecture and landscaping of future development will need to be carefully designed and articulated.
This area should retain a semi-rural character, with deep setbacks from arterial streets, wide spacing between uses,
landscaped front yards, and vehicle parking sited on the side and/or rear of structures. Shared curb cuts will reduce
potential conflicts with highway traffic. Sidewalks should follow streets, with connections to adjacent areas planned
for residential development. Architectural design, landscaping, and site planning regulations should apply to all uses
in this area, including industrial uses.
Agglomeration of mechanical commercial uses, and incremental expansion of commercial zoning resulting in strip
commercial development, will be strongly discouraged.
Criteria:
This district is assigned to an area along a high-traffic area of Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) that now includes a range
of commercial and semi-industrial uses.
Location:
The district includes parcels
fronting on Elmira Road
between Seven Mile Drive
and Five Mile Drive, and
parcels immediately to the
north that access Elmira
Road.
Principal uses:
Commercial,
lodging/hospitality,
incidental trade uses,
artisanal/cottage industrial
uses, agritourism.
Supporting uses:
Skilled trades, custom
industry, light industry,
outdoor entertainment.
Residential density:
Not applicable
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: C, LDR, NC, LI, PDZ.
Rural-urban transect: T3 (neighborhood edge), SD (special district)
Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca (Pictometry)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 66
3.4.3 Area of Special Concern
Areas of Special Concern are specific sites that do not easily fit into other character districts. They have intrinsic
features, uses, and/or conditions that present unique challenges and opportunities in planning for development
and/or conservation.
3.4.4 Area of Special Concern 1: Emerson Center
Purpose:
The Emerson Center Area of Special Concern is intended to be a setting for redevelopment of the Emerson Power
Transmission facility as a mixed use complex that would include apartments, live-work space, studios, retail uses, and
office space. Light industrial uses would be appropriate for former manufacturing portions of the site. An
abandoned railroad bed traversing the west side of the facility is proposed as part of a two mile multi-use trail
(Gateway Trail) that would connect the Black Diamond Trail with the Town’s South Hill Recreation Way. The Town
and City of Ithaca share jurisdiction over the Emerson facility, and must work in concert for planning efforts to be
successful. Development would be dependent on remediation because the site is listed as a class 2 site in the State
Registry of inactive hazardous waste sites (list of Super Fund sites); a class 2 designation represents a significant
threat to public health and/or the environment and requires action.
Emerson Power Transmission Facility (Pictometry)
Criteria:
This subdistrict is assigned to the former Emerson Power Transmission (formerly Morse Chain) facility located on
South Hill.
Location:
The Emerson Center site is located in both the City and Town of Ithaca, immediately adjacent to city neighborhoods
and near the Ithaca Commons and Ithaca College. The site is accessed from Aurora Street (NY 96B).
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 67
Principal uses:
Mixed residential, live-work space, retail, offices and light industrial.
Residential density:
Location and density of housing should be established by an approved redevelopment plan. Density should take full
advantage of the site's location near central Ithaca.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: PDZ
Rural-urban transect: T5 (neighborhood center), T6 (town center)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 68
3.4.5 Area of Special Concern 2: Country Club
Purpose:
The County Club Area of Special Concern is intended to be a setting for the Country Club of Ithaca, with provisions
for preservation or redevelopment of the site if the club relocates or closes.
The preferred use for this site is that it continues as a public or private golf course with related sports and hospitality
facilities. Otherwise, it should be considered for acquisition as public open space and parkland. Redevelopment for
more intensive uses should only be considered if all efforts to preserve the site as a golf club, parkland, or open space
have failed, or if they are not feasible or economically realistic.
If the site is to be redeveloped, it should occur as a clustered residential neighborhood, incorporating traditional
neighborhood design principles described elsewhere in this Plan. Residential development should include a mix of
housing types, lot sizes, and price ranges that appeal to a wide variety of households, and be located to take
advantage of Community Corners as a neighborhood center. A small inn or hotel could take advantage of the site's
location near Cornell University. A large portion of the site should be preserved as public open space and parkland.
Contiguous open space should connect the Cornell University golf course to the east with unique natural areas to the
west, preserving a wildlife migration corridor.
A small part of the Country Club site is in the Village of Cayuga Heights. The Town and Village need to cooperate
on any preservation, acquisition or redevelopment plans or proposals.
Ithaca County Club
Criteria:
This subdistrict is assigned to the Country Club of Ithaca property in Northeast Ithaca.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 69
Location:
The Country Club site is located between Pleasant Grove Road and Warren Road north of the Cornell University
campus.
Principal uses:
Golf course, accessory sports and hospitality facilities, open space.
Supporting uses:
If the site is redeveloped:
Mixed residential: single household and accessory units, bungalow courts and pocket neighborhoods, attached units,
small apartment buildings, elder housing; lodging/hospitality
Residential density:
If the site is redeveloped:
Range within neighborhood: 2-12 units/acre gross *
Average for neighborhood: 4-6 units/acre gross *
Open space: ≥50% of development site (natural areas, parks, golf course)
* - density throughout a development, including open and civic space.
Density does not include accessory units or bonuses for affordable housing.
Zoning districts with similar characteristics:
Current zoning code: LDR
Rural-urban transect: T3 (neighborhood edge), T4 (neighborhood general)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 70
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 71
3.5 Future land use / character map
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 73
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 74
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 75
IMPLEMENTATION
For this comprehensive plan to be realized, the goals and recommendations included in Section 3 must be
implemented. Some actions must be implemented immediately, while others can be accomplished over the next ten
years.
The implementation strategy provides a framework for completing each action. The following action plan tables
categorize each of the policy areas, goals and recommendations according to the type of action that each will take to
implement, and list the relative priority and timing of actions. It provides guidance for allocating necessary
resources, and assists in tracking progress.
Policy areas
The action plan tables are organized by the following policy areas, each including all the goals and recommendations
from Chapter 2.
4.1 Land use and development (LU)
4.2 Housing and neighborhoods (HN)
4.3 Natural resources and environment (NR)
4.4 Energy and climate protection (EC)
4.5 Agriculture (AG)
4.6 Recreation (RE)
4.7 Historical resources (HR)
4.8 Transportation (TR)
4.9 Municipal services and infrastructure (MS)
4.10 Community services (CS)
4.11 Economic development (ED)
Action
Types of actions are:
Decision: recommendations and policy decisions made by Planning staff, other Town employees, volunteers,
appointed officials, and elected officials serving on boards and committees dealing with issues addressed in this
plan.
Regulation: writing and adopting new laws, or modifying or reforming existing laws.
(DC): Creation/adoption of a new unified development code and zoning map to replace the existing zoning
code, subdivision code, sign code, and other land use regulations found throughout the municipal code.
Plan: initiating, adopting and implementing neighborhood, corridor or subject-specific plans. Descriptions of
specific planning actions follow.
Project: achieved by one or more temporary endeavors. A project may be a physical (e.g. new infrastructure) or
analytical (e.g. a report or inventory) concern.
Program: establishing formal long-term programs that carry out one or more goals and recommendations of the
plan. A program may be the foundation for carrying out multiple projects.
Cooperation: forming partnerships, intergovernmental agreements, and other joint efforts with neighboring
communities, public agencies, Tompkins County, New York State, Cornell University, Ithaca College, and other
organizations.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 76
A single action—regulation, plan, project, program or cooperative effort—may address many of this plan's goals and
recommendations.
Action types may reference specific recommended action items, which should be implemented as soon as possible to
ensure land use actions and decisions are aligned with this plan's policies. These include the following:
Priority
Priorities are time frames for implementing actions.
Immediate: initiated before or immediately following the adoption of this plan.
High: initiated and realized shortly after plan adoption, through 2014-2016.
Medium: initiated and realized between 2016 and 2019, or after high-priority items are completed.
Open: initiated and realized any time, but action to be taken by 2019-2024 if not before.
Continuous: ongoing actions with no set initiation or completion date, generally decisions and long-term projects
and programs.
Completed: actions that have been completed.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 77
4.1 Land use (LU)
LU‐1: Shape/improve the built environment by focusing growth, balancing agricultural, open space and recreational,
commercial, institutional and office/industrial uses.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐1‐A: Concentrate development in areas with adequate
infrastructure and services.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐B: Preserve/protect environmentally important and scenic
lands.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐C: Limit intrusion of non‐agricultural uses into
agricultural/conservation areas.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐D: Limit low density residential to areas with limited/no value
as agricultural/ conservation areas, unlikely sewer/water.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐E: Require development to take a cluster/conservation form in
environmentally, agriculturally and visually sensitive areas.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐F: Establish more intensively developed mixed use
neighborhoods near employment centers. (South Hill, East Hill)
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Plan
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
Plan: Open
LU‐1‐G: New mixed use neighborhoods where they can be
supported due to proximity to utilities and adequate transportation
networks.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Plan
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
Plan: Immediate
LU‐1‐H: Limit commercial/industrial zoned land to what is needed,
discourage strip commercial and speculative rezoning.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐I: Restrict frontage residential development.Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐1‐J: Redevelop/retrofit aging/abandoned industrial/commercial
sites as mixed use, pedestrian‐oriented development.
Regulation (DC)
Cooperation
Regulation: High
Cooperation: Continuous
LU‐1‐K: Ensure development is sensitive of scenic resources.Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐2: Create, reinforce and respect a unique sense of place.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐2‐A: Adopt architectural design requirements.Regulation (DC)High
LU‐2‐B: Implement site planning requirements. Regulation (DC)High
LU‐2‐C: Establish landscaping and screening standards.Regulation (DC)High
LU‐2‐D: Enhanced sign requirements. Regulation Immediate
LU‐3: Maintain and enhance established character and sense of community of existing neighborhoods.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐3‐A: New development compatible with existing development.Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐3‐B: Infill development takes advantage of existing
infrastructure.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐3‐C: Establish new and additional communication systems
between Town and neighborhoods regarding development.
Program Medium
LU‐3‐D: Work with neighborhood groups to determine, preserve
important neighborhood characteristics.
Program Open
LU‐3‐E: Private initiatives to maintain and improve neighborhoods.Program Open
LU‐3‐F: Work with adjacent communities to connect neighborhoods
sitting on municipal boundaries.
Cooperation Continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 78
LU‐4: Require new neighborhoods to take the form of traditional neighborhood development (TND).
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐4‐A: Scale new neighborhoods around pedestrian sheds. Define
neighborhood edges.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐B: Variety of uses, densities and building types; more intensive
in neighborhood center.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐C: Mix of uses and recreation spaces to meet daily needs of
residents.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐D: Variety of housing types and price ranges for various
household types.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐E: Civic uses in prominent locations. Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐F: Scale blocks for variety of building types, pedestrian traffic.Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐G: Site similar buildings across from each other. Face
entrances towards public spaces.
Regulation (DC)
High
LU‐4‐H: Sustainable practices such as light imprint development,
low impact development, alternative energy production in
neighborhood design.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐4‐I: Neighborhood identification and branding programs.Program Medium
LU‐5: Recognize the presence and character of the Town's large institutions in the planning process.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐5‐A: Implement institutional zoning. Regulation (DC)High
LU‐5‐B: Ensure campus/institutional development plans conform to
Town plan.
Cooperation Continuous
LU‐6: Use contemporary tools that reflect best planning practice.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
LU‐6‐A: Adopt new zoning code, consider unified development
code.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐6‐B: Require form/transect‐based zoning where appropriate.Regulation (DC)High
LU‐6‐C: Adopt new subdivision regulations, consider unified
development code.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐6‐D: Revise/amend development standards to reflect best
planning practice.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐6‐E: Simplified/more logical categorization of zoning districts,
uses, siting standards.
Regulation (DC)High
LU‐6‐F: Plain English regulations, using tables, charts, and
illustrations where possible.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
LU‐6‐G: Review comprehensive plan regularly to ensure conformity
with best practice.
Program Continuous
LU‐6‐H: Work with adjacent municipalities, other agencies regarding
planning and development decisions.
Cooperation Continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 79
4.2 Housing and neighborhoods (HN)
HN‐1: Promote diverse, high quality, affordable and attractive neighborhoods.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
HN‐1‐A: Suitable land in appropriate locations to meet housing
needs.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
HN‐1‐B: Concentrate new housing development closer to city and
where public transit is available.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
HN‐1‐C: Locate senior housing close to services and transit.
Encourage housing that accommodate aging in place principles.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
HN‐2: Encourage a balance of quality housing opportunities, including workforce housing.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
HN‐2‐A: Require percentage of, offer incentives for affordable
housing in new developments. Affordable housing should be
indistinguishable from market rate.
Regulation (DC)
Program
Regulation: High
Program: Medium
HN‐2‐B: Allow smaller lot sizes in zoning regulations.Regulation (DC)
High
HN‐2‐C: Pursue mechanisms that would ensure long term supply of
affordable housing.
Regulation (DC)
Program
Regulation: High
Program: Medium
HN‐2‐D: Work with major employers for provision of workforce
housing near places of employment.
Cooperation
Program
Cooperation: Continuous
Program: Open
HN‐2‐E: Seek grants to fund affordable housing. Program Continuous
HN‐2‐F: Establish a housing trust fund to support affordable housing
projects to families at or below median income.
Program Open
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 80
4.3 Natural resources (NR)
NR‐1: Identify and target natural and environmental resources for preservation and protection.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐1‐A: Inventory open/natural areas. Expand knowledge of
resources beyond land use and unique natural areas.
Project Medium
NR‐1‐B: Establish criteria for classifying natural areas and habitat. Project Medium
NR‐1‐C: Update 1997 Park Plan to reflect new inventory of
open/natural areas.
Plan Medium
NR‐1‐D: Identify/designate natural/scenic resources that warrant
Critical Environmental Area designation.
Project High
NR‐2: Protect open space with appropriate land use regulations and development strategies.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐2‐A: Establish buffers between development activities and large
contiguous sensitive/protected areas.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
NR‐2‐B: Focus development in urbanizing areas to protect against
habitat fragmentation.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
NR‐2‐C: Timber harvesting regulations. Regulation Immediate
NR‐2‐D: Tree preservation regulations Regulation (DC)Regulation: High
NR‐2‐E: Protect Unique Natural Areas through development review
process, other mechanisms.
Decision Continuous
NR‐3: Acquire or assist in acquisition of open space in the Town.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐3‐A: Partner with nature conservation groups.Cooperation Continuous
NR‐3‐B: Use funding mechanisms to acquire or preserve important
natural/open space.
Program Medium
NR‐3‐C: Encourage conservation easements and donations. Program Medium
NR‐4: Support private and intermunicipal efforts to protect wildlife and open space.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐4‐A: Promote incentives like the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program.
Program Medium
NR‐4‐B: Collaborate on intermunicipal /regional efforts to develop
protection plans for expansive natural resource areas.
Cooperation Continuous
NR‐5: Support and engage in efforts to control invasive species.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐5‐A: Remove invasive species following IPM. Develop
management plans. Plan for consequences of Ash Borer, other
insects.
Program High
NR‐5‐B: Encourage use of native species in landscaping.Regulation (DC)High
NR‐5‐C: Educate residents about invasive species.Program High
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 81
NR‐6: Protect water resources and seek to improve water quality.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐6‐A: Low impact development and green infrastructure
standards.
Regulation (DC)High
NR‐6‐B: Support water‐quality testing of major streams, Cayuga
Lake.
Decision Continuous
NR‐6‐C: Monitor regulations, policies, practices to ensure health of
Cayuga Lake.
Decision Continuous
NR‐6‐D: Maintain ability to support a diverse ecosystem in Cayuga
Lake.
Decision Continuous
NR‐6‐E: Acknowledge impaired water quality designation, improve
water quality through policy making.
Decision Continuous
NR‐6‐F: Oppose treatment of industrial waste using waste water
treatment plants.
Decision Continuous
NR‐6‐G: Support/participate in organizations protecting water
quality.
Cooperation Continuous
NR‐6‐H: Wetland protection regulations, emphasis on areas not
addressed by state or federal laws.
Regulation Medium
NR‐6‐I: Reevaluate policies/methods related to ditch
maintenance/closing.
Decision Continuous
NR‐7: Preserve scenic resources that contribute to the Town’s unique character.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐7‐A: Complete Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis Report.Plan Immediate
NR‐7‐B: Purchase land, conservation easements to preserve critical
scenic resources.
Program Medium
NR‐7‐C: Adopt development standards to protect scenic resources.Regulation (DC)High
NR‐7‐D: Promote scenic resources through signage, educational
programs.
Program Medium
NR‐8: Protect air resources and maintain air quality.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐8‐A: Regulate outdoor wood burning. Regulation (DC)High
NR‐8‐B: Regulate air quality impacts from industrial operations.Regulation (DC)High
NR‐8‐C: Vehicle idling law. Regulation High
NR‐9: Protect neighborhoods from noise pollution.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
NR‐9‐A: Enforce noise regulations. Decision Continuous
NR‐9‐B: Performance/design standards to address noise pollution.Regulation (DC)High
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 82
4.4 Energy and climate protection (EC)
EC‐1: Incorporate sustainability and climate protection into long‐term planning.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐1‐A: Institutionalize sustainability in Town operations.Program Open
EC‐1‐B: Conduct GHG inventories regularly. Program Continuous
EC‐1‐C: Implement Government Energy Action Plan (EAP). Update
on regular basis.
Plan Continuous
EC‐1‐D: Develop and implement Community EAP. Establish
sustainability committee.
Plan Continuous
EC‐1‐E: Maintain ICLEI membership. Decision Continuous
EC‐2: Reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in buildings and infrastructure.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐2‐A: Policy, regulations for energy use reduction in existing
buildings.
Regulation High
EC‐2‐B: Require green building techniques and energy efficiency
standards in new commercial buildings.
Regulation Medium
EC‐2‐C: Partner with organizations/businesses to support incentives
and options for energy efficiency. .
Cooperation Continuous
EC‐2‐D: (Various municipal building/facility recommendations.)Program
Decision
Program: open
Decision: continuous
EC‐2‐E: (Various streetlight recommendations.) Program
Decision
Program: open
Decision: continuous
EC‐3: Reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related to treatment and distribution of water and
wastewater.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐3‐A: (Various water/wastewater system recommendations.)Program
Decision
Program: open
Decision: continuous
EC‐3‐B: Water pricing based on use. Program Open
EC‐3‐C: Water conservation education/outreach program,
regulations.
Program
Regulation
Medium
EC‐4: Reduce energy consumption and GHG emission in transportation.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐3‐A: Support programs to educate residents on efficient/clean
vehicles.
Cooperative Continuous
EC‐4‐B: Municipal green fleet policy. Program
Decision
Program: high
Decision: continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 83
EC‐5: Encourage and facilitate production and use of renewable energy.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐5‐A: Adopt renewable energy goals. Plan High
EC‐5‐B: Revise regulations to facilitate renewable energy
production.
Regulation
Program
Regulation: high
Program: open
EC‐5‐C: Work in partnership to provide incentives for renewable
energy systems.
Cooperation Continuous
EC‐5‐D: Partner with organizations/businesses to support programs
providing resources, information on renewable energy.
Cooperation Continuous
EC‐5‐E: (Various recommendations regarding renewable energy
generation at Town facilities)
Program
Decision
Program: medium
Decision: continuous
EC‐5‐F: Consider REC purchase to offset GHGs related to Town
government operations. Encourage RECs for others.
Decision
Program
Decision: High
Program: open
EC‐6: Reduce GHG emissions related to waste generation and purchasing.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐6‐A: Waste reduction policy, compost program for municipal
operations.
Project
Program
Project: open
Program: open
EC‐6‐B: Partner with local organizations/businesses to support
recycling/compost programs.
Cooperation Continuous
EC‐6‐C: Work with other municipalities to eliminate redundant
recycling/composting programs.
Cooperation Continuous
EC‐6‐D: Sustainable purchasing policy for Town operations.
Encourage businesses to consider similar policies.
Project
Program
Project: high
Program: open
EC‐7: Build a resilient community by preparing for and adapting to impacts of climate change.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
EC‐7‐A: County‐wide climate adaptation plan in cooperation with
other municipalities and agencies.
Cooperation Open
EC‐7‐B: Update policies to consider impacts of climate change on
infrastructure.
Decision Open
EC‐7‐C: Plant shade trees. Regulation (DC)High
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 84
4.5 Agriculture (AG)
AG‐1: Ensure long‐term protection of agricultural land resources for agriculture, open space, and scenic resources.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐1‐A: Continue agricultural conservation easement program.Program Continuous
AG‐1‐B: Spatial and vegetative buffers between non‐farm dwellings
in ag zone and agricultural activities.
Regulation (DC)High
AG‐1‐C: Vegetative buffers on non‐agricultural land to shield from
farming (dust, pesticides) .
Regulation (DC)High
AG‐1‐D: Support Town Agricultural Committee. Program Continuous
AG‐2: Retain and encourage a diversity of economically viable farm types.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐2‐A: Review/revise regulations regarding agricultural structures.Regulation (DC)High
AG‐2‐B: Encourage shared farm infrastructure. Program Medium
AG‐3: Promote availability of locally grown foods and other agricultural products for all residents including limited income
families.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐3‐A: Better accommodate farm stands, year‐round farm
markets, greenhouses and value‐added product operations.
Regulation (DC)High
AG‐3‐B: Require community gardens in new development.Regulation (DC)High
AG‐4: Encourage public understanding and involvement.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐4‐A: Support agricultural and gardening programs for youth.Cooperation Open
AG‐4‐B: Public awareness of vehicle traffic issues affecting farmers.Program Open
AG‐4‐C: Encourage household food production. Regulation (DC)
Program
Regulation: High
Program: Open
AG‐4‐D: Awareness of right‐to‐farm law when building near/in ag
zones.
Program High
AG‐5: Promote wise land use and agricultural waste management.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐5‐A: Encourage relationships between farmers and resources
such as Cooperative Extension and Soil and Water Conservation
District.
Cooperation Open
AG‐6: Protect the environment and human and animal health from large concentrated animal feeding operations.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
AG‐6‐A: Lobby state/federal legislatures to allow towns to regulate
CAFOs through local ordinances.
Cooperation Open
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 85
4.6 Recreation (RE)
RE‐1: Provide an integrated, interconnected system of parks, recreational facilities,and open space throughout the Town.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
RE‐1‐A: Update 1997 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan.Plan Medium
RE‐1‐B: Develop network of parks to serve current and future needs
of Town residents.
Program Continuous
RE‐1‐C: Encourage public access to Cayuga Lake. Decision Continuous
RE‐1‐D: Consider maintenance costs when planning new parks,
trails or preserves.
Decision Continuous
RE‐1‐E: Allow required park setasides to be met in a variety of ways.Regulation (DC)High
RE‐1‐F: Require new parks to be amassed into meaningful spaces,
functionally part of the public realm.
Regulation (DC)High
RE‐2: Provide recreational opportunities for all Town residents.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
RE‐2‐A: Recreational opportunities near residences and workplaces.Regulation (DC)High
RE‐2‐B: Recreational programs to residents. Project Open
RE‐2‐C: Intermunicipal cooperation and public‐private partnerships
in providing recreational services.
Cooperation Continuous
RE‐2‐D: Pursue grant opportunities. Decision Continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 86
4.7 Historical resources (HR)
HR‐1: Preserve, enhance and promote the Town's historical resources.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
HR‐1‐A: Develop a historic preservation program using the
inventory conducted by Historic Preservation Planning Workshop at
Cornell University and recommendations of the final report (2005).
Plan Medium
HR‐1‐B: Ensure preservation of existing historical buildings and
resources. Pursue grant opportunities.
Decision Continuous
HR‐1‐C: Local historic overlay district and ordinance.Regulation Medium
HR‐1‐D: Participate as a Certified Local Government under the
program of the NYS Office of Park, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation. Requires preservation ordinance.
Cooperation Medium
HR‐1‐E: Coordinate protection of historic resources with
preservation groups.
Cooperation Continuous
HR‐1‐F: Maintain historic markers. Decision Continuous
HR‐1‐G: Promote awareness of local history, including pre‐European
period.
Program Open
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 87
4.8 Transportation (TR)
TR‐1: Develop and maintain a multimodal transportation system that provides effective movement of people and goods.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐1‐A: Develop transportation system that serves mobility
interests of residents and businesses, considers through traffic.
Decision Continuous
TR‐1‐B: Base pedestrian/bike facilities on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Corridor Maps of 2007.
Decision Continuous
TR‐1‐C: Assume costs of construction/maintenance of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities serving a population beyond adjacent
neighborhoods.
Decision Continuous
TR‐1‐D: Work with other entities to improve ped/bike connections
in priority locations.
Cooperation Medium
TR‐1‐E: Expand multiuse trails, work with ITCTC/county/others to
expand countywide trail system.
Cooperation
Project
Open
TR‐1‐F: Work with TCAT/major employers to develop a park‐and‐
ride system.
Cooperation
Program
Open
TR‐1‐G: Consider increasing funding to TCAT for adequate transit
service levels.
Decision Continuous
TR‐1‐H: Continue funding Gadabout. Decision Continuous
TR‐1‐I: Encourage carpooling/vanpooling /car sharing.Program Open
TR‐1‐J: Traffic demand strategies to reduce peak hour demand on
roadway capacity.
Program Medium
TR‐2: Develop and maintain transportation system that promotes livable, healthy and attractive neighborhoods.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐2‐A: Control traffic speed through road design standards, traffic
calming, and street diets. Incorporate low‐speed designs when
reconstructing roads.
Program
Regulation (DC)
Program: open
Regulation: high
TR‐2‐B: Streetscape beautification, human scale roadways, improve
character of roads when rebuilding.
Decision Continuous
TR‐2‐C: Consider effects of traffic volume in new/existing
neighborhoods.
Decision Continuous
TR‐2‐D: Context sensitive approach for road planning and design.Decision
Regulation (DC)
Decision: continuous
Regulation: high
TR‐2‐E: Work with TCAT to minimize bus disruption in residential
neighborhoods while maintaining adequate service.
Cooperation
Continuous
TR‐2‐F: Minimize through truck traffic in residential neighborhoods.Cooperation
Continuous
TR‐2‐G: Road networks in new developments to follow TND
principles.
Regulation (DC)High
TR‐2‐H: Require traffic mitigation plans for large projects.Regulation High
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 88
TR‐3: Provide a safe transportation system, and prioritize safety and security for all modes.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐3‐A: Evaluate and improve intersections with poor sight
distance.
Program Continuous
TR‐3‐B: Maintain vehicle crash database. Program Continuous
TR‐3‐C: Petition State/County for speed limit reductions in certain
areas.
Cooperation
Continuous
TR‐3‐D: Access management requirements that are compatible with
County and State standards.
Regulation (DC)High
TR‐4: Effectively maintain the transportation system.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐4‐A: Sufficient funding to maintain transportation system.Decision Continuous
TR‐4‐B: Preserve/reserve current and future rights‐of‐way.Decision Continuous
TR‐4‐C: Require developers to dedicate ROW, construct portions of
proposed collector roads.
Regulation (DC)
Decision
Regulation: High
Decision: Continuous
TR‐4‐D: Update 2007 Transportation Plan. Plan Medium
TR‐4‐E: Update Official Highway map. Project Continuous
TR‐4‐F: Public Works flexibility to schedule road improvements/
maintenance.
Decision Continuous
TR‐5: Coordinate with other local and regional organizations to ensure a regionally coordinated transportation system.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐5‐A: Explore intermunicipal sharing of facilities, labor,
knowledge, expertise.
Cooperation
Continuous
TR‐5‐B: Support establishment of community/regional
pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Regulation (DC)
Program
Cooperation
Regulation: High
Program: Medium
Cooperation: Continuous
TR‐5‐C: Participate in ITCTC. Cooperation
Continuous
TR‐5‐D: Support findings of t‐GEIS, TIMS where appropriate.
Cornell/Community Transportation Investment Initiative Program.
Decision Continuous
TR‐6: Promote future development patterns that reduce vehicle dependency and encourage alternate modes of
transportation.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐6‐A: Design streets using Complete Streets principles.Regulation (DC)High
TR‐6‐B: Neighborhood design that reduces automobile
dependence.
Regulation (DC)High
TR‐6‐C: Interconnected sidewalk and trail system. Retrofit existing
streets with sidewalks, bicycle lanes.
Decision Continuous
TR‐6‐D: Consider transportation impacts in land use decisions, vice
versa.
Decision Continuous
TR‐6‐E: Evaluate parking requirements to reduce excessive
pavement, other uses of paved areas.
Regulation (DC)High
TR‐6‐F: Ensure transit service for new development.Cooperation Continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 89
TR‐7: Protect the environment when planning any changes to the transportation system.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
TR‐7‐A: Consider environmental consequences of transportation
decisions.
Decision Continuous
TR‐7‐B: Reduce vehicle dependence, trip
distance/duration/number.
Decision Continuous
TR‐7‐C: Assess need for wildlife crossings. Regulation
Decision
Regulation: open
Decision: continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 90
4.9 Municipal services and infrastructure (MS)
MS‐1: Provide quality infrastructure and services in a cost‐effective and sustainable manner, meeting current and anticipated
needs.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
MS‐1‐A: Update Capital Improvement Plan. Plan Continuous
MS‐1‐B: Draft/adopt water and sewer master plan.Plan Medium
MS‐1‐C: Investigate shared municipal services with other
communities.
Cooperation
Continuous
MS‐1‐D: Seek/promote funding sources for infrastructure to offset
improvement and construction costs.
Decision Continuous
MS‐1‐E: Joint projects with City, other communities concerning
water and wastewater treatment systems.
Cooperation
Continuous
MS‐2: Maintain, assess, and repair/replace/retrofit/rehabilitate existing public infrastructure, facilities, equipment and
services.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
MS‐2‐A: Monitor/evaluate water distribution system.Decision
Program
Decision: Continuous
Program: Medium
MS‐2‐B: Monitor wastewater collection system. Decision Continuous
MS‐2‐C: Preventative maintenance of Town infrastructure.Decision Continuous
MS‐2‐D: Annual pavement condition surveys of Town roads.Program Continuous
MS‐3: Based on sustainable development principals that are consistent with the Plan, limit expansion of public infrastructure
and services.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
MS‐3‐A: Limit development of infrastructure to areas not
designated for intensive development.
Decision Continuous
MS‐4: Ensure the capability of stormwater management facilities to provide reasonable protection to property and the
natural environment.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
MS‐4‐A: Implement the Town’s Stormwater Management Plan.Decision Continuous
MS‐4‐B: Inventory of stormwater management facilities.Program Medium
MS‐4‐C: Ensure maintenance of private stormwater infrastructure.
Public education about stormwater infrastructure.
Program Continuous
MS‐4‐D: Appropriate staffing to enforce stormwater management
laws.
Decision Continuous
MS‐4‐E: Complete a townwide urban watershed model.Project Medium
MS‐4‐F: Policy for ownership of stormwater facilities.Project High
MS‐4‐G: Funding mechanism for stormwater management
program.
Project Medium
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 91
4.10 Community services (CS)
CS‐1: Maintain and improve Town government's ability to serve its citizens.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
CS‐1‐A: Encourage inter‐jurisdictional cooperation and
communication for providing services and continue mutually
beneficial shared services.
Cooperation
Continuous
CS‐1‐B: Keep residents informed on Town matters.Program Continuous
CS‐1‐C: Ensure officials are versed in the Comprehensive Plan.Program Continuous
CS‐1‐D: Support public libraries. Decision Continuous
CS‐2: Ensure adequate fire protection, public safety and police services.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
CS‐2‐A: Explore options for increased police presence.Project Open
CS‐2‐B: Partner with law enforcement to enforce vehicle safety and
traffic laws.
Cooperation Continuous
CS‐2‐C: Explore ways to reduce fire protection costs.Project High
CS‐2‐D: Update Town’s Zoning Code to reflect fire code changes.Regulation (DC)High
CS‐3: Integrate public school facilities planning with Town land use planning.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
CS‐3‐A: Work with Ithaca City school district to reserve land for
schools, site schools in conformance with this plan.
Cooperation Continuous
CS‐4: Minimize impact of solid waste on Town residents, businesses and the natural environment.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
CS‐4‐A: Coordinate with TCSWD for removal and management of
solid waste.
Cooperation Continuous
CS‐4‐B: Explore option of a construction and demolition
recycling/reuse ordinance.
Regulation Medium
CS‐4‐C: Promote use of the newly renovated Recycling and Solid
Waste Center; goals of diverting waste from landfills.
Program High
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan 92
4.11 Economic development (ED)
ED‐1: Promote a stable and diverse local economy.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
ED‐1‐A: Support continued vitality of existing employers.Cooperation Continuous
ED‐1‐B: Positive entrepreneurial environment for new and
expanding businesses.
Decision Continuous
ED‐1‐C: Streamline development review, land use regulations.Regulation (DC)High
ED‐1‐D: Support workers in attaining fair labor practices.Decision Continuous
ED‐1‐E: Support major public and non‐profit institutions.Cooperation Continuous
ED‐1‐F: Support artists, arts organizations. Decision Continuous
ED‐1‐G: Preference to local businesses for purchasing, contracting.Decision Continuous
ED‐1‐H: Improve communication among government agencies,
businesses, institutions.
Program Open
ED‐1‐I: Support agriculture economic development, including a
strong agritourism industry.
Program Open
ED‐1‐J: Support sustainable businesses rather than short‐term
extractive industries.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2: Establish a cohesive and sustainable economic development policy for the Town of Ithaca.
Goal/recommendation Action Priority
ED‐2‐A: Long term investment strategy based on local competitive
advantages, social equity, environment.
Program Medium
ED‐2‐B: Regional economic development strategy.Cooperation Continuous
ED‐2‐C: Engage with TCAD in cooperative efforts to develop
incentives tailored to the Town's unique conditions.
Cooperation Continuous
ED‐2‐D: Work to reduce poverty by supporting efforts that provide
worker training and business recruitment.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2‐E: Industry clusters drawing on local advantages.Program Open
ED‐2‐F: Evaluate ED programs based on long‐term benefits, not
short‐term job or revenue gains.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2‐G: ED efforts equitable, promote vitality of industry sector, not
focused on individual businesses.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2‐H: Support tax policies that encourage business development
based on local assets, rather than shift funds from public to profit‐
making entities.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2‐I: Provide funding to nonprofits contracting with the Town that
encourages agencies to pay their staff a living wage.
Decision Continuous
ED‐2‐J: Pursue financial support from local tax‐exempt institutions.Cooperation Continuous
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐1
APPENDIX A
IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICES
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐3
IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICES
Land development and regulatory practices form the foundation for implementing a comprehensive plan, and
establishing the future direction, character, and sense of place of the community. This appendix includes
demonstrated and proven best practices in planning that are recommended for implementing the goals and policies of
this plan. Implementation of the plan should not be limited to these practices alone, though.
A.1 Smart Growth
In the Town of Ithaca, there is growing concern that the current development pattern, dominated by what some call
"sprawl", is no longer in the long-term interest of the community. Though supportive of growth, residents and
community leaders are questioning the economic and social costs of continued vehicle-oriented low density
development.
Smart Growth is a planning strategy with the goal of accommodating development and growth, while also
considering and addressing its negative effects, to create more livable, sustainable and humane communities.
There are many definitions of "Smart Growth." Perhaps the most encompassing comes from the City of Austin,
Texas Neighborhood Planning Glossary.
"A perspective, method, and goal for managing the growth of a community. It focuses on the long-term implications
of growth and how it may affect the community, instead of viewing growth as an end in itself. The community can
vary in size; it may be as small as a city block or a neighborhood, or as large as a city, a metropolitan area, or even a
region. Smart Growth promotes cooperation between often diverse groups to arrive at sustainable long-term
strategies for managing growth. It is designed to create livable cities, promote economic development, and protect
open spaces, environmentally sensitive areas, and agricultural lands."
The American Planning Association adopted the following definition of smart growth.
"Smart Growth is the planning, design, development and revitalization of communities to promote a sense of place,
the preservation of natural and cultural resources, and the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of
development. Smart Growth enhances ecological integrity over the short and long term and improves quality of life
by expanding the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices in the region in a fiscally responsible
manner."
Spurring the Smart Growth movement are demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased fiscal
concerns, and more nuanced views of growth. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for smart
growth.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency identifies the following ten principles of Smart Growth:
1) Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
2) Create walkable neighborhoods.
3) Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration.
4) Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
5) Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective.
6) Mix land uses.
7) Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐4
8) Provide a variety of transportation
choices.
9) Strengthen and direct development
towards existing communities.
10) Take advantage of compact building
design.
The Town of Ithaca has little control over
whether its population will grow. However, it
can control how it grows. Smart growth
introduces new, sound planning principles
that will help make the Town a more livable,
desirable and sustainable community.
Smart Growth principles
Create a range of housing opportunities
and choices. Many young adults are finding
they can't afford to buy a home in the City or Town of Ithaca, and are resorting to lower-priced housing in distant
communities with long commutes. Many senior citizens, now empty nesters or living alone, can no longer maintain
or heat homes that were originally built to accommodate a large family.
Providing quality housing for people of all generations, income levels and social groups is an integral component in a
smart growth strategy. Housing is a critical part of the way the Town grows, and constitutes a significant share of
new construction and development. More importantly, it is a key factor in determining households' access to
transportation, employment, retail and social amenities, schools, and consumption of natural resources. By using
Smart Growth techniques to create a wider range of housing choices, the Town can mitigate the environmental costs
of auto-dependent development, use its infrastructure more efficiently, ensure a better jobs-housing balance, and
generate a strong foundation of support for public transportation, mixed use neighborhood centers, and other
amenities.
Create walkable neighborhoods. Walkable
communities are seen as desirable places to
live, work, and play. Residential areas in the
City of Ithaca, and pedestrian-oriented
neighborhoods in other Upstate New York
cities, are experiencing renewed life and
increasing real estate values. Walkable
neighborhoods are seen as desirable, because
housing, retail and entertainment uses, and
places of employment are conveniently
located an easy and safe walk from each
other. Walkable communities also make
pedestrian activity possible, thus expanding
transportation options, and creating a
streetscape that better serves pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles.
Prospect New Town, Longmont, Colorado. (Prospect New Town)
Shaker Square, Cleveland, Ohio. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐5
Development in the Town of Ithaca is dispersed and largely auto-dependent, built under design practices that reduce
pedestrian activity. A conventional zoning ordinance makes mixed land use development difficult. It would be
impossible to recreate historic Upstate villages such as Skaneateles, Cazenovia, or East Aurora today. Land use and
community design play a pivotal role in encouraging pedestrian environments. By enabling development with
multiple destinations within close proximity, where the streets and sidewalks balance all forms of transportation, the
Town will have the basic framework for encouraging walkability.
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration. Growth can create great places to live, work and play, if it
is channeled into a community's own sense of how and where it wants to develop. Each of the Town's "hills" has
different needs and will emphasize some smart growth principles over others.
Citizen participation can be time-consuming and frustrating. Encouraging community and stakeholder collaboration,
though, can lead to creative resolution of development issues and greater understanding of the importance of good
planning and the "big picture." Plans and policies developed without strong citizen involvement will, at best, have no
staying power; at worst, they will be used to create unhealthy, undesirable communities. When stakeholders feel left
out of the planning process, they will be less likely to become engaged when tough decisions need to be made.
Involving the community early and often in the planning process improves public support for Smart Growth and
often leads to innovative strategies that fit the unique needs of each community.
Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Retail architecture conforming to
corporate prototype design, and residential development in a conventional subdivision of large lots and cul-de-sacs,
dilute the identity and character of a community.
Smart Growth encourages communities to craft a vision and set standards for development that responds to
community values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness, as well as expanded choices in housing and
transportation. It seeks to create interesting, unique communities that reflect the values and cultures of the people
who live there, and foster physical environments that supports a more cohesive community fabric. Smart Growth
promotes development that uses natural and man-made boundaries and landmarks to create a sense of defined places.
It encourages construction and preservation of buildings that contribute to the unique look and feel of a community.
Guided by a vision of how and where to grow, the Town is able to identify and use opportunities to make new
development conform to their standards of
distinctiveness and beauty. Contrary to the
current mode of development, Smart Growth
ensures that the value of development is
determined as much by its accessibility as its
physical orientation to and relationship with
other buildings and open space. By creating
high-quality communities with architectural
and natural elements that reflect its character,
there is a greater likelihood that buildings,
and their surrounding neighborhoods, will
retain their economic vitality and value over
time.
Make development decisions predictable,
fair and cost effective. For Smart Growth
to be successful, it must be embraced by the Main Street, Williamsville, New York. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐6
private sector. Only private capital markets
can supply the large amounts of money
needed to meet the growing demand for
smart growth developments. If investors,
bankers, developers, builders and others do
not earn a profit, few Smart Growth projects
will be built. Fortunately, the Town can help
make Smart Growth profitable to developers.
Since the development industry is highly
regulated, the value of property and the
desirability of a place are largely affected by
regulation and investment in infrastructure.
Sound infrastructure and regulatory decisions
wilt foster fair, predictable and cost effective
smart growth.
Despite regulatory and financial barriers,
developers have been successful in creating examples of Smart Growth. The process to do so, however, requires them
to get variances to existing codes; often a time-consuming and costly requirement. For Smart Growth to flourish, the
Town must make an effort to make development decisions more timely, cost-effective, and predictable for developers.
By creating a fertile environment for innovative projects, local government can provide leadership for smart growth
that the private sector should support.
Mix land uses. Zoning emerged as a response to the unregulated nature of land use in the early 20th century, and
the noxious character of many businesses and industries of the time. Early zoning codes were intended to protect
homeowners from uses such as slaughterhouses, tanneries, and glue factories, which would be a nuisance that could
devalue residential properties. Today, some contemporary zoning codes prevent the mixing of residential and
commercial uses, even for a well-planned project where the threat of a nuisance is nonexistent.
Smart Growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving
better places to live. By putting uses in closer proximity to one another, alternatives to driving, such as walking or
biking, once again become viable. Mixed land uses also provide a more diverse and sizable population and
commercial base for supporting viable public transit. Mixed uses can enhance the vitality and perceived security of
an area by improving the attitude and
increasing the number of people on the
street.
Not all mixed use is desirable; for example,
storage of heavy equipment or operation of
construction yards on residential property, as
occasionally seen in rural areas. Well
planned mixed use development helps streets,
public spaces and pedestrian-oriented retail
again become places where people meet,
attracting pedestrians back onto the street
and revitalizing community life. Smart
Growth provides a means for the Town to
alter the planning context that now renders
mixed land uses illegal.
Shalebrook Farm, Town of Ithaca.
Elmwood Village, Buffalo, New York (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐7
Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas. Development pressure and
the impact of urbanization on agricultural uses are threats to the Town's remaining farmland. With large lot
residential development increasingly commonplace, it now takes fewer people and houses to occupy a section of land
than in the past.
Smart Growth uses the term "open space" broadly to include natural areas that provide important community space,
habitat for plants and animals, recreational opportunities, farm and nursery land, places of natural beauty, and critical
environmental areas. Open space preservation supports Smart Growth goals by protecting the character of rural and
semi-rural communities, preserving critical environmental areas, improving the region's quality of life, and guiding
new growth into existing communities and areas where there will be less impact on the natural environment.
Protection and maintenance of open space provides fiscal benefits that include increasing local property value,
encouraging tourism, and reducing the cost of providing new infrastructure. Preservation of open space benefits the
environment by combating air pollution, attenuating noise from busy highways, providing erosion and wind control,
moderating temperatures, and protecting watersheds and pristine rivers.
Provide a variety of transportation choices. Traffic congestion is an issue in some parts of the town. Although
the Ithaca area doesn't face the same traffic woes that beset many North American cities, increasing urban sprawl is
resulting in longer commutes and increased travel times.
Providing people with more choices in housing, shopping, communities, and transportation is a key aim of Smart
Growth. Communities are increasingly seeking these choices, particularly a wider range of transportation options
with supportive development patterns, to help improve beleaguered transportation systems.
Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. Smart Growth directs development towards
established communities already served by infrastructure, seeking to use resources that existing neighborhoods offer,
and conserve open space on the urban fringe. Development in existing neighborhoods also represents an approach to
growth that can be more cost-effective, and
improves the quality of life for its
residents. By encouraging development in
established cities and villages, they benefit
from a stronger tax base, closer proximity
to a range of jobs and services, increased
efficiency of already developed land and
infrastructure, reduced development
pressure in edge areas, and stronger rural
and estate communities.
The ease of greenfield development
remains an obstacle to encouraging more
development in existing neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, some communities are
recognizing the opportunities presented by
retrofitting and infill development.
Take advantage of compact building
design. Smart Growth provides a way for
the Town to incorporate more compact
building design as an alternative to conventional, land consumptive development. Compact building design suggests
Fairview Village, Portland, Oregon. (Brett VA/Creative Commons license)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐8
that communities be designed in a way which permits more open space to be preserved, and that buildings can be
constructed to make more efficient use of land and resources.
Compact building design is necessary to support wider transportation choices because a minimum level of density is
required to make public transit networks viable. It also provides cost savings for localities, because it is less costly to
provide and maintain services like water, sewer, electricity, and other utilities in more compact communities.
A.2 Traditional neighborhood development
In his book A Better Place to Live: Reshaping the American Suburb, Philip Langdon described East Aurora, a village
of about 7,500 residents 15 miles southeast of Buffalo, as a "nearly complete", "compact and walkable" community
where "nearly everything the inhabitants needed, except a full range of employment, was close to home."
Traditional neighborhood development (TND) or neotraditional development is a form of development that takes its
inspiration from the "nearly" complete communities of the past; villages like East Aurora, and urban and suburban
neighborhoods built between World Wars I and II. TND includes a range of housing types, network of
interconnected streets, human-scaled public spaces, and amenities such as shops, schools, parks, and places of
worship within walking distance of all residences.
There is growing support for creating denser, more walkable and interconnected neighborhoods in the town, with
housing and amenities that appeal to a broader range of households, lifestyles, life stages, and income ranges. TND
can better accommodate this than the collections of disconnected subdivisions, cluster developments, semi-rural
frontage development, and apartment complexes now prevalent.
Major differences between TND and conventional suburban development include:
Traditional neighborhood development Conventional suburban development
Street networks are interconnected, with multiple routes
between destinations.
Street networks are dendritic, or take a "loop and lollypop"
form, with limited routes between destinations.
Some mixed use: e.g. apartments above storefronts, accessory
offices at intersections, different types of housing may share a
block.
Different uses and building types are segregated into pods.
Range of housing types in close proximity, providing for a
variety of income ranges and life stages.
Very limited variety of housing types, separated into physically
disconnected pods with limited or no access between them.
Anchored by a village center or commercial district, located
within walking distance of most residents.
Commercial districts isolated in strips along busy roads, usually
beyond walking distance of most residents.
Village of East Aurora, New York. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐9
Traditional neighborhood development Conventional suburban development
Commercial districts built on a pedestrian scale; building
entrances and storefronts face the street and front the
sidewalk.
Commercial districts built on a vehicular scale; buildings are
placed behind a parking lot, and building entrances often do
not face the street.
Civic uses (town halls, post offices, places of worship, schools)
are placed in or near a neighborhood or village center, or in
prominent but accessible locations.
Civic uses are scattered throughout the community with no
regards to accessibility; often in areas outside of
neighborhoods.
Gathering places are in the public realm (main street,
sidewalks, squares, etc).
Gathering places are in the private realm (shopping centers,
subdivision and apartment building common buildings, etc).
Parks are located in prominent locations, and front on public
streets.
Parks and open space are placed on remnant parcels, often in
linear corridors behind back yards.
Streets are narrower, and designed to accommodate
pedestrians and vehicles.
Streets are wide, designed mainly for efficient, high‐speed
traffic flow.
On‐street parking is accommodated in all areas. Off‐street parking is preferred. Commercial areas have no on‐
street parking.
Buildings are placed closer to the sidewalk. Buildings are placed as far away from the street as possible,
distancing occupants from street life and their neighbors.
A neighborhood conveys a strong sense of place.A subdivision could be anywhere.
A comparison of traditional neighborhood development to conventional suburban development. (Post, Nadine M.,
"Putting Brakes on Suburban Sprawl," Engineering News–Record, May 9, 1994, pp. 32–39.)
Reduced sprawl and farmland conversion. TND is
more compact than conventional suburban development,
and will slow the conversion of agricultural land and open
space to urban uses. Compact development also uses
land, energy, water, and materials more efficiently and
wisely than conventional suburban development.
Lower service costs. TND services a similar number of
residences with far less infrastructure. Development and
maintenance costs are lower because the same length of
road and utilities can serve more residences.
Expanded housing choice. TND accommodates a wider
range of housing types than conventional suburban
development. It addresses a disconnect between the
supply of housing in the town (development catering
mainly to traditional families with children, and low-
moderate income households) and demand (growing
percentage of households comprising professional singles,
childless couples, single parents, empty nesters, retirees,
and non-traditional households). Housing can be made
more affordable through increased density rather than
expensive subsidies or lowered standards.
Appeal to younger adults and a new generation of
retirees. Those who belong to Generation X and
Generation Y (born between 1965 and 1995) have a marked preference for living in more walkable, compact and
diverse neighborhoods compared to previous generations. Such neighborhoods may also appeal to recent
retirees, who are increasingly choosing to settle in culturally vibrant college towns such as Ithaca instead of age-
segregated communities or Sunbelt destinations.
A comparison of traditional neighborhood development
(top) to conventional suburban development (bottom).
(Nadine Post, "Putting Brakes on Suburban Sprawl,"
Engineering News–Record, May 1994.)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐10
Safer public spaces. Parks, streets, and civic spaces are safer and more defensible, because they are more
accessible and visually prominent, and get more use.
Community for the carless. Residents who cannot drive, including children and many senior citizens, can more
easily take part in the day-to-day life of the community, and not be physically or socially isolated. TND also
increases the viability of public transit by providing a simple street network, increased population density, and an
environment that makes a walk to a bus stop more interesting.
Reduced vehicle trips. Providing some retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents will
reduce the need to drive outside of the neighborhood to find those services.
Healthier living. Likelihood of obesity and health issues due to a sedentary lifestyle is reduced by having a mix
of uses and services within walking distance.
TND should be the preferred form of development in the Town of Ithaca, as opposed to conventional subdivisions,
frontage development, and podded cluster development.
Stapleton: traditional neighborhood development in Denver, Colorado. (DT)
A.3 Form‐ and transect‐based codes
A.3.1 Form‐based codes
Form-based codes regulate development of
the built environment by placing an emphasis
on guiding the form that development takes,
rather than focusing on land use as with
traditional zoning. Form-based codes are
intended to create a more predictable physical
outcome than traditional zoning, and achieve
a specific urban form.
Form-based codes usually include the
following elements:
Regulating plan: shows the locations
where different building form standards
apply.
Public space standards: specifications for
the built environment in the public realm;
types of streets, street profiles, planting
areas and landscaping, sidewalks, light poles, drainage, and so on.
Celebration, Florida. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐11
Building form standards: regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that shape
the public realm. This also includes architectural design, signage, lighting, landscaping, and drainage
requirements. Building type may also be regulated.
Major differences between conventional zoning and form-based codes include:
Form‐based code Conventional zoning code
Implements a comprehensive plan by regulating the physical
character of specified areas.
Implements a comprehensive plan by limiting types of uses to
specified areas.
Intended to address development issues of the present; avoid
effects of sprawl, create sense of place, create neighborhoods,
provide housing diversity.
Intended to address development issues of the past;
tenements and urban overcrowding, noxious and intrusive
nuisances, growing automobile ownership.
Focuses on the form of a building as it relates to the street and
adjacent uses.
Focuses on the use and development of individual lots.
Regulates with primary emphasis on form (buildings and their
relationship to the street and each other), secondarily on use
and management.
Regulates with primary emphasis on use (separation of uses),
secondarily on management and form.
Placement of buildings on the lot is regulated by build‐to lines,
which specify building location relative to lot lines.
Placement of buildings is governed by uniform minimum
setbacks that create a building envelope. The location and
form of a building in a building envelope is unpredictable.
Street standards vary based on the regulating plan and the
desired character for a street.
Street standards are independent of zoning districts and land
use.
Regulates parking design in understanding that poorly
designed parking undermines pedestrian activity and interest
in a place. Parking is placed behind buildings to develop
walkable streetscapes.
Location and form of parking is usually not regulated.
Required parking is based on reasonable need, also considers
availability of on‐street parking.
Required parking is based on worst‐case scenarios; e.g. Black
Friday at the peak of an economic boom.
Street standards are designed so that pedestrians feel safe and
to encourage walkability.
Street standards are designed primarily to maximize auto
volume and speed.
Physical outcomes and building placement are predictable.Physical outcomes and building placement are unpredictable,
especially if there is a large building envelope.
Permitted uses are based on building form, street type, and an
underlying regulating plan.
Permitted uses are based on underlying zoning.
Compatibility of uses is achieved through design and building
orientation.
Compatibility of uses is achieved through grouping of similar
uses, strict separation of uses, and buffers.
Form‐based codes accommodate development that is
compact, mixed use, and pedestrian friendly.
The structure of traditional zoning codes makes it difficult to
accommodate pedestrian‐oriented and mixed use
development.
Development standards are prescriptive, ensuring a
predictable design and approval process.
Development standards are sometimes negotiable (site plan
review, local laws, vague planned unit development standards),
prolonging the design and approval process.
Regulates to create places. Regulates to create buildings.
A.3.2 Transect‐based codes
A transect-based code is based on the ecological concept of a transect; a cross-section of the environment showing a
range of different habitats. A transect-based code establishes a number of transect zones, each distinguished by its
density and shared character. Transect zones that form the foundation of most transect-based codes usually include:
T1: lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition, including lands unsuitable for settlement.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐12
T2: sparsely settled lands in an open or cultivated state.
T3: lower density residential areas next to higher density zones that have some mixed use.
T4: mixed use but primarily medium density residential urban/prewar suburban fabric.
T5: higher density mixed use buildings that accommodate retail, offices, rowhouses, and apartments.
T6: highest density and height, with the greatest variety of uses, and civic buildings of local importance.
Rural‐to‐urban transect. (Duany Plater‐Zyberk and Company)
The scope of transect zones is less granular than conventional zoning districts, where there may be only minor
differences in minimum setbacks or permitted uses. Transect zones are intended to be balanced in a neighborhood
structure based on pedestrian sheds, or areas where every resident in a neighborhood is a short walk from any other
habitat, such as a village center, civic space, or farmland.
All transect-based codes are form-based codes, because they are based on the physical form of the built and natural
environment. Major differences between conventional zoning and form-based codes include:
Transec t‐based code Conventional zoning code
Implement a comprehensive plan by create communities with
a range of human habitats, from most rural to most urban.
Implements a comprehensive plan by limiting types of uses to
specified areas.
Regulates with primary emphasis on form (buildings and their
relationship to the street and each other), secondarily on use
and management.
Regulates with primary emphasis on use (separation of uses),
secondarily on management and form.
Development is structured into neighborhood patterns
(clustered land development, traditional neighborhood
development, and town center development).
Development is not intentionally structured into particular
patterns, and there is no goal of creating coherent
neighborhoods.
Requires a mix of housing types and sizes in a walkable
neighborhood.
Most standards are applied across all zones as one‐size‐fits‐all
regulations.
Districts are based on shared character. Districts are based on shared use.
All zones are mixed use to some degree. Most zones prohibit mixed uses. A planned unit development
is necessary to build a mixed use development.
Requires a mix of uses within a walkable neighborhood.Allows development of vast areas of a single land use. Walking
distance to other uses is not a factor.
Creates a diverse variety of immersive environments, ranging
from the most rural to the most urban.
Mostly low density suburban residential development is
scattered among natural areas and agricultural land, creating
homogenized or contradictory environments.
Requires development of connected street networks.No specific street layout requirements. Allows development of
dendritic street networks.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐13
Transect‐based development under the SmartCode. (Marley Porter of Living Architecture for the City of Hutto, Texas Planning
Department.)
A.3.3 The SmartCode
The SmartCode is an open source, form-based and transect-based land development code. The SmartCode is
designed to create interconnected, walkable neighborhoods across the spectrum of human settlement, from the most
rural to the most urban, incorporating a transect of character and intensity within each. The SmartCode is intended
to be calibrated to local and desired conditions by professional planners.
The SmartCode regulates development based on a nesting relationship of the town or city, neighborhood, transect
zone, and building lot.
Regional scale: growth sectors contain designated types of community units.
Neighborhood scale: community units contain designated ratios of transect zones.
Transect zones contain the building elements and functions appropriate to them.
Lot / building scale.
Regional scale
A regional scale plan designates growth sectors, each establishing the location where certain types and intensities of
community units (PND or pocket neighborhood development, CLD or clustered land development, TND or
traditional neighborhood development, and TCD or town center development) are permitted.
The regional scale plan applies only to development under the SmartCode. This system addresses development and
open space preservation on a townwide scale. Sector locations are well defined on a transect development guidance
plan, and follow tax parcel lines and other fixed boundaries.
Neighborhood scale
Growth sectors permit one or more types of community units. The type and allocation of transect zones permitted in
a community unit varies, depending on the underlying growth sector. There can be more than one community unit in
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐14
a development, even of different types, each
based on a pedestrian shed, an area that is
centered on a common destination. A
community unit should be a five to 10 minute
walk from the common destination to the
edge. The SmartCode also regulates street
layout, and types and placement of open
space in a community unit.
A regulating plan is an approved, legally
binding plan that shows how a specific area
will develop. It includes explanatory text and
maps showing community unit areas, transect
zones, civic areas, and thoroughfare network.
Transect scale
Transects are described in the previous
section. Transect zones include standards
that encourage diversity similar to that of
organically evolved settlements.
Lot/building scale
Charts and tables in the SmartCode regulate the type, bulk, placement, and frontage features of buildings on a lot.
Regulating form
Tables and illustrations in the SmartCode regulate different attributes of development in each of the transects;
including base residential density, block size, thoroughfare types, lot dimensions, building envelopes, and other
attributes. The SmartCode also includes architectural design standards, signage requirements, and additional
modules that can be modified to reflect desired community character.
Regulating use
The SmartCode regulates specific functions and uses, but unlike conventional zoning it's not the basis of the code. A
table in the SmartCode identifies functions that are permitted by right and special permission in each transect, their
intensity, and their permitted location on a block. The general function of a building is determined upon site plan
approval. A use may be permitted in a transect, but only in designated buildings or sites on the community plan. A
regulating plan may also designate mandatory and recommended retail frontages along certain blocks, or confine
retail uses to designated frontages.
Uses are grouped into broader categories than in a conventional zoning code. For example, the SmartCode may
permit a retail building under certain circumstances, while conventional zoning codes typically include a long list of
various retail uses.
Adoption strategy
Most communities that adopted some form of the SmartCode have not abandoned traditional zoning. Different
approaches have been taken, such as making SmartCode mandatory for certain neighborhoods or corridors, making it
an option for new development, or requiring it for new projects of a certain size or scope. Some communities have
incorporated elements of the SmartCode into a hybrid zoning code. Only a few communities have completely
replaced their old zoning codes with the SmartCode.
Public space standard for public streets from the SmartCode 9.0 template.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐15
A.4 Unified development code
Laws governing planning and land use should be transparent, accessible, and comprehendible by all town residents.
When land use regulations are scattered among disparate chapters of the Town Code, as is the case for the Town of
Ithaca, they can be difficult for town employees to administer and interpret; and for officials, appointed board
members, and citizens to understand and easily reference. There can be conflicts or duplication with the provisions
of other chapters.
A growing number of communities are enacting unified development codes, which consolidate all regulations
regarding development, land use and the built environment into one code. The advantages of a unified development
code over separate chapters among a larger municipal code include:
More efficient administration of land use regulations and the development review process, because all involved
parties only need to be familiar with one set of standards. The approval processes for all types of development
are regulated in one code, not several.
The lack of redundant, conflicting, and/or
inconsistent provisions found in land use control
systems made up of separate codes covering
zoning, subdivision, environmental
requirements, and accessory uses. It reduces the
likelihood for error by staff or applicants.
A more manageable document that can easily
accommodate amendments without creating
conflicts with other code chapters.
The opportunity to create a modern code that
presents existing land use standards in tables,
graphics, and plain English, without using
complicated legal jargon or wordy prose. It also
allows the opportunity to perform a "deep
cleaning" to remove or amend outdated
standards; and to integrate updated standards
and new requirements for site planning,
landscaping, architectural control, and other
aspects of the built environment into the Town's
land use regulations.
Full disclosure of all regulations that can affect a
proposed development. This leads to a more
predictable development process for all involved
parties.
A unified development code can consolidate the
Town's land use standards into a single, consistent,
user-friendly document. A unified development
code can also integrate elements of both traditional
zoning and form-based codes to create a hybrid document that better regulates the form of the built environment, but
that remains familiar to those who have worked with standard zoning codes for years.
Green Code, the new form‐based unified development code of Buffalo,
New York.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐16
A.5 Institutional zoning
Many communities with college campuses, including the City of Ithaca, use some kind of institutional zoning.
Institutional zoning is intended to give large institutions the flexibility to plan and develop their facilities, while
ensuring that surrounding areas are protected from impacts such as traffic, overshadowing buildings, noise, and other
externalities from laboratories and research facilities, and from expansion of institutional uses into residential areas.
Much like a planned unit development, development in an institutional zone is guided by an approved district plan
based on the institution's master plan. Approval of development in institutional zones with an approved district plan
may be administrative or through a more formal development review process. Some implementations of institutional
zoning allow the option of formal development review for all development on campus if there is no approved district
plan. Institutional zoning districts can also include standards on building bulk and siting, parking and circulation,
lighting, landscaping, screening, and signage.
A.6 Design standards
Design standards are intended to convey a
sense of the preferred quality for a place.
They supplement basic regulations of
building setbacks, height, lot coverage,
parking, and signage with standards for other
elements of the built environment such as
architecture, building orientation, and
landscaping. (The Town of Ithaca now has
basic standards for signage, lighting, and
wireless facilities.)
A.6.1 Architectural standards
Architectural regulations are one of the tools
a growing number of communities use to
reinforce community identity, prevent
placelessness resulting from buildings
constructed with the same standard design as
in hundreds of other communities, reinforce a
human scale, and create a built environment that will maintain a timeless appeal.
Architectural regulations are one of the tools a growing number of communities use to reinforce community identity,
prevent placelessness resulting from buildings constructed with the same standard design as in hundreds of other
communities, reinforce a human scale, and create a built environment that will maintain a timeless appeal.
Architectural regulations for commercial, industrial and civic buildings usually address the following:
Building materials, color and texture.
Building height, bulk, and roof line.
Building proportions.
Openings in the façade: doors, windows, and garage doors, and their location, amount, size and proportions.
Four‐sided design. Architectural details on the front of a building are repeated
on all sides. Independence, Ohio. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐17
Type and slope of roof.
Wall projections and recesses.
Architectural details.
Architectural regulations for residential
structures can also include standards to
prevent "snout houses" with protruding,
visually predominant garages; and ensure
variety in design to avoid a "cookie cutter"
effect in a new development.
Architectural regulations should be
quantitative, with well-defined and
enumerated standards that are not arbitrary
or subject to interpretation. Contemporary
architectural regulations are intended to help
produce quality structures, regardless of
architectural style. Regulation of
architectural style (e.g. Craftsman, Queen
Anne, Greek Revival, etc.) may discourage creativity and individuality, and perpetuate the kind of monotony that the
standards are intended to prevent.
A.6.2 Site planning standards
Conventional zoning codes usually establish bulk requirements: minimum building setback lines and envelopes,
maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and/or floor-area ratio. Bulk requirements are intended to
prevent overcrowding, reduce potential conflicts between adjacent uses, and allow adequate light and air to reach all
parts of a lot or building. However, the ultimate location and form of development inside a building envelope can be
unpredictable.
Site planning requirements address the unpredictability of basic bulk requirement by supplementing them with
standards for arranging compositional elements and improvements on a site. Site planning requirements may address
the following:
Orientation of buildings towards the street, walkways, or other features.
Arrangement of buildings in a development.
Placement and amount of walkways, open space, and/or plazas.
Placement of buildings to take advantage of and preserve views and solar access.
Placement and internal arrangement of parking areas, access drives, and circulation routes.
Placement and screening of service and loading areas.
Requirements for public art, water features, public transit stops, and other amenities.
Grading and preservation of natural topography.
Creation of defensible space through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies,
which includes natural territorial reinforcement, natural surveillance, and natural access control.
Site planning standards are more prescriptive than basic bulk requirements, but generally less prescriptive than
building form standards in a form-based code.
Bold colors used as accents rather than as dominant features. The Domain,
Austin, Texas. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐18
A.6.3 Landscaping standards
Landscaping regulations help to integrate
the built environment with the natural
environment, and can reinforce the
identity of the Town of Ithaca as an
environmentally aware community that is
close to nature.
Landscaping regulations usually address
the following:
Amount and location of required
plant materials (trees, shrubs,
groundcover) for a residential,
commercial and industrial site.
Required landscaping buffers and
islands.
Permitted and prohibited plant
materials.
Proper installation and maintenance of landscaping.
Tree preservation, removal and replacement.
A.7 Context sensitive solutions
Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a holistic road design practice that considers the context of the built, natural, and
social environments along the route of a road. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to road design that
emphasizes movement of vehicle traffic above all other considerations, CSS considers that a road should fit into its
surroundings, preserving any scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural and environmental resources, and respecting the
character of developed areas it passes through.
CSS also includes collaboration and consensus with stakeholders throughout the entire planning and design process,
with the goal of arriving at a consensus that addresses the needs of both the transportation agency and all affected
stakeholders.
A.8 Complete streets
Most roads and streets in the Town of Ithaca are designed only with vehicles in mind. Although there is a growing
network of recreation trails in the town, accommodation of bicycles and pedestrians on town roads is rare, and
usually an afterthought where they exist. Single use streets limit transportation choices by making walking, bicycling,
and taking public transportation inconvenient and even unsafe.
Complete streets are roads that are designed to accommodate all users, including motor vehicles, public
transportation vehicles and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Design elements of
complete streets include:
Landscaping area and walkway in a shopping center parking lot. Georgetown,
Texas. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan A‐19
Pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks, defined crosswalks, accessible pedestrian signals, and seating at
regular intervals
Traffic calming measures to lower driving speeds and better define the road edge, including narrower streets,
shorter curb return radii, roundabouts, on-street parking, street trees, and planter strips.
Bicycle accommodations, such as marked bicycle lanes or shoulders, or shared lane marking.
Public transportation accommodations, such as shelters and accessible pads at bus stops.
Complete streets policies exclude roads where the cost of accommodation would be too disproportionate to the need
or expected use, and roads where accommodation is unnecessary. For example, a short residential street may need
sidewalks, but not bicycle lanes or pads for bus stops.
Benefits of complete streets include improved safety for all users of a street, improvement of public health by
providing more places to walk and bike, and fostering stronger, more engaged communities by allowing all people to
feel safe and comfortable using the town's roads.
The New York State Complete Streets Act (S05411, A 8366) requires consideration of all road users—motor vehicles,
public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians—in any transportation project that uses state and federal funds.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐1
APPENDIX B
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
B.1 Demographic profile
This section provides a snapshot of the Town of Ithaca’s existing demographic characteristics, with a specific focus
on population distributions/concentrations, age distribution, racial characteristics, and education.
Unless otherwise noted, all data comes from the United States Census, either the most recent 2010 Census or earlier
Census counts. Data has also been extracted from the American Community Survey (ACS), an on-going nationwide
survey sponsored by the Census that produces demographic estimates. The ACS is conducted annually for a sample
of the U.S. population, particularly municipalities with a population of 20,000 persons or more. Depending on a
municipality’s population size, analysis of the data is provided in annual, three-year, or five-year estimates. The most
recent ACS data available for the Town of Ithaca covered the five-year period between 2008 and 2012.
B.1.1 Population
The Town of Ithaca, including the Village of Cayuga Heights, has a current population of approximately 19,930
persons. The Town's population has grown steadily in the last 40 years, with an average increase of 6.75% each
decade between 1970 and 2010; a growth rate of approximately 0.7% per year. The most recent Census information
indicates that the Town grew another 6.5% between 2000 and 2010, an increase that is consistent with past trends.
Population projections
Generally, population projections are based on two assumptions: (1) that the rate of change is equally divided across a
period of time (usually 10 year increments), and (2) that population will grow at the same rate as it has in the past.1
In reality, however, population growth rates vary from year to year and are affected by many social and economic
factors. Therefore, population projections should only be considered guidelines to gauge potential future conditions.
Historical and projected population 1970‐2030 | Town of Ithaca
15620 16022
17797 18710 19930 21225 22605
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Population
Source: United States Census Bureau
Assuming that the Town of Ithaca continues to grow at the same general rate as the last forty years, the Town of
Ithaca total population in 2030, including the Village of Cayuga Heights, would be approximately 22,605 persons, or
1 Lab No. 3: Population Projections and Scale, Ines M. Miyares, Department of Geography, Hunter College. http://geo.hunter.cuny.edu
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐4
an additional ±2,675 persons in the next 20 years.2 The previous chart illustrates the historical and projected
population for the Town of Ithaca (including the Village of Cayuga Heights).
College student population characteristics
The percentage of college students has remained relatively consistent throughout the years (39% in 1980, 38% in
1990, 35% in 2000). 3 Recent data obtained from the ACS suggests that college students account for nearly 40% of
the total population in the Town between 2008 and 2012.
The large percentage of college-age persons in the Town of Ithaca has historically been attributed to the presence of
area educational institutions of higher learning, particularly Cornell University and Ithaca College. According to the
Town’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan, Ithaca College had a total enrollment of 6,200 students in 1990 (98%
undergraduate). More recently, the Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research reported a fall 2010 enrollment of
6,949 students (93% undergraduate).4
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan also noted that Cornell University had a total enrollment of nearly 18,000 graduate
and undergraduate students (around 70% undergraduate), whereas the Cornell Office of Institutional Research
reported a fall 2010 enrollment of 20,939 students (67% undergraduate).5 According to Cornell’s 2010 Enrollment
Report created by the Office of Institutional Research, the fall 2010 undergraduate and graduate/professional school
enrollments were at an all-time high.
Population concentration/distribution
The Town’s population has historically been concentrated on East Hill, although this has shifted in recent years. The
1993 Comprehensive Plan attributed the proliferation of residential subdivisions and concentration of population on
East Hill to the presence of nearby Cornell University.
Interestingly, Census block and tract information between 1990 and 2010 shows that the Town’s population has been
shifting more to South Hill, such that the South Hill population now exceeds the East Hill population.
Residential subdivision developments occurring in the late 1980s and the 1990s (such as the Deer Run and Chase
Farm Subdivisions) most likely contributed to the increase in population on South Hill, while the reduction of vacant
available land on East Hill has contributed to the negligible population increase. Development of the Linderman
Creek Apartments, the Overlook Apartments, and EcoVillage in the 1990s and mid-2000s contributed to the increase
in population on West Hill.
2 Based on a population projection formula that is found in Appendix E
3 According to 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census figures.
4 Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research, Ithaca College Facts in Brief 2010‐11,.
http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/facts/Ithaca_College_Facts_in_Brief_2010‐11.pdf, accessed 1 August 2011.
5 Cornell University Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Enrollments by College, Ithaca Campus, Fall 2010.
http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000172.pdf, accessed 1 August 2011.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐5
Population by Census block 2010 | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐6
The pie charts and the table below illustrate the shifts in population distribution in the Town of Ithaca between 2000
and 2010. The 2010 Population by Census Block map on the following page shows the distribution of the Town’s
population as of the 2010 Census.
Population distribution 2000‐2010: Town of Ithaca
Town population distribution: 2000
Village of
Cayuga Heights
19%
West Hill
14%
South Hill
35%
East Hill
32%
Town population distribution: 2010
Population distribution 1990‐2010 | Town of Ithaca
Location 1990 population 2000 population 2010 population % change
1990‐2000
% change
2000‐2010
East Hill 6,412 6,389 6,409 ‐0.4% +0.3%
South Hill 5,654 6,210 6,904 +9.8% +11.2%
West Hill 2,274 2,373 2,888 +4.4% +22%
Village of Cayuga Heights 3,457 3,738 3,729 +8.1% ‐0.2%
Total: Town of Ithaca 17,797 18,710 19,930 +5.1% +6.5%
Source: United States Census Bureau
The population on South Hill grew 11.2% between 2000 and 2010, whereas the population on East Hill only
increased 0.3% between 2000 and 2010. Although the West Hill area of the Town is the least populated, it
experienced the largest increase in population, with a 22% increase between 2000 and 2010.
B.1.2 Age and racial characteristics
Age
The 18 to 24 year age group has historically been the largest age group in the Town of Ithaca. The most obvious
reason for this has been the presence of local institutions of higher learning, particularly Cornell University and
Ithaca College. The most recent ACS data indicates that 18 to 24 year-olds are still the largest age group in the Town
of Ithaca, followed by those aged 25-44 years, and those aged 45-64 years.
The chart below shows the general age distribution characteristics of the Town of Ithaca, which are typical of the
Town’s historical age distribution patterns.6
6 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
Village of
Cayuga Heights
20%
West Hill
13%
South Hill
33%
East Hill
34%
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐7
The highest growth rate noted in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan was for the group aged 65 years or older; the
proportion of which nearly doubled between 1970 and 1990. The 1993 Plan also anticipated that the elder
population would continue to grow, thereby increasing the need for specialized housing and care (with even more
services needed by elders over 80 in the future).
Indeed, the senior population, mainly 75 to 84 years old, had the greatest increase in numbers from Census 1990 to
Census 2000 (62% change). The 85-year old plus group also significantly increased between 1990 and 2000 (54%
change). These figures have mirrored county, state, and national trends. According to the Tompkins County Office
for the Aging, seniors aged 85-plus now constitute the fastest growing segment of the senior population - a trend that
is projected to continue.7 Additionally, the baby-boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) is beginning to
reach retirement age and will contribute to future specialized service needs. The Town might need to develop
additional services in the future to accommodate the needs of these continuing aging segments of the community.
Race
According to the Census, the race/ethnicity breakdown in the Town has historically been similar to that of Tompkins
County and the Southern Tier region. The Town has lower racial and ethnic diversity (with the exception of the
Asian population) than New York State and the United States as a whole. The 2010 Census showed that nearly 80%
of people reporting one race alone in the Town of Ithaca were White/Caucasian, whereas 11% were Asian, 4% were
Hispanic, 4% were Black/African American, 1% were Some Other Race, and 0.1% were American Indian, Alaska
Native, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander.
B.1.3 Education
The 2008-2012 ACS recently reported that nearly 9,500 children in the Town of Ithaca were enrolled in school. That
is, 423 children (ages 3 and older) were enrolled in nursery school or kindergarten, just over 1,600 were enrolled in
elementary or high school, and more than 7,400 were enrolled in college or graduate school. This is consistent with
past Census figures for the Town of Ithaca and for Tompkins County.
7 Overview of Millenium Project, Tompkins County Office of the Aging, http://www.tompkins‐co.org/cofa/intro.pdf
Age distribution 2008‐2012: Town of Ithaca
Source: 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐8
Regarding those aged 25 years and older, the Town of Ithaca contains a highly educated community, with much
higher education attainment levels than New York State as a whole. Local educational institutions of higher learning
have tended to draw a large number of persons seeking undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate degrees. 95% of
those in the Town aged 25 and older at least graduated high school, with 71% attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher.8
The chart below, excerpted from the 2008-2012 ACS, illustrates the levels of education achieved by Town of Ithaca
residents aged 25 years and older.
Educational attainment 2008‐2012 | Town of Ithaca residents
Source: 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
8 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐9
B.2 Land use
This section provides an evaluation of existing conditions, emerging development patterns, the current zoning scheme
and land use regulations in the Town.
B.2.1 Development history and trends
Land use distribution
The Town of Ithaca, including the Village of Cayuga Heights, encompasses an area of 30 square miles (19,370
acres)9. This does not include Cayuga Lake, with an additional 836 acres of the Town. The most prevalent land uses
found in the Town are:
Undeveloped forest, meadow, and brush (covering 49% of the Town)
Residential (covering 19% of the Town)
Agriculture (covering 18% of the Town)
The following tables and maps further outline the variety of land uses found in the Town.
Land use distribution | Town of Ithaca
Land use category Acres Square miles % of town area
Agriculture 3412.24 ac 5.34 mi2 17.61%
Commercial 123.71 ac 0.19 mi2 0.64%
Community services/institutions* 594.02 ac 0.92 mi2 3.07%
Light industrial/utilities 217.39 ac 0.34 mi2 1.12%
Residential 3609.42 ac 5.64 mi2 18.63%
Disturbed or barren land 98.25 ac 0.15 mi2 0.51%
Outdoor recreation: public and private 675.59 ac 1.06 mi2 3.49%
Undeveloped: forest/meadow/brush 9557.9 ac 14.94 mi2 49.33%
Waterbody 836.00 ac 1.31 mi2 4.31%
Wetlands 252.66 ac 0.39 mi2 1.30%
*Does not include Cornell Plantations, ancillary or land‐based research facilities at Cornell University, or open and natural space
on the Ithaca College campus.
With largely half of the land being undeveloped forest and meadows, the balance of land uses in the Town of Ithaca
consist of a variety of residential development with associated parks and recreational trails, agriculture, commercial
and retail establishments, educational institutions, offices and light industrial uses. Town residents can enjoy the
associated urban amenities of living close to the City of Ithaca, with international cuisine, theatre and arts, cultural
events, and live music, as well as nearby local and State Parks, natural areas, and recreational trails, many of which
are found within the Town limits.
9 Data based on GIS query; may not be exact.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐10
Land use | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐11
B.2.2 Residential development
Until the 1950s, the most densely populated portions of the Town of Ithaca were the hamlet of Forest Home, where
settlement began in 1794, and the Village of Cayuga Heights, which was incorporated in 1915. The remainder of the
Town contained scattered residential development, mostly on East Hill, in the area north of Hanshaw Road. In the
1950s, postwar prosperity, growth at Cornell University and the area's factories, fueled demand for housing outside of
the city limits. New subdivisions were built in Northeast Ithaca and East Hill areas, in close proximity to Cornell
University, particularly in the areas just south of the Village of Lansing and between Ellis Hollow Road and Six Mile
Creek. Lot splits and frontage residential development occurred throughout the Town, obstructing what were once
pristine rural vistas and giving once-rural collector roads a more residential character.
The relocation of Ithaca College from
downtown in the City of Ithaca to South Hill
in the Town of Ithaca in the early 1960s
created a shift in the Town’s development
patterns. Residential development on South
Hill was relatively limited until the 1980s,
when large housing projects such as Deer
Run, Chase Farm, and College Circle were
constructed. South Hill has since seen more
housing development than East Hill.
The Village of Cayuga Heights (located
within the Town of Ithaca boundary) is
nearly fully built out. The Village is primarily
residential, with the exception of the
Community Corners commercial plaza. A
recent notable development in the Village is
the Kendall at Ithaca senior independent and
assisted living community. Construction of the 406,000 square foot facility located near the Village of Lansing
border began in 1995, with significant additions completed in 2000.
The last frontier of residential development in the Town of Ithaca is the West Hill area. The past 20 years has seen
the beginning of what could be the transformation of the West Hill area from a predominantly agricultural area. In
1996, the first residents moved into the Ecovillage at Ithaca cohousing development, located on a 176-acre West Hill
site. Two conventional apartment complexes, one with subsidized housing for low to moderate income households,
the other providing affordable housing for senior citizens, were built soon afterwards. Carrowmoor, a planned
carbon-neutral, medieval-themed mixed use development with 350 to 400 residential units, is proposed for a site on
Mecklenburg Road (NY 79W).
In the Town of Ithaca, post-WWII residential development tended to have a rural, low density character, rather than
the more manicured form of suburban development found in larger Upstate cities, with relatively large lots on streets
lined by deep roadside ditches instead of curbs, gutters and sidewalks. As a result, many of the Town’s existing
housing developments are homogenous, lacking in variety and efficiency, have largely conventional lot layouts, and
contain homes and lots that are similar in size, style, and price. Most housing developments were built with little
consideration for the topography or environmental sensitivities of the land on which they sit, have little walkability,
and are not connected to existing employment centers, services, commercial areas, or multi-modal transportation
systems.
Ecovillage at Ithaca.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐12
However, there are a few developed areas in the Town that contain a mix of interesting housing styles, sizes, and
types, and that are also connected to existing employment centers, services and the Town’s emerging parks and trails
system. The Commonland Community, located off of Slaterville Road (NY 79E) on the Town’s East Hill, contains a
mix of single and two-family attached homes in a cluster arrangement; adjacent to the Six Mile Creek natural area
and hiking trails. The Commonland Community is served by three public bus routes that run regularly to downtown
Ithaca, Cornell University, and outlying areas along Slaterville Road towards the Town of Caroline and Ellis Hollow
Road towards the Town of Dryden.
This streetscape in the South Hill area is typical of conventional
residential development in Ithaca. Note the very low density and
lack of curbs and sidewalks.
The Overlook at West Hill, a suburban‐style apartment complex in
the West Hill area.
The Summherhill Apartment and Ellis Hollow Apartment complexes, also on East Hill, are located immediately
adjacent to the East Hill Plaza shopping center, with Cornell University located nearby. The Ellis Hollow Apartment
complex includes senior apartment units, so seniors can be easily connected to grocery stores, pharmacies, banks,
offices, and other services within the shopping plaza. East Hill Plaza is also very well served by public transit, with
many daily routes to Cornell, Ellis Hollow, and downtown Ithaca.
The historic hamlet of Forest Home is a former water-powered mill community that developed in an organic
arrangement around Fall Creek. Today, it is a compact residential neighborhood, with most houses dating from the
early 19th and 20th centuries. Completely surrounded by lands belonging to Cornell University, it is within walking
distance to the Cornell campus, Cornell Plantations, and a variety of walking trails. Many TCAT buses travel
through the hamlet every day, en route to northeast Ithaca, the Shops at Ithaca mall in the Village of Lansing, the
Village of Cayuga Heights, the hamlet of Etna in Dryden, and the Tompkins County Regional Airport.
There is growing support for creating denser, more walkable, and interconnected neighborhoods in the Town.
B.2.3 Commercial development
The Town of Ithaca is fortunate in that, unlike many peer communities, it has no strip commercial development. The
Town does not have a major shopping district, or village or hamlet commercial center. The Town also does not have
a large surplus of undeveloped land with commercial zoning. An abundance of vacant commercial land can depress
its value, making it more attractive for low-end businesses.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐13
Rodeway Inn on Elmira Road, Inlet Valley area. East Hill Plaza.
Clusters of commercial development in the Town include:
East Hill: the intersection of Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road, about one half mile south of the Cornell
University School of Veterinary Medicine, includes the 110,000 square foot East Hill Plaza building, the 60,000
square foot East Hill Office building, and a Best Western hotel. The East Hill Plaza building contains a
supermarket, laundromat, liquor store, casual restaurants, and offices for Cornell University. There are also
several banks, dental offices, and a gas station on the overall property. Development in this area started in the
late 1970s and continued through the 1990s.
South Hill: the intersection of Danby Road (NY 96B) and East King Road near Ithaca College includes a
Country Inn and Suites hotel, furniture store, some small restaurants, a gas station and a convenience store.
College Crossing, a 19,000 square foot neighborhood shopping center at the corner of Danby Road and King
Road, has received final approval. This area emerged as a small commercial center in the 1970s. To the north,
one and a half miles on Danby Road, is Rogan’s Corners adjacent to the city line. This small commercial site,
constructed in the early 1980s, consists of a gas station, convenience store, a restaurant and several specialty
stores.
Inlet Valley : the area lining Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96), from Five Mile Drive to Seven Mile Drive, includes a
scattered assortment of motels, light industrial facilities, and small businesses, including the Ithaca Beer brewery.
Most development in this area took place between the 1960s and 1980s.
There is no retail center or commercial development in the more heavily populated Northeast Ithaca area of the
Town of Ithaca. However, the adjacent Village of Cayuga Heights contains the Community Corners shopping center,
which consists of cafes, restaurants, florist, salons, apparel shops and other services.
B.2.4 Industrial development
In the not-too-distant past, the City and Town of Ithaca were known for more than their institutions of higher
learning and enlightened residents. Like many small cities and towns in Upstate New York, Ithaca was home to an
assortment of factories that employed many of the area's residents. Three plants were established in the South Hill
area, taking advantage of proximity to the now-departed Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐14
Morse Chain, a developer of chain and power-transmission equipment, was incorporated in 1898, and moved onto
their South Hill site in 1906. Morse Chain was acquired by Borg-Warner in 1929. In the 1980s, automotive-related
manufacturing operations eventually moved to a new facility on Warren Road in the Town of Lansing. The 760,733
square foot South Hill plant now known as Emerson, where the industrial products division remained, closed in
2010.
Morse Chain eventually began building adding machines, a venture that was bought by National Cash Register
(NCR) in 1943. NCR built their regional manufacturing plant further south off Danby Road (NY 96B) in 1957,
where they manufactured adding machines
until the 1970s. The 271,000 square foot
facility was eventually taken over by Axiohm
Transactions Solutions which closed all but
its office functions in the early 2000s.
Therm Incorporated, a manufacturer and
supplier of turbine blades, was established on
South Hill in 1937. The company remains in
business to date in its 130,000 square foot
facility located off Hudson Street Extension.
The Town of Ithaca does not have any
industrial parks, or a large surplus of
undeveloped land with industrial zoning.
Clusters of industrial development in the
Town include:
South Hill: east of Danby Road, straddling the city/town boundary, the former Morse Chain/Emerson facility
sits idle. South of Morse Chain, across from Ithaca College, the former NCR facility is now the South Hill
Business Campus. Therm Incorporated is northeast of Ithaca College on a site accessed from Hudson Street.
Inlet Valley : a small cluster of construction and trades-related uses are located in the Inlet Valley are near Five
Mile Drive. Zoned as LI (light industrial), industrial development took place in an unplanned manner, with
utilitarian metal structures, outdoor storage, continuous curb cuts, and a lack of landscaping or other aesthetic
amenities. Further south, at the Town line, is a propane storage facility on an LI-zoned parcel.
College towns throughout the United States are centers for innovation, with research facilities and advanced industry
piggybacking on the presence of research universities. The Cornell Business and Technology Park, hosting local,
national and international research firms, is located in the Town of Lansing. South and east of Cornell University,
where land is dedicated to land-based research activities, athletic fields, and equestrian facilities, there is limited
opportunity to create a similar university-centered office/research park in the Town.
B.2.5 Agricultural development
Agriculture was a major economic sector and the predominant land use in the Town before World War II. Despite
the barriers to farming presented by terrain, soils, and climate, the Town produced and exported significant amounts
of wheat and other agriculture products beginning around 1800. Through the 19th century, potatoes, hay, tobacco,
grain, fruit, and dairy and meat products were sent to market from the numerous farms dotting East Hill, South Hill,
Inlet Valley, and West Hill. Today, agricultural areas are concentrated in the western part of the Town along the
South Hill Business Campus.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐15
borders of Enfield and Ulysses. Some farms are also active in the South Hill area, and much of the countryside
campus of Cornell University on East Hill is dedicated to agricultural research.
The 24 farms in the Town of Ithaca range from small-scale fruit and vegetable producers, livestock farmers, and
ornamental horticultural businesses to larger-scale dairy and commodity field crop production. Farm operations in
the Town occupy 3,412 acres, about 18% of the Town’s total land area. Relative to other towns in the County, the
Town of Ithaca ranks second lowest in terms of land in farms, but it is also the most developed town.
The (draft) Agricultural and Farmland Protection
Plan will address agricultural land use issues.
B.2.6 Institutional development
In 2009, USA Today recognized Ithaca as
being the best college town in the United
States with a population under 250,000.
Ithaca was named the nation's best college
town in the American Institute for Economic
Research 2010-2011 College Destinations
Index. Of 75 metropolitan areas in the
College Destinations index, the Ithaca metro
had the highest concentration of college
students; 276.9 for every 1000 residents.
Ithaca is unusual for its size in being the host
community for two distinguished institutes of
higher learning; Cornell University and Ithaca College. The educational mission of each school is quite different, as
well as their physical setting, built environment, and interaction with and impact on the surrounding community.
Cornell University and Ithaca College are centers of employment and major traffic generators, and create demand for
housing and commercial uses off-campus catering to students.
Cornell University
A large portion of the main campus of Cornell University, a private Ivy League and federal land grant research
university that also includes four state contract colleges among its colleges, is in the Town of Ithaca. Cornell
University was chartered by the state in 1865, and opened to students in 1868. The 745 acre Ithaca campus, with
approximately 21,000 students, 9,734 academics and staff (including 1,587 faculty and 1,073 non-faculty academics),
is situated on a high plateau northeast of downtown Ithaca.10
Throughout the 20th century, the built-up area on the Ithaca Campus grew to the east. While the academic core
remains in the City of Ithaca north of Collegetown, somewhat less than half of the core campus lies in the Town of
Ithaca, including the School of Veterinary Medicine, and a graduate student housing complex. The campus' built
environment and "outdoor rooms" of the quads becomes less coherent further to the east, as it transitions from the
historic academic core to the newer Judd Falls and Vet Quad areas, and beyond to Cornell Plantations and
agricultural research areas. Cornell University also has extensive land holdings throughout the Town away from the
main campus, including East Hill Plaza.
10 Cornell University, Office of Institutional Research and Planning URL: www.irp.dpb.cornell.edu/tableau_visual/academic‐workforce‐at‐
a‐glance and www.irp.dpb.cornell.edu/tableau_visual/non‐academic‐workforce‐at‐a‐glance
Baker Farm.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐16
Cornell University and Ithaca College lands | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐17
These areas outside of the main campus form an
integral part of the East Hill neighborhood. Dryden
Road (NY 366), Warren Road, Forest Home Drive,
Pine Tree Road, Ellis Hollow Road, and Mitchell Street
all cross through portions of the campus or university-
owned tracts. Road connectivity between the campus
and surrounding town is well-developed, but pedestrian
accommodations decrease with distance from the core
campus.
The 2008 Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus is
an ambitious 422 page document that lushly illustrates a
30 to 60 year vision for the campus and outlying
properties in the City and Town of Ithaca. Goals of the
plan affecting the Town include:
Manage the rural land base.
Protect and enhance the gorges and creek systems.
Respect and enhance surrounding communities.
Reinforce the relationship between the campus and
its natural setting.
Protect outdoor teaching and research facilities.
Cluster administrative uses at crossroads and near
gateways.
Broaden housing options on and close to Core
Campus.
Provide high-quality recreation and athletics
complexes.
Transform the East Hill Plaza area into East Hill
Village.
The Cornell Master Plan calls for future development to take place in the existing campus footprint, with no new land
acquisition. The intensification of this new development could bring more vehicle traffic, additional demand for off-
campus student housing in the Town, and increased development pressure in the East Hill and Northeast Ithaca
areas.
One objective of Cornell’s Master Plan is to broaden housing options on and close to the core campus. The Master
Plan recommends 1,000 new on-campus beds for undergraduate students. However, the university still expects that
most graduate students will find housing off-campus, with a goal of providing housing to 25% of graduate students,
compared to less than 15% today. Much of this new graduate student housing is expected to be provided in a new
East Hill Village neighborhood center. Even with increased housing provided by the university, the impact of student
rentals on Ithaca's neighborhoods and housing market will be an ongoing issue well into the future.
The broad missions and diverse range of the built and natural
environment found at Ithaca College and Cornell University
campuses make campus zoning a challenge.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐18
Ithaca College
Ithaca College is a private college located completely within the Town of Ithaca on South Hill. As of 2010, the
college had about 6,949 students, 724 faculty, and 973 staff.11 Ithaca College was founded by in 1892 as a music
conservatory. Through the 1960s, Ithaca College was relocated from scattered buildings in downtown Ithaca to a
new centralized campus on South Hill, which now comprises 669 acres.
Physical development of the campus is guided by the 2002 Ithaca College Master Plan Report. Highlights of the plan
include:
Concentrating academic functions at the campus core, with all buildings a 10 minute walk from each other.
Relocating existing parking lots from the campus core to its periphery, with consideration of parking garages to
reduce surface area consumed by parking.
Siting of buildings in "three-sided quadrangles", with one side unbuilt to provide vistas of Cayuga Lake.
An academic "main street" corridor.
The Ithaca College 2008 Institutional Plan includes a short section on facilities, the first goal of which is to develop a
new campus master plan.
Unlike Cornell University, the built-up core of the Ithaca College campus is physically segregated from the
surrounding neighborhoods. The campus reflects institutional planning practice of the 1960s and 1970s, having a
densely developed central core encircled by a loop road, parking lots, athletic fields, and open space. With no
sidewalks along Coddington Road and Danby Road, it is very difficult to walk safely from the campus to surrounding
neighborhoods or downtown Ithaca. The college has four points of vehicle access; two entrances from Danby Road
(NY 96B) to the west, and two from Coddington Road (County Road 119) to the north. College Circle Apartments,
a large suburban-style apartment complex adjacent to the south end of the campus, was recently purchased by the
college and incorporated into the campus as student housing.
Ithaca College owns a 51 acre parcel that is not contiguous to the main campus. The long-term build out plan does
not anticipate expansion to the exclave.
An equivalent of a Collegetown-type neighborhood never emerged near Ithaca College, partly because of Ithaca
College's policy of requiring freshmen, sophomores and juniors to live on-campus, an open space buffer around the
built-up campus core, and limited access points, poor pedestrian access, and a zoning and land use pattern that
inhibited the creation of a new large, high density neighborhood adjacent to the college. The presence of Ithaca
College can be a catalyst for a new neighborhood center in the South Hill area.
Concerns about the effects of off-campus student rentals have usually focused on the impact of Cornell University.
However, off-campus housing occupied by Ithaca College students has, over time, changed the character of parts of
the South Hill neighborhood near the college. With the exception of the College Circle Apartments, the South Hill
neighborhoods in the Town have no high-end or high density off-campus student housing adjacent to the Ithaca
College campus. Many low-end, utilitarian buildings designed as student housing, most with two to six dwelling
units, have been built in the area immediately south and east of the Ithaca College campus on Coddington Road,
Hudson Place, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Kendall Avenue. Many single-family houses in this area have also been
converted to student rental units. Permanent residents have reported issues with poor property maintenance, loud
parties, and other disruptive or destructive activities.
11 Ithaca College Facts in Brief 2010‐11, Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research webpage,
http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/facts/Ithaca_College_Facts_in_Brief_2010‐11.pdf, accessed 1 August 20111.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐19
Off‐campus student rentals in adjacent neighborhoods near Ithaca College.
A 2006 memorandum by the Town's planning staff revealed that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board approved at least
25 variances to increase occupancy limits in this area, which normally limits the number of unrelated residents that
live together to three. The Zoning Board decisions were not based on a legitimate hardship, and contrary to the intent
of the occupancy law and comprehensive plan, which had the goal of developing a variety of housing styles and
"neighborhoods that are quiet" by "establishing zoning standards, e.g. occupancy standards and usage limits, to
minimize the negative effects of dwelling units occupied by students."
Other institutions
Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the
primary health care facility in the area and
the 5th largest employer in Tompkins
County. The Medical Center is located off
of Trumansburg Road (NY 96), on the
Town’s West Hill. CMC sits on a 45 acre
property and contains a 204 bed facility,
with more than 200 staff physicians and a
total health care team of over 1,200
members.12 CMC has a 24 hour
emergency room that was expanded in
2005, along with comprehensive inpatient
and outpatient services. The hospital has
been undergoing a series of expansions to
its main campus in recent years, as part of
a master plan to guide the future
development of the hospital in an
environmentally sustainable way.13 The largest addition constructed to date has been the “southwest addition,” a
53,000 square foot addition that includes the new and expanded emergency room, intensive care unit, and other site
improvements. This addition received LEED Silver certification for its sustainability and energy saving elements.
Other additions expected to receive some form of LEED certification include the recently approved 14,000 square
foot surgical addition and the 16,000 square foot laboratory additions.
The Cayuga Medical Center recently acquired a nine acre site adjacent to their hospital property. The former
Tompkins County Biggs Complex contains a large building surrounded by landscaping and parking areas. Future
12 Overview: History, Mission, Core Values, Cayuga Medical Center website, http://www.cayugamed.org/content.cfm?page=mission,
accessed 23 August 2011.
13 Cayuga Medical Center Main Campus, Sustainable Sites Initiative website, ,: http://www.sustainablesites.org/cases/show.php?id=18
Cayuga Medical Center.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐20
plans for this parcel have not been developed, but it is hoped that the building could be used for additional
professional or medically related offices.
Adjacent to the Cayuga Medical Center to the south is another popular area institution. Founded in 1932, the
Paleontological Research Institution (PRI) has programs in research, collections, publications, and public education.
PRI cares for a collection of two to three million specimens, one of the 10 largest in the United States, some of which
are on public display in the Museum of the Earth.14 The Museum of the Earth was added on to the PRI building in
2003 and provides the public with an opportunity to explore Earth through a mix of natural history displays,
interactive science features, and art exhibitions. The main PRI building and museum are located on a 6.5 acre site.
In recent years, the Institution has purchased two adjacent parcels to the south of their property, totaling an
additional ±10 acres. These parcels, along with the parcel that houses PRI and the Museum of the Earth, comprise a
portion of the Odd Fellows Complex, once owned by the International Order of OddFellows. Representatives of PRI
have indicated the desire to create a “campus-like” center, although no formal master plan has been developed.
B.2.7 Sprawl
A simple definition of sprawl is "the use of more land than is necessary to expand out cities." According to Robert
Burchell of Rutgers University, ten traits of urban sprawl include:
1. Unlimited extension of new development
2. Low density residential and commercial settlements, especially in new growth areas
3. Leapfrog development
4. Fragmentation of powers over land use among many small localities
5. Dominance by private vehicles
6. No centralized ownership of land or planning development
7. Great variances in the fiscal capacities of local governments, because revenue-raising capabilities are strongly
tied to the property values and economic activities within their own borders
8. Widespread commercial development along major roadways
9. Major reliance upon the filtering or trickle-down process to provide housing for low income families
10. Spatial segregation of different types of land uses through zoning regulations
South Hill area, Town of Ithaca. (Pictometry)
14 Paleontological Research Institution website About page,://www.museumoftheearth.org/about.php
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐21
The Town of Ithaca exhibits the patterns of sprawl described by many planners and educators throughout the United
States. Through traditional Euclidian zoning, the Town of Ithaca has developed like many other suburban
communities situated outside of a central city, with conventional subdivisions that have little walkability or
connectivity to each other or to existing services or commercial areas. Lower density residential development and
commercial strip development outside of the urban, village and hamlet centers in Tompkins County has resulted in
sprawl patterns, contributing to fragmentation and loss of farmland, forests, wildlife habitats, and other open space
resources. Sprawl has also added to traffic congestion on our streets, increasing the cost to provide of public services
and infrastructure.
B.2.8 Zoning
Zoning is the primary form of land planning control for local communities in North America. Zoning codes are
comprehensive cookbooks for day-to-day development decisions in a community. They expand on the information in
the comprehensive plan by providing parcel-specific regulations for the location of different land uses, regulation of
those uses, and detailed specifications for the site planning and design of proposed development.
The Town of Ithaca adopted its first zoning code in 1954, followed by overhauls in 1968 and 1976. The Town's
current zoning code was adopted in 2003. Despite its recent vintage, the form it takes makes it a relic of decades
past, with legal English and dated terminology, and regulation of land uses based on a large number of very specific
definitions. The code includes very few provisions that allow contemporary best practices in planning, such as Smart
Growth concepts, traditional neighborhood development, light imprint development, landscaping requirements, and
architectural and site planning standards.
Zoning district distribution | Town of Ithaca
Zoning district Acres Square miles % of town area
C – Conservation 3872.7 ac 6.05 mi² 21.2%
AG – Agricultural 4148.3 ac 6.48 mi² 22.7%
LR – Lakefront Residential 610.0 ac 0.95 mi² 3.3%
LDR – Low Density Residential 4752.4 ac 7.43 mi² 26.0%
MDR – Medium Density Residential 3302.0 ac 5.16 mi² 18.1%
HDR – High Density Residential 136.2 ac 0.21 mi² 0.7%
MR – Multiple Residence 236.4 ac 0.37 mi² 1.3%
MHP – Mobile Home Park 18.0 ac 0.03 mi² 0.1%
LC – Lakefront Commercial 153.7 ac 0.24 mi² 0.8%
NC – Neighborhood Commercial 37.8 ac 0.06 mi² 0.2%
CC – Community Commercial 33.5 ac 0.05 mi² 0.2%
OPC – Office Park Commercial 107.0 ac 0.17 mi² 0.6%
VFR – Vehicle Fueling and Repair 3.0 ac 0.005 mi² 0.02%
I – Industrial 52.1 ac 0.08 mi² 0.3%
LI – Light Industry 159.7 ac 0.25 mi² 0.9%
P – Planned Development (PDZ) 615.7 ac 0.96 mi² 3.4%
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐22
Zoning ‐ December 2013 | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐23
Rural zoning districts
There are two rural zoning districts in the
Town: AG - Agricultural, and C -
Conservation.
AG zoned land, comprising 4,148 acres, or
about 23% of the Town, is concentrated in
the West Hill and South Hill
areas. The AG-Agricultural zoning district
permits an assortment of agrarian land uses,
including farms, nurseries, equestrian
facilities, kennels, and timber harvesting.
Retail sales related to agricultural operations,
veterinarians, places of worship, golf courses,
hunting preserves, ski centers, composting
facilities, and mining are allowed with a
special permit.
Single- and two-household residences, and
accessory elder cottages, are also permitted in
the AG district. Residential lot sizes may
range from one to two acres, with a
maximum density of one residential lot per
seven acres. Decreasing the density to one
residential lot per 12 acres or more, and
allowing smaller lots where
technically possible, can slow the
conversation of agricultural land to
residential uses, and shift demand for
housing towards new neighborhoods.
C–Conservation zoned land, areas where
natural features and environmentally sensitive
areas are intended to be preserved, makes up
about 3,872 acres, or 21% of the Town; the
bulk at the south end of the Town. Permitted
uses include farms, nurseries, forest resource
uses, roadside stands, and single- and two-
household residences.
Minimum lot size in the C district is seven
acres. Increasing the minimum lot size to 15
acres or more, and requiring clustered
development, can preserve the character of
natural areas.
Coy Glen, C zoning.
Ferguson Farm, AG zoning.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐24
Residential zoning districts
The zoning code includes six residential zoning districts: four single family residential districts (LR Lakefront
Residential, LDR Low Density Residential, MDR Medium Density Residential, HDR High Density Residential),
one multiple family residential district (MR Multiple Residence), and one mobile home residential district (MHP
Mobile Home Park). Together they comprise about 8,800 acres or 48% of the Town. The bulk of residential zoned
land is undeveloped, underdeveloped, or occupied by non-residential uses.
The LR–Lakefront Residential zone is
intended to accommodate residential
development along the east and west
shorelines of Cayuga Lake, with
consideration of the area's steep slopes and
small legacy lots. The district comprises 610
acres, or 3.3% of the Town, although most of
that area is in Cayuga Lake itself. The district
includes special provisions for boat lifts and
docks, and garages that may need to be
placed in front of the lot.
The LDR–Low Density Residential zone is
intended for detached residences and rural
lifestyle uses such as small farms and
equestrian facilities. LDR zoned land makes
up 4,752 acres, or 26% of the Town; more
acreage than any other zoning category.
Minimum lot size is 30,000 square feet (1.45
lots per net acre). Much of the land zoned
LDR is undeveloped, or occupied by the
Cornell University campus and research
facilities.
Despite its name, the MDR – Medium
Density Residential district has a very low
maximum density, with a minimum lot size
of 15,000 square feet (2.9 lots per net acre).
MDR zoned land amounts to 3,302 acres, or
18.1% of the Town. MDR zoned land
includes much of the Ithaca College campus,
and undeveloped land in the West Hill area,
along with developed areas in Northeast
Ithaca, Forest Home, East Hill, and South
Hill.
The HDR–High Density Residential zone accommodates detached and semi-detached (duplex) residences in a
medium density setting, with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet (4.84 lots per net acre). Only 136 acres, or
0.7% of the Town, is zoned HDR. Most HDR-zoned land is located south of the Therm Incorporated facility in
South Hill, in an area with a growing number of student rental units.
Amber Lane, LDR zoning.
Overlook at West Hill, MR zoning.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐25
The MR–Multiple Residence district is intended for apartment complexes in a suburban setting, with a maximum
density of one unit per 3,500 square feet (12.4 units per acre). While the MR district allows detached and duplex
residences, most buildings on MR-zoned sites have four or more units. MR zoned land comprises 236 acres, or 1.3%
of the Town. Pockets of MR development are located throughout the Town, with most rezoning activity, proposals,
and inquiries about rezoning to MR in the Northwest Ithaca/West Hill area.
The MHP–Mobile Home Park district, totaling 18 acres, underlies the one mobile home park in the Town, on Seven
Mile Drive in the Inlet Valley area.
A reduced, simplified, and more logical categorization of permitted uses in residential districts is considered good
planning practice, would make the zoning code easier to use, and is more accommodating of emerging development
trends without complicated amendments. District names typically do not reflect their permitted density or desired
character. The density of a development can be measured over an entire site, rather than considered on a lot-by-lot
basis. Density bonuses should be offered for development that preserves large amounts of open space and farmland.
Lot and yard dimensions, and bulk and siting requirements for primary buildings and accessory structures, should
also be revisited.
Commercial zoning districts
The zoning code includes five commercial zoning districts, but they cover only 336 acres of the Town, or less than 2%
of the area of the Town.
The LC–Lakefront Commercial district comprises 154 acres or 0.8% of the Town, with most of that area in Cayuga
Lake. The LC district is intended for the East Shore Marina and Merrill Sailing Center. The only permitted uses are
boat harbors, marinas, and small wind energy facilities.
On dry land, the NC–Neighborhood
Commercial and CC–Community
Commercial districts make up the bulk of
commercial zoned land; 38 acres of NC and
34 acres of CC, together about 0.4% of the
Town. The CC zoning district permits the
same retail uses as the NC district, with a
larger floor area permitted by right or special
permit. Uses permitted in the OPC – Office
Park Commercial zone that are only
permitted by special permit in the NC district
are permitted by right in the CC district.
OPC–Office Park commercial districts,
located at Cayuga Medical Center and South
Hill Business Park, total 107 acres or 0.6% of
the Town. Permitted uses include banks, offices and medical offices; special uses include hospitals, municipal
facilities, laboratories, and art galleries and studios.
The VFR–Vehicle Fueling and Repair zone is a floating semi-industrial district that permits only gas stations, vehicle
repair, car washes and wind energy facilities. Gas stations are permitted only in the VFR district. There are only
three parcels zoned VFR, totaling 3 acres or 0.02% of the Town. Most contemporary zoning codes allow gas stations
East Hill Plaza, CC zoning.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐26
in some commercial districts subject to special review or use approval, rather than create a dedicated single use
district.
A reduced, simplified, logical and consistent categorization of permitted uses in commercial districts is considered
good planning practice, would make the zoning code easier to use, and is more accommodating of emerging uses
without complicated amendments.
Industrial zoning districts
The zoning code includes two industrial zoning districts: I–Industrial and LI–Light Industry. Together, they comprise
about 212 acres, or 1.2% of the Town. The only parcel zoned I is the former Emerson/Morse Chain facility. LI
zoned sites include the Therm Incorporated facility, the Cornell University Central Heating Plant, much of the land
fronting the west side of Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) between Five Mile Drive and Seven Mile Drive, and a parcel
fronting the east side of Elmira Road at the far south end of the Town.
Planned development zoning districts
Planned unit development (PUD) zoning, called planned development zoning (PDZ) in the Town of Ithaca, is
intended to be a flexible zoning tool used to create development with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, or
other land uses. PUD zoning is intended to customize the development standards to the specific parcel under
consideration, and allow innovative development that may not be possible under conventional single-use zoning
districts, with the result being a project where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
PDZ zoning has not seen extensive use in the Town of Ithaca. Only 616 acres, or 3.4% of the Town, is subject to an
underlying PDZ zone. The two largest PDZ districts include a part of the Cornell University campus (Precinct 7) and
EcoVillage at Ithaca.
The Town's PDZ regulations are vague about what is expected from a developer who proposes a planned community,
except that "yard, height, building coverage, lot size, and any performance standards shall be as set forth in the
legislation rezoning the area to a Planned Development Zone" (§270-177). The Town's PDZ regulations place far
greater importance on the process than the product.
Typical PUD legislation usually includes clear development standards that go beyond the bulk requirements found in
a basic zoning code, such as that for the Town of Ithaca. The standards are intended to provide visual unity and
consistency in a PUD, and help it function as a truly integrated development. At a very least, standards should
include specific aesthetic, landscaping, signage, lighting, site planning, utilities, and open space standards that would
apply to the entire site. Such development standards are not a part of the Town's current PDZ regulations. Specific
regulations can limit flexibility while offering better guidance to a developer, making the PDZ conceptualization and
review process more predictable for both the applicant and Town. This could make a PDZ a more attractive option
for many developers.
The two acre minimum lot size for a PDZ can encourage inappropriate spot or contract zoning. Most contemporary
zoning codes require a much higher minimum acreage for PUDs, so they are not abused as a way to circumvent
existing zoning.
Zoning at Cornell and Ithaca College
Underneath Cornell University and Ithaca College lie more than steam tunnels and utility lines, but also a patchwork
of zoning districts that regulate development on the campuses. Ithaca's colleges are not exempt from the Town's
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐27
zoning requirements. However, the intent of the districts usually does not reflect the reality of the underlying use.
The bulk of the Cornell University campus in the Town, including Cornell Plantations and much of the countryside
campus, is zoned LDR, while the most of the Ithaca College campus is zoned MDR. Institutions of higher learning
are permitted subject to special review in the LDR, MDR, HDR, and LC districts, under the same provisions that
permit public schools and day care centers. Variance requests for proposed buildings and uses on campuses are
common.
Zoning in the Town of Ithaca regards college and university campuses as a collection of discrete parcels, even though
the campus functions as a single entity. While conventional zoning considers that uses in a particular district will be
static and seldom change, postsecondary institutions are dynamic, vibrant organizations, with evolving missions and
ever-changing needs for its buildings and properties. The Town's traditional zoning regulations, with very limited
provisions for institutions of higher learning, do not adequately address the realities of development at Cornell
University and Ithaca College; the schools' mixes of uses, activities, densities, and arrangements of developed and
open spaces; and impacts on the surrounding community. Institutional zoning is one tool used by many communities
to address the unique environment of colleges and universities.
B.2.9 Land use regulations
Land use regulations are currently scattered throughout the Town Code. The Town Code includes separate chapters
for the following:
Adult uses (chapter 100)
Environmental quality review (chapter 148)
Outdoor lighting (chapter 173)
Signs (chapter 221)
Stormwater management (chapter 228)
Subdivision (chapter 234)
Zoning (chapter 270)
Zoning: special land use districts (chapter 271)
Uses regulated by a topical chapter may not be regulated to that chapter. For example, regulations for signs are not
limited to the sign code chapter, but are also included throughout the zoning code chapter. Some building code
standards are also intermingled among the various chapters; for example, mobile home anchoring requirements in the
zoning code. When land use regulations are scattered among disparate chapters of the Town Code, they can be
difficult for Town employees to administer, and for officials, appointed board members and citizens to understand
and easily reference. There may be conflicts or duplication with the provisions of other chapters.
New land use regulations can avoid the disorganized approach of current laws. For example, a unified development
code can consolidate all regulations regarding development, land use, and the built environment into one code—
easing administration and interpretation, and ensuring regulations thoroughly reflect the goals of the Town’s
comprehensive plan.
B.2.9.1 Subdivision regulations
Subdivision regulations govern the division and consolidation of land, the adjustment and elimination of property
lines, and include standards for design and layout of lots, streets, utilities, open space, and other improvements. The
Town of Ithaca's subdivision code was adopted in 1956, when it was still a predominantly rural community.
Incremental amendments and provisions for cluster development have been added through the years. The Town has
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐28
changed considerably in the intervening 55 years, and the subdivision code now does not reflect or accommodate
contemporary good practice in planning and land development.
Procedural and administrative issues
Public meetings for all subdivision activity: Subdivision regulations require Planning Board approval for all lot
divisions and adjustment activity, including those with little or no impact such as boundary line adjustments, lot
consolidations, or subdivision to accommodate utilities, entry features and other minor improvements. Modern
subdivision regulations generally include provisions for types of subdivision activity that can be approved
administratively, without a formal public hearing.
Major and minor subdivisions: Unlike most modern subdivision regulations, the Town of Ithaca's subdivision code
does not distinguish between a minor subdivision (subdivision into a very limited number of lots, usually two to four)
and major subdivision (subdivision into more than a certain number of lots). There are no provisions for vacating
plats and rights-of-way.
Performance guarantees: The
subdivision code has no formal provisions
for performance guarantees. A
performance guarantee is a bond or letter of
credit that guarantees all public
improvements will be completed. When all
required public improvements are properly
completed, the local government will
release the guarantee, and record the final
plat. If the developer does not complete all
of the improvements, the local government
will use the guarantee to pay for their
completion.
Application requirements: Application
requirements such as checklists, number of
copies of certain documents, and paper
sizes, are now coded into the subdivision
code as law. Most modern land use
regulations now publish application requirements as a separate guide. This allows for much greater flexibility in
administration of the subdivision review process, and better accommodates electronic submittal, and paperwork
reduction efforts.
Mingling of subdivision and land use requirements: Provisions for cluster subdivisions in the subdivision code
include land use regulations that would normally be found in a zoning code. This includes regulation of lot size,
building height and setback requirements, building type, buffer yards, and occupancy. The mingling of such
regulations in a subdivision code, rather than a zoning code where they would normally be found, can be confusing
for applicants, and make administration more difficult for Town staff.
Example of a complete street in Hamburg, New York. (National Complete Streets
Coalition)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐29
Design issues
Design standards: Street design standards in
subdivision regulations will usually include
classifications for types of streets,
requirements for rights-of-way and pavement
width, geometric standards (grade, curb, and
curve radius), intersection design, and
requirements for sidewalks. The Town of
Ithaca's subdivision regulations include only
very basic design standards, with no street
classification, minimum and maximum street
widths, or requirements for pedestrian or
bicycle accommodation. The prevalence of
roads in urbanized areas with a rural profile,
with no curbs, open ditches, and no
sidewalks, are one result of the Town's
incomplete street design standards. Street
standards intended for rural areas are one
barrier to curbing sprawl.
Interconnectivity: Current street standards
in the Town subdivision regulations
encourage development with cul-de-sacs and
a meandering street pattern and very long
blocks. The resulting street network can
make travel between or within residential
areas difficult and/or cumbersome. Town
subdivision regulations require stub roads to
undeveloped parcels, but a pattern of looping
streets hinders connectivity.
A trademark of New York's traditional
villages, hamlets, and small towns, as well as
contemporary traditional neighborhood
development, is a highly interconnected street
pattern. Greater connectivity promotes
mobility and reduces congestion by providing options for people to enter and exit their subdivision. Traffic
concentration on a small number of streets—a problem with a hierarchical street network—is less of an issue with a
more interconnected street grid. Increasing the number of possible routes to a destination helps public safety services
save time reaching a scene of an emergency. Connectivity also promotes a greater sense of community; residential
areas are more integrated into the larger community, rather than isolated as pods.
Street classification: In modern subdivision regulations, streets are classified according to their function in the street
network. Functional categories usually include alleys, local streets, collector streets, and arterial streets. These
classifications are often broken down into subcategories, such as minor arterials and major arterials. Modern
subdivision regulations will include designated standards for rights-of-way width, pavement width, number of lanes
and lane width, curb and gutter, medians, on-street parking, tree lawns, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, lighting, and other
Pedestrians walk on a road in Northeast Ithaca built only for cars.
Alley in a TND in Georgetown, Texas. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐30
features for each classification. Form-based codes base street classifications on the type and size of buildings that are
planned to front the street, and their location in the rural-to-urban transect.
Rights‐of‐way and pavement widths: The Town's subdivision regulations have only very basic requirements for
rights-of-way widths: 60 foot minimum for streets, 20 feet for alleys. There are no requirements for street pavement
widths. New standards for rights-of-way and street pavement widths should consider the street classification, and the
amount and type of expected traffic. Wider streets were favored in the recent past, because of engineering practices
that favored the fast, unobstructed movement of motor vehicles over other street users; and preferences by emergency
responders for streets wide enough to allow ladder trucks to be deployed with room for one or more large vehicles to
pass to the side. Narrower streets are now considered to have many advantages over wider streets: traffic calming,
lower stormwater and brine runoff, the opportunity to grow a full tree canopy, improved safety for pedestrians and
cyclists, and lower costs for construction and maintenance. Improved interconnectivity in a neighborhood can
addresses concerns about the ability to access a site from emergency responders.
Alleys: Subdivision regulations now prohibit alleys in residential areas "unless the subdivider produces evidence
satisfactory to the Planning Board of the need …". However, alleys play an important role in emerging forms of
residential development such as traditional neighborhood development and bungalow courts. Alleys reduce the
prevalence of driveways and garages on residential streets, decrease impervious surface by replacing wide individual
driveways with a shared route to garage entrances, and provide a more convenient and less disruptive location for
utility location and trash collection. Modern alleys include landscaping, snow storage areas, drainage provisions, and
defensible space, and have little resemblance to the cramped, utilitarian, and threatening passages of old.
Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations: The Town's subdivision regulations consider sidewalks to be luxuries,
not necessities. Sidewalks are very rare in the Town of Ithaca, and have only recently been added as a requirement in
the Town's subdivision regulations. The lack of sidewalks limits the mobility of those who cannot drive—mostly
children and the elderly—and creates a dangerous environment for pedestrians using streets. The lack of sidewalks
also exacerbates a sedentary lifestyle that can lead to obesity and other health issues. Cycling is very popular in the
Ithaca area, but there are no dedicated bicycle lanes in the Town, and no requirements for lanes or pavement marking
in the subdivision regulations. Current regulations undermine the ability to create streets that serve all potential users,
not just vehicles.
Curb radius: Subdivision regulations now require a very wide curb radius of 20 feet or more. A wide curb radius
encourages high-speed turns, and increases the likelihood of vehicle accidents with pedestrians and cyclists. Smaller
curb radii reduces turning speeds, shortens street crossings, and improves sight distance between drivers and
motorists.
Frontage development: Much of the subdivision activity in the Town of Ithaca involves the splitting of lots along
collector streets at its periphery. Lots are created by splitting parcels fronting the road from a larger parcel, often a
farm. This type of development, called frontage development, ribbon development, or residential strip development,
has dramatically changed the character of some parts of the Town through the past four decades, harming much of
the rural ambience that initially attracted residents. Roads where frontage development is most evident include Hayts
Road, Bundy Road, Mecklenburg Road, and Westhaven Road in the West Hill area; Coddington Road and Ridge
Road in South Hill; and Slaterville Road in East Hill.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐31
Frontage development, Westhaven Road, West Hill area. (Pictometry)
There are many disadvantages to frontage development, including the following:
It is subsidized by the Town, county or state. Unlike subdivisions with new roads, developers do not have to pay
to build new roads or infrastructure for frontage lots. Cost of development shifts from the builder, who would
normally be required to build roads in a subdivision, to the agency that maintains the road where the lot fronts.
It harms the character of rural areas. With continued splitting and development of frontage lots, the viewscape
of collector roads changes from a rural or agrarian landscape to a continuous procession of houses, occasionally
interrupted by a farm entrance or the rare unsubdivided parcel.
Lots that were created from frontage development are often underused; too large to mow but too small to farm.
The rear end of the lot, which may have been in agricultural production, often reverts to scrub forest.
Resubdivision to facilitate infill development or open space preservation is very difficult.
Individual driveways create conflict points that make the road less safe for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.
Minimum lot sizes for frontage lots that are larger than the standard in the underlying zoning district, and a width-to-
depth ratio, can prevent the creation of narrow but deep "bowling alley lots" that hinder future development. Front
yard setbacks on collector roads should also be increased. Dense landscape buffers, such as a stand of canopy and
understory trees, can reduce the visual impact of frontage development and restore a semi-rural visual character.
Many communities limit frontage development by restricting resubdivision, for example, by only allowing one or two
lots new lots to be divided from "original lots", intact lots that existed at the time subdivision regulations were first
enacted. Further subdivision is either prohibited or requires a more formal major subdivision review process.
More flexible street design standards to allow narrower rights-of-way and pavement widths for streets that will serve
few houses can provide a financially attractive alternative to frontage development for landowners.
B.2.9.2 Site planning
Commercial site planning is guided only by the building setback, parking, and very limited landscaping requirements
in the Town’s zoning code. The resulting development usually takes the form of a commercial building placed at the
far rear end of the lot, separated from the street by a large, featureless parking lot, much of which usually stands
empty.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐32
Site planning standards should require
commercial buildings to front on a sidewalk,
with parking at the rear of a building, and
retail villages, where many buildings are
oriented towards an internal drive or road
network that recreates the feel of a village
street.
Reducing the number of parking spaces
required for a use, and designating a
maximum amount of required off-street
parking instead of a minimum, will reduce
the amount of impervious surface area
dedicated to parking that is seldom or never
used, and enable more efficient, compact
development. Standards should promote a
pedestrian-friendly environment inside
shopping centers, requiring internal plazas, a
walkway system connecting buildings and
parking areas on the site, and pedestrian
connections between buildings and the
sidewalk. Retrofitting of existing auto-
oriented shopping centers and commercial
districts into walkable, pedestrian-oriented
mixed use neighborhood centers, should be
encouraged.
B.2.9.3 Architectural design
Currently, the Town has no regulations
governing the appearance of residential,
commercial, or industrial buildings. Most
commercial and industrial buildings in the
Town are designed with lowest cost as the
primary consideration, and they often have a
very utilitarian appearance. That land is
cheaper, businesses have less money to invest
in a structure, or that incomes are lower than
in more affluent areas are not justifiable excuses for poor architectural design
National chains establishing a location in an area with no architectural regulations will usually build a default
"prototype" building. Such buildings usually have little architectural detailing, and are designed to reinforce
corporate identity and function as a sign, regardless of its compatibility with community character. National
corporations will forego their prototype buildings and build a structure that better respects local character—but only
if they are required to do so.
Architectural design and anti-monotony regulations are tools used by a growing number of communities to address
concerns about standardized corporate architecture, prefabricated structures, low-quality building materials, and
inappropriate utilitarian design.
Human scaled architectural details at a shopping center, Woodmere, Ohio.
(DT)
Bank in East Aurora, New York. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐33
B.2.9.4 Signs
The Town of Ithaca seeks to have a sign
ordinance that reduces visual clutter, protects
the character of the community, and
enhances community identity. The Town
currently has a sign law that is under
consideration for updating because it is too
restrictive in some ways and too lenient in
others.
The Town’s existing law prohibits large signs
in residential areas, billboards, signs that
physically or visually impair vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, signs that contain
streamers, spinners, fluorescent/reflective
materials, motion-activated elements,
flashing, intermittent, rotating or moving
lights, fiber-optic or other luminous tubing or
strings of lights, and any illumination that
could cause glare reflection constituting a
nuisance or traffic hazard.
However, the law also has limited design
review criteria, is unfriendly to the Town’s
agricultural operations, and allows for some
signs at heights that are inappropriately
scaled for pedestrian-oriented areas.
Additionally, new signs require approval by
the Planning Board; a process that can be
cumbersome for those who want to display
smaller signs that conform to the sign law.
B.2.9.5 Landscaping
Basic landscaping regulations are scattered
throughout the zoning code. The regulations
require buffer yards between designated uses
and/or structures, and minimum usable open
space in certain districts. The form of the landscaping is not specified. Benefits of mandatory landscaping include:
Shade and climate control.
Air purification and control of airborne particulates
Provision of wildlife habitat.
Erosion and stormwater runoff control.
Promotion of native and/or adaptive plants.
Preservation of existing trees and vegetation.
Provision of an attractive appearance in areas of public use or view.
Reinforcing a pedestrian friendly environment.
Monument sign with landscaping, Independence, Ohio. (DT)
The Domain, Austin, Texas. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐34
The Town does not yet have tree preservation and removal regulations. However, the Town is currently drafting
timber harvesting regulations, to require best management practice for timber harvesting so environmental damage to
the property and adjacent lands and waters is minimized.
B.2.9.6 Outdoor lighting
The Town's outdoor lighting law, adopted in 2006, addresses the issue of nighttime glare and lights that trespass onto
neighboring properties. The law includes requirements for shielding of most types of outdoor lights, along with
specific regulations dealing with outdoor advertising signs, recreational facilities, lighting under roof overhangs and
canopies, and for spotlights and floodlights. The regulations do not include standards for the design and dimensions
of light poles and attached light fixtures, which have been adopted by many other communities.
The Town’s lighting regulations are also currently separate from other development regulations.
B.2.9.7 Wireless facilities
Regulations for wireless facilities were adopted by the Town in 2005, in response to a rapidly growing number of cell
towers nationally resulting from increased ownership of cellular telephones, concerns over the visual impacts of
towers, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires local governments to reasonably accommodate
wireless facilities in their jurisdictions.
Regulations do not accommodate emerging types of wireless infrastructure, such as microcells, picocells, and mesh-
based networks. Screening and landscaping requirements are also vague. Regulations for telecommunications
facilities are incorporated into the zoning code.
B.2.10 Community identity
What makes the Town of Ithaca unique?
What characteristics make the Town stand
out from its neighbors, the city it surrounds,
or its peers throughout the Northeastern
United States? There is a growing national
trend of increasing concern about the
homogenization of the built environment, the
decreasing influence of local culture and
traditions, and a lack of rootedness and
emotional attachment to a place.
The identity of the Town of Ithaca is closely
associated with the city of the same name
that it surrounds, and the area's dominant
institutions; Ithaca College and Cornell
University. The Town does not have a clearly
identifiable center, or hamlets with a
commercial core. It is difficult or impossible
to travel from one neighborhood to another without leaving the Town or following a circuitous path. The Ithaca
Town Hall is located in the downtown of the City of Ithaca, close to the geographic center of the combined City and
Town. Ironically, this location makes Town Hall more convenient to all parts of the Town than if it were located
outside of the City.
"Welcome to Ithaca" sign: town, city or region?
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐35
Compared to unzoned neighboring communities, the Town's development pattern is more orderly, without the visual
blight often associated with the lack of land use regulations—a difference that is noticeable as one crosses into the
Town from these communities. The difference is less noticeable as one crosses into Ithaca from Ulysses or Dryden,
which both have zoning. The built environment in the Town of Ithaca ranges from the suburban-style subdivisions of
Northeast Ithaca, South Hill, and Snyder Hill, to the cozy and historic hamlet of Forest Home, to placeless
residential frontage development in otherwise bucolic semi-rural areas, to the farms of the western portion of Town.
Connecting these disparate neighborhoods and forms into a unified whole is one challenge in reinforcing community
identity and sense of place.
Town boundary lines are identified with small metal signs facing incoming traffic at the boundary along major roads.
There are also several large signs reading "Welcome to ITHACA AND TOMPKINS COUNTY" signs along state
roads, which can cause some confusion about the location of the City and Town boundaries.
Community branding can help reinforce a distinct identity, and identify and market the Town much like a product.
Rather than a metal highway sign, distinctive and tasteful welcome signs, accompanied by landscaping areas, can
greet drivers crossing the Town line. Signs can identify neighborhoods in the Town, allowing them to maintain their
identity while associating them with the larger community. Street name signs can break from the mold of a standard
green rectangular metal sign, and incorporate mixed case lettering (as now required by Federal Highway
Administration regulations when signs reach the end of their service lives), the Town seal or a simpler logo, and the
neighborhood name. Public art by local artists, with themes reflecting local culture and customs, may be considered
at gateways and strategic intersections.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐36
B.3 Housing
The Town’s housing stock is a blend of older and newer homes, of which nearly half were built before 1970. Housing
types include single- and two-family homes, conventional and clustered single- and two-family subdivision
developments, apartment complexes, senior housing, modular and mobile homes, and townhouse developments. A
significant portion of the residential neighborhoods in the Town are located on East Hill, near Cornell University, the
largest employer in Tompkins County. South Hill, home of the County’s second largest employer, Ithaca College,
contains the second highest concentration of residential neighborhoods found in the Town.
This section provides a snapshot of the Town of Ithaca existing housing characteristics: housing
distributions/concentrations, types and location of housing, household income, value, and affordability. Along with
the most recent Census and ACS data, Town of Ithaca building permit records between 1980 and January 2010 were
used for some of the housing distribution and concentration information.
B.3.1 Households and household size
According to Census definitions, a household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. The number of
households in the Town has increased over the years; however, rate of increase has lessened each decade since 1960.15
The 2010 Census estimated that there were 6,988 total households in the Town of Ithaca, not including the Village of
Cayuga Heights. Families made up around 52% of all households, and non-family households accounted for 48% of
all households. Most of the non-family households were people living alone, but some were composed of people
living in households in which no one was related to the householder (e.g., students). The chart below shows the
number of people in households in the Town as a percentage of all households (family and non-family households).
The Number of households by Census block: 2010 map shows the general distribution of households in the Town based on
2010 Census information.
Household size 2010 | Town of Ithaca
1 person
37%
2 persons
33%
3 persons
15%
4 or more
persons
15%
Source: 2010 Census
Like the number of households, the average household size has been declining in the last fifty-plus years. The average
household size in the Town reported by the 1970 Census was 3.0 persons, but the 2010 Census reported an average
household size of 2.15 persons. The average family size was 2.82 persons.
15 Comparison of Census years 1960‐2010
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐37
Households by Census block 2010 | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐38
Group quarters and student housing
People not living in households are classified as living in group quarters. Group quarters include two general
categories of people: institutionalized and non-institutionalized populations. The institutionalized population
includes people under formally authorized, supervised care or custody (e.g., correctional institutions, juvenile
institutions, or nursing homes). The non-institutionalized population includes all people who live in other types of
group quarters, such as college dormitories, military quarters, or group homes. The 2010 Census reported that 25%
of the Town’s total population was housed in group quarters and that 96% of those in group quarters were in
college/university housing.
Ithaca College, which lies entirely within the Town of Ithaca municipal boundary, considers itself a residential college
- requiring undergraduate students to live on-campus until their senior year. As a result, nearly 100% of Ithaca
College freshmen and around 70% of degree-seeking non-freshman undergraduate students traditionally live in on-
campus housing in residential halls, the Terrace apartments, or the Circle Apartments (located adjacent to and
connected to the Ithaca College campus).16 Ithaca College upperclassmen also live in apartments and homes in the
surrounding South Hill residential neighborhoods.
Cornell is a much larger, more complex institution that is partially located within the Town and includes
undergraduate, graduate, and graduate/professional schools. 100% of Cornell freshmen and 57% of degree-seeking
non-freshman lived in on-campus housing in 2010.17 Most of Cornell’s undergraduate dormitory housing is located
within the City of Ithaca. However, Cornell housing for graduate students is located in the Town of Ithaca in the
Hasbrouck, Pleasant Grove, and Maplewood apartment complexes. Both graduate and undergraduate Cornell
students can also be found in sorority and fraternity houses and co-ops located adjacent to campus, along with
apartments and homes in the area’s surrounding residential neighborhoods.
B.3.2 Housing units
A housing unit is a house, apartment, mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living
quarters. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any
other group of related or unrelated people who share living quarters.
According to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, there was a dramatic growth in the number of housing units in the Town
(including the Village of Cayuga Heights) between 1960 and 1990, with the total number increasing from 2,770 to
6,197 units in that thirty-year period. The largest growth appears to have happened between 1960 and 1970, where
the number of housing units grew 51% in that decade.
The 2010 Census reported 7,526 total housing units in the Town (including the Village of Cayuga Heights), a 10%
increase from the Census 2000 figure and representing 18% of all housing units in Tompkins County. Although the
number of housing units has grown in the past fifty-plus years, the rate of increase has lessened each decade since
1960.
The Census reported 538 housing units in the Town, or about 7%, are vacant. Among those vacant units, 126 (23%)
are for seasonal/recreational/occasional use, while 122 (22%) are classified as "all other vacants", which includes
vacant units that may not be for sale or rent.
16 Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research, Common Data Set 2010‐11 and 16 June 2010 phone discussion with Office of
Residential Life
17 Cornell University Division of Planning and Budget, Common Data Set 2010‐11
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐39
The vacancy rate of year round housing in
the Town is about 3%; 1.4% for owner-
occupied units (3,616 units, 50 vacant for
sale), and 5.5% for rental units (3,662 units,
202 for rent). This includes units that may
not available for general occupancy, such as
student housing, income/age qualified
housing, and accessory units.
A Downtown Housing Strategy in the City of
Ithaca (2011), a report commissioned by the
Downtown Ithaca Alliance, found a 0.5%
vacancy rate for 75 selected market rate and
tax credit apartment buildings and complexes
in the downtown Ithaca effective market area
(EMA), which includes both the City and
Town of Ithaca. (The report did not include
subsidized developments.) Among the
buildings and complexes, 61 (81.3%) report
no vacancies, accounting for 60.7% of the total units. Only four buildings and complexes (5.3%) had occupancy rates
below 98%.18
Of occupied housing units, 51% are owner-occupied while 49% are renter-occupied. This is consistent with 1990 and
2000 Census figures.
Housing projections
Housing projections are similar to population projections, in that: (1) the rate of change is assumed to be equally
divided across a period of time (typically 10-year increments), and (2) the number of units is assumed to grow at the
same rate as in the past.19 Therefore, projections are best used as a guideline for potential future conditions. Social
and economic conditions can easily influence the local housing market, which then could result in varying rates of
growth from year to year.
According to Town of Ithaca building permit records, the number of new housing units between 2000 and 2010
increased 24% (539 units to 669 units), resulting in a growth rate of around 2.4% per year. Assuming that the number
of housing units continues to grow at a rate of around 2.4% per year, the Town could expect an additional ±1,859
new housing units by 2030.20 What follows is a more detailed analysis of housing development in the Town, using
Town building permit records.
B.3.3 Housing unit analysis: Town building permit records
Town of Ithaca building permit records in the last thirty years show a total of 2,039 new housing units between 1980
and 2010 (including independent senior units but not assisted living, nursing home, hospice units, or student
18 A Downtown Housing Strategy in the City of Ithaca, New York , p 3‐10, Datner Company LLC for the Downtown Ithaca Alliance, 2011.
http://www.tompkins‐co.org/planning/housing_choices/documents/ApartmentAnalysisdowntownfinal_8_2012.pdf
19 Lab No. 3: Population Projections and Scale, Ines M. Miyares, Professor and Chair, Department of Geography, Hunter College.
http://geo.hunter.cuny.edu
20 Based on a housing projection formula described in in Appendix E.
Summerhill Apartments
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐40
housing). Specifically, there were 831 total new housing units in the Town between 1980 and 1989, 539 total new
housing units between 1990 and 1999, and 669 total new housing units between 2000 and 2010. This amounts to an
increase of about 68 new housing units in the Town per year since 1980.
1990 to 1999
Nearly 63% of the 539 new housing units built in this decade were single or two-family homes, particularly in
subdivisions like Deer Run and Chase Farm son South Hill; Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive, and Briarwood Drive
on East Hill; and Saponi Meadows, the Ecovillage First Neighborhood (FRoG), Woolf Lane subdivision, and
Evergreen Lane in the West Hill/Inlet Valley area.
Town building permit records also showed the development of senior housing: the Ithacare/Longview senior
apartment building on Danby Road (80 independent apartment units and ±100 assisted-living units), the Sterling
House/Sterling Cottage/Alterra senior assisted-living building on Mecklenburg Road (78 assisted living units), and
the Hospicare six-bed hospice facility on East King Road.
The table below lists the number of building permits issued between January 1990 and December 1999, not including
senior assisted living or university/college residential housing.
Building permits issued January 1990 ‐ December 1999 (number of units) | Town of Ithaca
Year Single family units Two family units Units in multi‐unit
structures Additional units Total
1990 36 4 0 4 44
1991 38 0 0 3 41
1992 41 8 0 8 57
1993 29 18 0 6 53
1994 20 12 0 1 33
1995 18 6 0 4 28
1996 4 40 0 3 47
1997 12 20 86 6 124
1998 13 12 0 6 31
1999 12 2 64 3 81
Total 223 122 150 44 539
Building permits issued January 1990 ‐ December 1999 (number of units) | Town of Ithaca
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Housing unitsSingle family units
Two family units
Units in multi ‐unit structures
Additional units
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐41
2000 to 2010
Town of Ithaca building permit records in the last ten years showed a total of 669 new housing units; 270 of those
units were single- and two-family homes. Contrary to the previous decade, single- and two-family units only
accounted for 40% of the total new units in the Town between 2000 and January 2010. Also, units in multi-unit
housing accounted for 44% of the total new units. Most of the single- and two family units built between 2000 and
2010 occurred in subdivisions like Southwoods and Westview Subdivisions, along with Pennsylvania Ave, East King
Road, Troy Road, and Saunders Road on South Hill; Park Lane, Fairway Drive, and Briarwood Drive on East Hill;
and Ecovillage Second Neighborhood (SoNG), Bostwick Road, West Haven Road, and Hayts Road on West
Hill/Inlet Valley.
Senior housing constructed in the last decade includes the Conifer Village Senior Apartments (72 units), Ellis Hollow
Senior Apartment addition (four units added to 100 existing units), Ithacare/Longview Senior Assisted Living
addition (32 units), and the Claussen Home Health/Old Hundred Nursing Home (seven bed facility).
The table below lists the number of building permits issued between January 2000 and December 2009, not including
senior assisted-living or university/college residential housing.
Building permits issued January 2000 – December 2009 (number of units) | Town of Ithaca
Year Single family units Two family units Units in multi‐unit
structures Additional units Total
2000 15 6 24 1 46
2001 10 18 20 1 49
2002 19 22 93 6 140
2003 27 14 24 5 70
2004 34 2 0 3 39
2005 35 2 76 2 115
2006 15 4 136 4 159
2007 13 4 0 0 17
2008 15 4 0 3 22
2009 3 8 0 1 12
Totals: 186 84 373 26 669
Building permits issued January 2000 – December 2009 (number of units) | Town of Ithaca
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Housing unitsSingle family
units
Two family
units
Units in multi ‐
unit structures
Additional
units
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐42
Residential development 1980‐2010 | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐43
Housing distribution/concentration
Like population distribution, East Hill has historically contained the majority of new housing units (64% of the new
housing units between 1980 and 1990, followed by South Hill at 25% and West Hill at 11%). However, a good
amount of residential development has been shifting from East Hill to South Hill since the 1960’s. Even more
recently, West Hill has been the area where the majority of new multi-unit residential development has occurred.
Town building permit records between 1980 and 2010 show that East Hill contained 38% of the total new housing
units in that 32-year period (2,039 total units), West Hill contained 33% of the total new units, and South Hill
contained 29% of the total new housing units. This is a significant, but not surprising, shift in housing distribution, as
South and West Hills have much more vacant land and development potential than East Hill.
The following charts show the percentage of the total number of housing units (2,039 total units from Town building
permit records) per location, broken down into 10-year segments. Similar information is shown on the Residential
development 1980-2010 map from the previous page.
According to the charts and the map, the housing distribution in the last thirty years suggests that the population has
indeed been shifting to the South Hill and West Hill areas of the Town.
Location of new housing units January 1980 – January 2010 | Town of Ithaca
West Hill
10%
East Hill
64%
South Hill
26%
January 1980 to December 1989
West Hill
32%
East Hill
22%
South Hill
46%
January 1990 to December 1999
West Hill
61%
East Hill
20%
South Hill
19%
January 2000 to January 2010
B.3.4 Housing types
The 2000 Census reported that single- and two-family homes were the most prominent types of housing in the Town
of Ithaca, although the largest increase noted were apartment buildings with three or more units. Building permit
records from 1980 to January 2010 concur with Census data: single- and two-family homes made up 61% of the total
new housing units, followed by units in multi-unit structures (31%).
Location
The chart below illustrates the types of new housing units located in the East Hill, South Hill, and West Hill areas of
the Town between 1980 and 2010. (Group quarters, such as university or college residential housing, were not
included in the calculations for new multi-unit structures. "Additional" units refers to units added to existing single-,
two-family or three-family structures.)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐44
Housing types by location December 1980 – January 2010 (new unit total: 2,039) | Town of Ithaca
499
454
287
164
114
113
30
19359
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
East Hill
South Hill
West Hill / Inlet Valley
1‐ and 2‐
family units
Units in multi‐
unit structures
Additional
units
According to the chart, East Hill contains the largest number of single- and two-family units, while West Hill contains
the highest number of units in multi-unit structures.
East Hill
Between 1980 and 2010, East Hill contained 40% of the new single family and two-family housing units in the Town
and 26% of the new multi-unit development. Although East Hill has seen a decline in new single- and two-family
home construction since the 1960s, it has contained the majority of new "additional" units; specifically the addition
of smaller apartment units to existing single-family homes. East Hill captured 70% of those new additional units in
the Town in the last thirty years.
South Hill
South Hill contained 37% of the new single- and two-family units in the Town in the last thirty years. South Hill also
contained 18% of new multi-unit structures and 19% of the new additional units in the Town. As stated earlier, most
of the single- and two-family housing development on South Hill occurred in subdivision developments like Deer
Run, Chase Farm, Southwoods, and Westview.
West Hill
The West Hill/Inlet Valley area contained 23% of new single family and two-family units between 1980 and January
2010. West Hill also accounted for 56% of the new multi-unit structures and 12% of additional units in the Town.
All of the new units in multi-unit structures on West Hill were the result of the development of Linderman Creek
Apartments Phases I-III, Conifer Senior Apartments, and the Overlook at Westhill complex.
B.3.5 Structure age
The Town of Ithaca contains a mix of older homes and new construction. 46% of the total housing stock in the
Town was built before 1970.21 Another 42% was built between 1970 and 1999, and around 11% was built in 2000 or
later.22 The table below shows the distribution of housing units built within various year ranges.
21 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
22 Ibid
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐45
Age of housing structures | Town of Ithaca
Year built Number of units % of units
2010 or later 6 .1%
2000 to 2009 815 11%
1990 to 1999 886 12%
1980 to 1989 1,014 13.7%
1970 to 1979 1,244 16.8%
1960 to 1969 1,009 13.6%
1950 to 1959 896 12.1%
1940 to 1949 392 5.3%
1939 or earlier 1,145 15.5%
Source: 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
B.3.6 Housing values and sales
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan reported that the median home value in the Town increased 127% between 1980 and
1990, from $62,200 to $141,200. Similarly, the 2000 Census reported that the median home value in the Town of
Ithaca was $140,000; and the largest single percentage of homes valued between $100,000 and $149,999.
The most recent American Community Survey estimated the median home value to be $229,000 for the years
between 2008 and 2012, with more than one-third of homes valued between $200,000 and $299,999.
The table below shows the number of housing structures within each value range listed in the American Community
Survey, with the median value and largest percentage range highlighted:
Value of housing structures
Value Number of units % of units
Less than $50,000 98 2.6%
$50,000 to $99,999 135 3.6%
$100,000 to $149,999 474 12.6%
$150,000 to $199,999 703 18.6%
$200,000 to $299,999 1,280 33.9%
$300,000 to $499,999 857 22.7%
$500,000 to $999,999 173 4.6%
$1,000,000 or more 51 1.4%
Total 3,771 100%
Source: 2008‐2012 American Community Survey
The Tompkins County Assessment Department reported slightly lower median home values than the Census and
ACS figures, noting that the median home value in the Town of Ithaca in 2009 was $195,000 (still a 39% increase
from the Census 2000 median value).23 However, the Assessment Department also reported the 2009 average home
value in the Town of Ithaca to be $219,352, which coincides with the largest range of home values noted in the table
above. The County Assessment figures accounted for one-, two-, or three-family homes in the Town of Ithaca located
on lots less than 10 acres.
23 2010 phone conversation with Tompkins County Assessment Department
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐46
The Tompkins County Assessment Department also reported information on home sales since 2000. According to
their information, 1,657 homes were sold in the Town of Ithaca between 2000 and 2009.24 Average sale price for a
home in 2000 was $122,954, compared with $213,031 in 2009. That amounts to a 73% increase in home sale prices
in nine years.
B.3.7 Household income and affordability
Cost of home ownership in the Town of Ithaca has increased in the last twenty years. The Town’s 1993
Comprehensive Plan asserted that housing built in the Town between 1950 and 1970 was usually more affordable,
even when brand new.
The need for housing that is affordable, particularly to those in the median-income range, has become increasingly
important to the Town of Ithaca. The Tompkins County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (prepared in 2006 by
Economic and Policy Resources, Inc., for the Tompkins County Planning Department) indicated that more housing
was needed at all cost levels; but that the gap between supply and demand was most critical for housing that is
affordable to families in the "median income" range.
The U.S. Census definition of median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal
groups - half having income above that amount and half having income below that amount. As of the 2010 Census,
the Town of Ithaca median household income was $55,934. The 2010 median sale price for a house according to the
Ithaca Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service was $209,500.
According to United Stated Housing and Urban Development standards, the definition of ‘cost burden’ considers the
percentage of household income spent for mortgage costs or gross rent. Families who pay more than 30 percent of
their income for housing are considered cost burdened, which means that they may have difficulty affording
necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. The Affordable Housing Needs Assessment
study noted that a household making 100% of the County median household income in 2004 ($42,899) could afford a
home that cost $127,959—which was less than both the median price and the average sales price for a home in both
the Town of Ithaca and in Tompkins County at that time. This means that households at 100% of the County
median household income in 2004 could not afford the average single-family home in the County, and were therefore
considered cost burdened.25
Rental costs are slightly more affordable to more households than homeownership costs. According to the Affordable
Housing Needs Assessment study, roughly 90% of the renter units in the County were affordable to households at or
below 100% of the County median household income - although renters at the lower end of the income spectrum
experienced more affordability difficulty than renters at the higher income levels. On the other hand, the report
analysis also indicated that nearly one-third of non-student renters spent more than 50% of their income on rent.
The Housing Goals and Objectives section explores strategies that will increase the supply of rental and homeowner
housing that is affordable to median-income residents.
B.3.8 Aging in place
The Demographics section noted that the senior population had the greatest increase in numbers in the Town of
Ithaca in the last 20 years. This is a national trend that is expected to continue. The senior population will require
24 Multiyear county housing sales chart produced by Tompkins County Assessment Department, http://www.tompkins‐
co.org/assessment/yrsales.pdf
25 Information from the Tompkins County Assessment Department.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐47
specialized services as they continue to age, particularly the baby-boom generation that is beginning to reach
retirement age.
The Town may need to develop additional services in the future to accommodate the needs of the aging segments of
the community. In terms of housing, the Town can promote Universal Design principles in new home construction.
Universal Design includes installing universal features in homes, like wider entranceways and wider doors that can
accommodate wheelchairs, flat entrances, and door and drawer knobs that don’t require twisting or gripping.
Universal Design also involves constructing homes so that first-floor spaces can be easily converted into additional
bedroom and bathroom facilities. These basic construction techniques can provide seniors with the option to keep
their homes longer and therefore age in place.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐48
B.4 Natural resources and environment
The quality of life in the Town of Ithaca is inextricably linked to its natural environment. These rich physical,
biological, ecological, geological, and scenic resources have long been recognized as assets that the Town needs to
protect. The following provides a brief inventory of important natural features found in the Town of Ithaca.
B.4.1 Topographic setting
Sculpted by retreating glaciers thousands of years ago, the Town is bisected by the deep valley of the southern end of
Cayuga Lake and its major tributary, the Cayuga Inlet. Flanked by numerous gorges incised along the steep hillsides,
the valley steadily rises up to a hilly mid-plateau that continues to rise gradually beyond the Town’s borders. This
deep cut valley and the smaller Six Mile Creek valley define three major areas of the Town: East Hill, West Hill and
South Hill. The Slope map provides a vivid graphic illustrating the town’s topographic variability along with its
associated geographic divides.
The town varies from a topographic low point
of approximately 390 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) along the valley floor of the
Cayuga Inlet, to a topographic high point of
approximately 1,420 feet above MSL on
South Hill near Ridgecrest and Troy Roads,
where the Town of Ithaca meets the Danby
town line. As shown on the Slope map, slopes
greater than 20% can be found along steep
hillsides of gorges and valleys, and tend to
become gentler as elevations rise.
Topography and slope influence many
important aspects of land use and site
planning. Topography and slopes affect the
flow of surface water, patterns of erosion and
sedimentation, soil formation, and vegetation
growth. Consideration of the slope of the
land is essential in land use planning. As
slopes become steeper, grading and the
provision of infrastructure become more
difficult and expensive, and risks from natural
hazards such as flooding and slope failure are
of greater concern. The cumulative effects of
development on steep slopes include loss of scenic amenities, decreased water quality, increased downstream runoff
and flooding problems, loss of sensitive habitats, high utility costs, access challenges (especially for emergency
vehicles) and high maintenance costs of public infrastructure.
Many communities have adopted regulations to protect against the costs and environmental degradation caused by
hillside and steep slope development. The Town of Ithaca currently has no regulations, but should consider enacting
protective measures. Zoning regulations aimed at protecting hillsides include reducing allowable development
densities and establishing overlay zones in the areas of concern. Other regulatory controls generally either prohibit or
carefully monitor construction on steep slopes, typically defined as anywhere between 10% and 25%.
Bostwick Road
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐49
Topography/elevation | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐50
Slope | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐51
B.4.2 Lakes and streams
Cayuga Lake
Cayuga Lake
The longest of the Finger Lakes, Cayuga Lake is a treasured resource enjoyed for its scenic and recreational amenities
by residents and visitors alike. The Lake also serves as the source of drinking water for many residents of the Town
and numerous other communities throughout the watershed. The Town of Ithaca boasts having 680 acres of the
southern end of Lake at its north-central border, including approximately 2.9 miles of shoreline. With the exception
of the 0.3 acre East Shore Park, which is leased to the Town via an agreement with Cornell University, all of the
shoreline within the Town is privately owned.
Cayuga Lake ultimately drains into Ontario Lake via the New York State Canal System, a system of canals and
waterways forming an extensive navigable transportation network that crosses upstate New York. Water levels in the
Lake are regulated by the New York State Canal Authority through a series of locks within the canal system. Mud
Lock, located at the north end of Cayuga Lake, allows the Authority to draw down lake levels just before winter to
reduce ice damage to properties and to maximize storage capacity for the anticipated spring runoff. The Erie
Canalway National Heritage Corridor encompasses New York’s canal system and the communities along its shores.
As part of the Canalway, the Town can benefit from State funds used for projects and programs intended to protect
and celebrate the corridor’s distinctive sense of place and its tourism, recreational opportunities, and water quality.
The water quality in the southern end of Cayuga Lake within the Town is considered “impaired” as reported by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).26 The report states that swimming and other
recreational uses in the southern end of the Lake are affected by pathogens, nutrients, silt, and sediment. Water
supply uses are also considered to be threatened and aesthetic concerns, including nuisance algal blooms, extensive
rooted aquatic plant growth, and odors from decaying plants, discourage recreational use of the lake. The sources of
these pollutants are reported as being “numerous,” occur throughout the watershed, and include the presence of
multiple municipal wastewater discharges, urban/stormwater runoff, agricultural activity, increasing development,
and stream and roadbank erosion. Mandated by the Clean Water Act, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
26 Oswego River/Finger Lakes Basin Waterbody Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List Report. Final Draft Report, February 2008.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐52
program requires quantifiable goals to be set for water bodies not meeting water quality standards. No TMDLs have
yet been developed for Cayuga Lake.
Streams and waterbodies
Seven major streams and innumerable smaller
tributaries traverse through the Town of Ithaca (see
Water resources map). The major streams are
Buttermilk Creek, the Cayuga Inlet, Cascadilla Creek,
Enfield Creek, Fall Creek, and Six Mile Creek. All of
these streams are within the Cayuga Lake watershed,
meaning the Lake is the ultimate receiver of the water
that flows through these tributaries. Many of these
streams had a great impact on the early development
of the Ithaca area by providing water power to
support the growing industrial development in the
1800s and early 1900s. Today, in addition to serving
as important natural areas, many of these creeks
and/or their associated reservoirs also provide
significant economic benefits. Recreation and tourism
are centered around the gorges, cascading waterfalls,
and established swimming areas associated with
Buttermilk Creek (Buttermilk Falls State Park) and
Enfield Creek (Robert H. Treman State Park). Six
Mile Creek remains a water supply for the City of
Ithaca Water System which serves most City
residents, and Fall Creek is the source of water supply
for the Cornell University Water System. In addition,
the Cayuga Inlet is a regionally popular fishing
stream, for which the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has secured public
fishing rights easements along its banks on a broad stretch of reach within the Town.27
Certain Waters of the State are protected by the DEC due to their importance as drinking water supplies, fish habitat,
or recreation. The Water resources map identifies those streams in the Town that are classified as protected. Any
proposed activity that would result in disturbance to the bed or bank of a protected stream requires a permit from the
DEC.
Streams and waterbodies are greatly affected by land uses and development activities that occur within the watershed.
Conversion of naturally vegetated lands in the watershed to urban and agricultural uses results in
serious degradation to streams and their aquatic inhabitants and to the ultimate receiving water (Cayuga Lake). The
proliferation of impervious surfaces associated with urbanization increases the frequency and severity of flooding and
causes increased erosion, decreased base flow in streams from reduced natural filtration of water, and negative effects
on stream health and ecology.
27 NYS DEC website, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/r7cayinlpfr.pdf, accessed 9 August 2011.
Cascadilla Creek
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐53
Water resources | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐54
To address and mitigate the impacts to our area's waterways, including Cayuga Lake, the Town enacted a Stormwater
Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law in 2008. This law requires the implementation of erosion
control measures for construction sites and requires new developments to install permanent onsite stormwater
facilities and/or implement natural infiltration measures to slow runoff and filter out pollutants prior to its release
into to area waterways. The Town also enacted a Stream Setback Law in May 2012 that requires development to be
set back a specified distance from streams and protects existing vegetative corridors growing along streams in the
Town. These action, along with continued support of initiatives aimed at monitoring water quality, educational and
outreach programs on water awareness and other intermunicipal efforts, are vital to protect this essential resource.
B.4.3 Wetlands
Wetlands are important components of our landscape. Wetlands are amongst the most productive ecosystems,
providing food and habitat to a wide variety of plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals.
Wetlands lessen the magnitude of flood events by acting as natural sponges that trap and slowly release flood waters,
and wetlands protect water quality by serving as filters that remove pollutants and nutrients and by trapping sediment
from surface and stormwater. Wetlands also provide important recreational opportunities, such as bird watching,
hunting, and fishing.
The Town has no municipal wetland
regulation and relies on State and Federal
entities to provide protection. Under the
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Act of
1975, the New York Satet Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) maps
and regulates wetlands encompassing at least
12.4 acres and those smaller wetlands judged
to be of unusual importance. The DEC also
regulates a 100-foot adjacent area (buffer
zone) surrounding these state-protected
wetlands. There are four state-regulated
wetlands in the Town, as shown on the
Wetlands and hydric soils map: Sapsucker
Woods in the Town’s northeast, Larch
Meadows and Fleming Meadows which
straddle the Cayuga Inlet, and an unnamed
wetland in the northwest corner of the Town.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers administers a federal program for wetlands protection, regardless of size, under
the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Impacts to wetlands are not banned outright under this
program. Rather, impacts are regulated under a permit system. A nationwide permit (blanket permit) authorizes
certain categories of development activities in wetlands that involve impacts of less than 0.5 acres, while individual
permits are required for activities impacting more than 0.5 acres. This permit system does allow wetland impacts to
occur but an applicant must demonstrate that steps have been taken to: (1) avoid impacts to regulated waters, (2)
minimize any potential impacts, and/or (3) perform mitigation to compensate for any unavoidable impacts.
Wetlands area on the Ithaca College campus
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐55
Wetlands and hydric soils | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐56
Some wetlands regulated by the Corp of Engineers have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a
survey known as the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). However, unlike the mapped DEC wetlands, the Corps of
Engineers regulates all waters of the United States, whether they have been mapped or not. The NWI maps indicate
where wetlands have been identified through high altitude aerial photography surveys, but do not represent a
comprehensive ground-survey of wetlands in the Town. The only way to be certain of the existence of wetland is
with on-site surveys conducted by qualified professionals.
The Wetlands and Hydric Soils map identifies NWI wetlands labeled as P (palustrine, excluding categories for
human-made impoundments), and the locations of hydric soils. Hydric soils are included because they are often a
useful indicator of wetlands. The three essential characteristics of wetlands are hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,
and wetland hydrology.28 Criteria for all of the characteristics must be met for areas to be identified as wetlands.
A 2001 Supreme Court decision29 excluded many isolated wetlands from federal regulation. As defined by the CWA,
federal protection extends only to those wetlands located on or adjacent to navigable waters of the United States or
their tributary systems. Wetlands that do not meet this requirement, specifically isolated wetlands, with no link to
interstate commerce, are not regulated as waters of the United States and are therefore not protected under the CWA.
As a result of this ruling, isolated wetlands existing in the Town are no longer protected by federal law. Efforts to
strengthen state wetlands legislation to address this and other limitations of the state law have thus far been
unsuccessful. In view of the lack of regulatory authority to protect isolated wetlands, the Town should consider
establishing measures to insure protection of all wetlands within the Town. One approach would be to regulate only
those wetlands that are outside of federal or state jurisdiction. This could limit the administrative challenges of
developing a permitting system and providing enforcement authority and training of staff to ensure effective
implementation of the regulations. Other options include modifying existing Town stormwater regulations to
strengthen conservation incentives and exploring means to use site plan requirements/incentives to protect wetlands
through open space setasides.
B.4.4 Geology
The geologic history of the Town, and the Finger Lakes Region as a whole, is responsible for the area's defining
characteristics. Devonian age sedimentary rocks (rocks that formed from mud, sand, and gravel) accumulated in the
warm shallow sea more than 360 million years ago. That was followed by the action of massive sheets of ice that
shaped those ancient rocks over the last two million years, which resulted in our prominent landscape of lakes, hills,
gorges, and waterfalls. These ancient Devonian rocks, exposed as stacks of sedimentary rock layers along the walls of
area gorges, are another distinguishing characteristic and visible reminder of our geologic past. The geology of our
area has been a crucial factor in our human history and subsequent settlement patterns; it affected where people have
lived and what they have done on and to the land.30
Bedrock geology
Bedrock geology describes the consolidated rock (many-mile thick) underlying the surface of the earth. Its
composition influences water supply, topography, and the make-up of surficial soils. The bedrock is also a source of
many important energy resources. As illustrated in the Bedrock geology map, the Ithaca Formation–West River Shale is
the bedrock formation most common in the Town.
28 Wetlands Delineation Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987.
29 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al.
30 Paleontological Research Institution website, http://www.priweb.org/ed/finger_lakes/nystate_geo1.html, accessed 22 August 2011.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐57
Depth to bedrock is relatively shallow in the Ithaca area. Shallow depths to bedrock affect the location, development,
and cost of public services such as sewers, water supply systems, and roads. There are also considerations for private
investments such as building foundations and septic tanks.
Surficial geology
Surficial geology describes the rocks and unconsolidated material that lie above the bedrock. While soil refers to the
organic component of these materials, surficial geology refers to the rock and mineral component of these materials.
When glaciers receded 12,000 to 25,000 years ago, they deposited the rocks and debris frozen within the ice. These
formations contain variously sized particles and are classified by the shape of the formation, the thickness, and the
type and size of the particles found.31 Surficial geology influences the feasibility of constructing buildings and roads.
Because it is these deposits that commonly determine soil composition, their characteristics can affect such things as
agricultural viability.
As illustrated in the Surficial geology map, till
is the most abundant glacial deposit in the
Town. Till is a heterogeneous unsorted mix
of silt, sand, clay, and rock. Till is often
formed at the front of a glacier and is the
result of the glacier’s gathering and grinding
of material. Because tills contain many
different grain sizes, the empty spaces
between coarser grains tend to become filled
with finer-grained materials, resulting in a
very low porosity. Till can be very difficult to
excavate and generally has poor qualities for
farming and for on-site wastewater disposal.
Lacustrine (“lake”) silt and clay deposits are
also common in Ithaca. These laminated silt
and clays deposited in lakes formed during
the melting of the glaciers. Lacustrine
deposits are high in calicite have low permeability, and form potentially unstable land. They have variable thickness
which can range up to 160 feet deep. Two small pockets of lacustrine sand can also be found in Town’s southwest
quadrant; these two well-sorted (particles of similar size) and stratified sand deposits tend to be permeable and six to
60 feet in depth.32
Shallow or exposed bedrock can also be found in several locations in the Town, including a linear strip which extends
from South Hill into the Inlet Valley, and an area bordering both sides of Cayuga Lake extending into the west half
of the Village of Cayuga Heights.
31 Land Resources, Tompkins County Planning Department website,
http://www.tompkins‐co.org/planning/nri/land_resources.pdf, accessed 22 August 2011.
32 Natural Resources Inventory, Tompkins County Planning Department,
http://www.tompkins‐co.org/planning/nri/inventory.pdf, accessed 19 August 2011.
Six Mile Creek and bedrock layer.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐58
Bedrock geology | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐59
Surficial geology | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐60
Geologic and energy resources
Mineral resource excavation in the Town includes sand and gravel operations. These are usually processed through
screens and crushers and used in roadfill and construction projects. Extensive mining for salt also occurs under
Cayuga Lake, outside and north of the Town of Ithaca municipal boundary.
Natural gas is another important local resource. Early production of natural gas began in western New York in the
early 1800s, and originated from seeps and reservoirs in the Devonian-aged sandstones. As these sandstone beds
became depleted, drilling into deeper layers of bedrock become necessary and hydraulic fracturing was introduced to
develop low-permeability reservoirs in "tight" gas sands.
New technological advances (coupled with increased demand and cost of natural gas) have made it economically
feasible for gas companies to begin extracting natural gas from impermeable shale rock. In contrast to permeable
sandstone, it is very hard for fluids like water and gas to penetrate and move through the shale rock. But a new
drilling process, called high volume hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) has made the huge natural gas reserves in the
Marcellus Shale (a Devonian age formation which underlies the Town and much of the southern half of New York
State) now recoverable.
The hydrofracking process raises serious concerns for the Town and for communities throughout southern New York.
The process requires enormous supplies of fresh water which is mixed with toxic chemicals and results in large
quantities of toxic waste that must be disposed of. The process requires large industrial-pad sites for drilling
equipment and storage of chemicals and water (5 to 15 acre site). The drilling of one well is estimated to result in
over 1,000 truck trips during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing process.33 Noise and air pollution generated from
drilling operations and permanent compressor stations is another serious concern. Development for gas pipelines
poses concern for the local landscape and resources, especially if pipelines are routed across wetlands, steep slopes,
gorges, forests, or scenic viewsheds to reach main transmission lines. The Town has begun and continues to explore
ways to address the impending impacts posed by natural gas extraction from Marcellus Shale.
B.4.5 Soils
As in most of Tompkins County, soils in the Town of Ithaca vary considerably from place-to-place in terms of their
physical properties and suitability for various uses. Ninety-one different soil types (mapping units) have been
identified in the Town, with a wide variety of soil characteristics. The most common soil type is BgC (Bath and
Valois gravelly silt loan with 5% to 15% slopes) which represents 9.7% of all known soil types within the town. Most
other soil types in the Town each represent less than 2% of Town soil. This variability of the soil properties can
equate to variability in the suitability of the land to support agricultural uses or development. Soils may be seasonally
wet or subject to flooding. They may be shallow to bedrock or unstable for use as foundations for buildings or roads.
Having a basic understanding of soils and of their potential and limitations, allows us to make good decisions in the
use of this basic and valuable resource. In the Soils series map we have grouped the 91 different soil types (mapping
units) based on their soil series.
The only comprehensive survey of soils for the Town was completed in 1961 by the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), in
cooperation with the Cornell University Agricultural Experimental Station. The Soil Survey: Tompkins County, New
York was published in 1965 by the SCS and provides detailed soils maps at a scale of 1:20,000 overlaid on aerial
photographs, along with detailed descriptions of soil types, their characteristics, and an interpretation of their
33 Impacts on Community Character of Horizontal Drilling and High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, Final Report New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), 16 September 2009.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐61
suitability for various uses. The NRCS now also maintains an Internet site, the Web Soil Survey, which provides
publicly accessible detailed information on soils for locations throughout the U.S. (including the Town of Ithaca).
The SCS survey is an indispensable tool for providing soil information, but it has certain limitations. For instance,
due to the scale at which the maps were originally created, soil map units can have inclusions of up to two acres that
do not fit within the use and limitations for the soil series that is labeled. Therefore, site-specific soil examinations
and testing are recommended. The other limitation is that soil mapping is a continual process, and for Tompkins
County, the survey is almost 50 years old; in some cases, it may no longer accurately reflect existing soil conditions.34
Prime farmland soil
Soils that are likely to be highly suited for agricultural activity are known as prime farmland soils. The NRCS defines
prime farmland as land that is best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber. and oilseed. Approximately 2,633
acres (14%) of the Town contains soils that have been identified as prime farmland soils per the USDA definition. An
additional 1,153 acres (about 6%) contain soils that would meet the indicators of prime farmland if they were
drained. As shown on the Prime agricultural
soils map, prime farmland soils are distributed
throughout the Town.
Approximately 41,453 acres of soils in
Tompkins County are considered prime
farmland. More than half of these soils exist
in the northern part of the county. For
comparison, Lansing and Ulysses,
municipalities immediately to the north of
the Town of Ithaca have approximately
13,314 acres (38%) and 9,286 acres (47%) of
prime farmland soil respectively, while
Dryden to the east and Danby to the south
have approximately 4,635 acres (8%) and
1,152 acres (3%), respectively.
Erodible soils
Soil erodibility is an estimate, based on the physical characteristics of each soil, of a soils susceptibility to erosion,.
Slope is one factor contributing to soil erodibility; another important factor is the cohesiveness of the soil particles.
Soil scientists use a measure known as the K-factor to describe the susceptibility of soil particles to detach and be
transport by rainfall and runoff. Soils with high clay content have low K values (about 0.05 to 0.15) because they are
resistant to detachment. Coarse-textured soils (such as sandy soils) have low K values (about 0.05 to 0.2) because of
low runoff even though these soils are easily detached. Medium textured soils such as the silt loam soils have
moderate K values (about 0.25 to 0.4) because they are moderately susceptible to detachment and they produce
moderate runoff. Soils of high silt content are the most erodible. They are easily detached; they tend to crust and
produce high rates of runoff. Values of K for these soils tend to be greater than 0.4. The Probability of highly erodible
soils map identifies those soils that have a K-factor value greater than 0.4 and are located on slopes of 8% or greater.
Approximately 2,587 acres of land surface in the Town have a strong probability of being highly erodible.
34 Barbee, G.C. and Morris, D.K., Web Soil Survey: A New Horizon in the Use of Site‐Specific Soil Data, Journal of Extension, August 2009,
Volume 47, No 4.
The West Hill Community Garden sits on a prime farmland soil area.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐62
Soils series | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐63
Prime farmland soils | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐64
Probability of highly erodible soils | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐65
Hydric soils and drainage capacity
Drainage classification of soils refers to the frequency and duration that a soil is saturated with water. Hydric soils
loosely correspond to poor and very poor drainage designations. The NRCS defines hydric soils as being water
saturated for a sufficient duration (when plants and soil microbes are active; soil temp > ~405 C), to produce
anaerobic conditions and to support hydrophilic vegetation. Collectively referred to as hydric soil indicators, mineral
and organic soil features created under these conditions are used in conjunction with vegetation cues to infer the
presence of hydric soils. As previously described in the Wetlands subsection above, these water logged soils are also
indicators for the presence of wetlands. The NRCS reports that hydric soils that have been converted to other uses are
generally capable of being restored to wetlands. Approximately 1,528 acres of land in the Town are comprised of
hydric soils. The Wetland and Hydric Soils map identifies the location of all hydric (857 acres) and partially hydric (671
acres) soils in the Town. According to the NRCS, an all hydric soil means that all components for a given map unit
are rated as being hydric, while partially hydric means that at least one component of the map unit is rated as hydric,
and at least one component is not rated as hydric, so a definitive rating for the map unit cannot be made.35
B.4.6 Terrestrial ecology
The Town contains many habitat types that
support a wide array of plant and wildlife
species. Woodlands, brush lands, meadows,
wetlands, streams and gorges, as well as
agricultural lands and transitional areas,
support a wide variety of plant species and
dwelling and feeding areas for mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The Town is fortunate to have a number of
open space areas that provide large
contiguous habitats for plant and wildlife
species. In addition to Buttermilk Falls and
Robert H. Treman State Parks, there are also
the Eldridge Preserve (owned by The Nature
Conservancy), Lick Brook Preserve (owned by the Finger Lakes Land Trust), and a number of Cornell-owned lands
such as the Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary and portions of Coy Glen.
Vegetation
The Town of Ithaca falls within the regional forest formation designated as the Allegheny Section of the Northern
Appalachian Highland Division of the Hemlock-White Pine Northern Hardwood Region.36 The Allegheny Section
is a broad forest type that begins at the northern edge of the Finger Lakes and continues south, covering most of the
northern half of Pennsylvania and the southern half of New York. This mosaic forest is typical of central New York.
Some of the tree species found in this forest are red, sugar, and silver maples, paper birch, quaking and bigtooth
aspens, eastern cottonwood, black cherry, chokecherry, black walnut, butternut, pignut and shagbark hickories,
northern red oak, white, bur and black oaks, serviceberry, hackberry, dogwood, American hornbeam, hop hornbeam,
hawthorn, tuliptree, black locust, white and green ashes, boxelder, eastern white pine, American sycamore, redbud,
mulberry, basswood, black willow, and eastern hemlock.
35 Natural Resources Conservation Service website, http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/intro.html, accessed 19 August 2011.
36 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America, Braun, E. Lucy, 1950.
Sapsucker Woods. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐66
Forests, meadows, and other open areas | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐67
According to Tompkins County Land Use
Land Cover Mapping Project (updated in
2007 by the Tompkins County Planning
Department) approximately 6800 acres, or
36% of the land area of the Town (including
Village of Cayuga Heights, excluding Cayuga
Lake), is forested and composed of either
deciduous, conifer, or mixed woodlands or
forest plantations. Brush or grassland
accounts for approximately 2757 acres (15%)
of the land area. The Forests, meadows, and
other open space map depicts these
undeveloped areas.
The Finger Lakes region was a renowned
botanical collecting ground as early as the
1800s,37 which was likely further advanced by
the founding of the Wiegand Herbarium
(merged with the L. H. Bailey Hortorium
Herbarium in 1977) at Cornell University in
1869; the Herbarium emphasized native and
naturalized flora of central New York, as well
as of national and international locations.
Areas in the Town (such as the South Hill
Swamp (Claussen Swamp) on South Hill, and
Larch Meadows and Negundo Woods along
the Cayuga Inlet) were studied because of
their botanical qualities. The South Hill
Swamp was an especially significant location
within the Cayuga Lake basin for the
presence of rare and unusual plant species,
leading Cornell to purchase six acres of the
core swamp in 1960, later adding 45 acres to
its holdings).38
The New York State Protected Native Plants
Program was created in 1989 following adoption of the protected native plants regulation.39 This regulation
established four categories of listed protected plants, including endangered, threatened, rare, and exploitably vulnerable.
Exploitably vulnerable species are considered likely to become rare as a result of being over-picked for commercial
and personal purposes. Unlike protection of wildlife, plants are the property of and under the control of the
landowner, whether that is an individual, corporation, or government agency. Protection is provided under state
Environmental Conservation Law §9-1503 which states that it is a violation to sever, damage, or remove any of these
listed plants without the permission of the landowner.
37 Some rare Myxomycetes of central New York, with notes on the germination of Enteridium Rozeanum, Durand, E.J., Botanical Gazette,
March 1894.
38 South Hill Swamp, Its Unique Natural Characteristics and Need for Protection, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, 18 March 1999.
Trillium along South Hill Trail.
Eldridge Wilderness Preserve. The preserve includes a variety of early and late
plant succession areas.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐68
The New York State Natural Heritage Program (a joint venture of the New York State DEC and The Nature
Conservancy) maintains a comprehensive database on the locations and status of rare plants and significant natural
communities in New York State. This includes unlisted species, which while not under the same level of regulatory
protection as the listed species, are ranked by the Natural Heritage Program. The Heritage list (updated annually) has
no legal status but is used by the DEC as a basis for the legally protected list that the state produces. This information
is housed in databases maintained by the DEC and is accessible to the public through the New York Nature Explorer,
a website providing maps (showing only general plant locations) and lists of species and their protection status.40
This database lists 25 scarce plant species that were known to exist at one time in the Town of Ithaca, 18 of which are
State-listed plant species. Of these, however, only four were recently confirmed; with exception of one species
documented in 1977, the rest have not been documented since 1945. (Most have not been seen since the 1920s and
earlier.) All of the recently confirmed listed species are sedge species. None of the plants listed by New York State as
being rare are on the Federal endangered and threatened list.
Unique to Tompkins County are local rarity codes. Locally rarity codes are specific to the Cayuga Lake Basin and
were defined and assigned by local botanists Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley, based on their experience in
evaluating plant species of Tompkins County. These codes are used in the inventory sheets associated with the
Unique Natural Areas (UNA) of Tompkins County inventory. The UNA inventory is described further below.
The greatest threats to maintaining the diversity of plant species in the Town of Ithaca is the introduction of invasive
plant species and plant pests, habitat loss and degradation, and the impending changes due to climate change. The
UNA inventory, for instance, describes both Fleming Meadow and Larch Meadow as having been considered
botanically important sites, but due to filling and disturbance of the wetlands they are now considered much less
botanically interesting.
Wildlife
No comprehensive fish and wildlife surveys have been completed for the Town; however, predictions based on habitat
types can be made. As described in the Vegetation section above, the Town contains a mosaic of land use and
vegetation types. This mosaic includes large tracts of undeveloped areas of deciduous forests, coniferous forests,
mixed forests, forest plantations, wetlands, brush, and grasslands, as well as agriculture and transitional areas. This
variety translates to different habitat types that can support a wide variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, and
amphibians. The New York State Gap Analysis Project (GAP) produced a database and final report in 2001 that
describes land cover types with corresponding predicted distributions of native species of terrestrial vertebrate species.
These distribution data were developed based on knowledge of species habitat requirements and illustrate how the
diversity of vegetation types and land use equates to habitat and animal-species occurrences.41
For many wildlife species, another important component is the presence of biological corridors. Biological corridors
serve as thoroughfares that allow for the safe passage of wildlife species between fragmented habitats. These are
routes along which wide-ranging animals can travel, plants can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations
can move in response to environmental changes and threatened species can be replenished from other areas. As
development increases, biological corridors become more important for wildlife movements. In the Town of Ithaca,
there are several areas that contain relatively long contiguous stretches of undeveloped land that potentially serve as
biological corridors. One in particular is Buttermilk Falls State Park. Buttermilk Falls State Park is over 600 acres in
39 New York State Environmental Conservation Law, 6 NYCRR 193.3, protected native plants.
40 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Nature Explorer, http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/app/, accessed
11 August 2011.
41 A Gap Analysis of New York , United States Geologic Survey (USGS), January 2001.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐69
size and traverses both sides of Buttermilk
Creek for over two miles within the Town.
This north-south corridor continues south
into the Town of Danby, for almost
another two miles until it reaches the
headwaters of Buttermilk Creek. Many of
the Town’s other large stream systems have
similar qualities. The Cayuga Inlet and
Six Mile Creek are especially characteristic
of long, narrow, contiguous, mostly
undeveloped vegetative corridors that
likely function as biological passageways.
This characterization also includes the
valley hill slope along the western side of
Route 89. This largely undeveloped tract
of forest land extends from the City of
Ithaca municipal boundary, north through
the Town and beyond to the Town of
Ulysses. Within Ulysses the land becomes
a mix of forest and agricultural land with some interspersed development along with several extensive forested tracts.
including the Cayuga Nature Center and Taughannock Falls State Park.
The State of New York owns all fish, wildlife, and protected insects in the state, except for those that are licensed to
be held in private ownership. The legal management and protection of wildlife is specified by state statute in Article
11 and 13 of the Environmental Conservation Law of New York, known as the Fish and Wildlife Law. Section 11-
0535 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR (New York Code of Rules and Regulations) Part 182
lists categories of endangered, threatened, and species of special concern in New York State. As described above
with plant species, the NYS DEC and NYS Heritage Program maintains a database of threatened, endangered, and
rare species known to exist in the state, accessible to the public on the NYS DEC Nature Explorer webpage.
Increasing human populations and development place a significant stress on our native wildlife populations. Land
that was once habitat for wildlife species continues to be converted for residential and commercial uses, roads, and
other types of uses. The development of land and related activities affect both the quantity and quality of wildlife
habitat. Loss of habitat represents the single greatest impact to wildlife. All species require certain habitat features to
survive; development typically eliminates or significantly changes habitat value. Habitat fragmentation is another
significant impact, though it’s often a gradual progression, which makes it a less obvious consequence of
development. Fragmentation occurs as large tracts of the natural landscape are steadily developed and subdivided
until only patches of original habitat remain. Theses patches are often too small and too far apart to support the basic
survival and reproductive needs of many wildlife species during the various stages of their lifecycle or in different
times of the year. Roads are a particularly destructive element of the habitat fragmentation process; roads disrupt
passage across the disturbed area, increase mortality, and provide an entrance for exotic species and predators.
Species that require connections between habitat types to complete stages in their life cycles cannot survive if these
connections are broken. For example, wood frogs and salamanders require wetlands for breeding and must have
adjacent woodlands for their adult stage. Animals such as the wood thrush, cerulean warbler, and red-shouldered
hawk that rely on large unbroken tracts of forest can become vulnerable when such forest lands are broken up.
Reptiles and amphibians are especially susceptible to being killed while crossing roads.
Human activity can also introduce changes to the surrounding environment that can negatively affect natural habitat.
The introduction of domestic pets can have a profound effect on wildlife, especially cats, which often prey excessively
Deer, South Hill Recreation Way.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐70
on wildlife, especially bird populations. Changes in light also affect some species' behavioral and biological rhythms;
nocturnal species, particularly birds, can become disoriented by nighttime lighting.
Unique Natural Areas
The Environmental Management Council of Tompkins County developed an inventory of Unique Natural Areas
(UNAs) in the county. UNAs are areas identified as having outstanding environmental qualities such as containing
locally or regionally rare or scarce animal and plant species or plant communities, important habitats, and significant
geologic features. Designations are based on the work of ecologists, botanists, animal scientists, geologists, and
wetland specialists who surveyed the sites on foot, an adjacent property or road, or using topographic maps and aerial
photography. The UNA inventory was started in 1973, greatly expanded in 1990, and revised in 2000. The UNA is
not a regulatory designation; its purpose is to identify environmentally significant areas so municipalities can make
informed choices about development in or near those areas, and encourage their conservation or preservation. 3,161
acres in the Town designated as UNAs have been zoned as C - Conservation.
There are 27 UNAs in the Town of Ithaca, covering about 4,100 acres. The Unique Natural Areas and Critical
Environmental Area map shows UNAs in the Town, as well as the Town’s one Critical Environmental Area along Coy
Glen. The following table lists the area of UNAs in the Town. More information about each UNA can be found in
the Unique Natural Areas of Tompkins County (revised January 2000).
Unique Natural Areas (UNAs) | Town of Ithaca
UNA Area
Beebe Lake Woods and Gorge 24 ac
Bull Pasture Ponds 33 ac
Buttermilk Creek Gorge and Inlet 572 ac
Calkins Road Glen 157 ac
Cascadilla Gorge 7 ac
Cascadilla Woods and Fish Ponds 61 ac
Cayuga Inlet Floodplain 182 ac
Coy Glen 288 ac
Culver Creek Ravine 186 ac
DEC Mapped Wetland 35 ac
Eldridge Preserve 131 ac
Enfield Glen 252 ac
Fall Creek Valley 156 ac
Flaming Meadows 31 ac
Hawthorn Forest 51 ac
Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes 225 ac
Larch Meadows 39 ac
Lick Brook and Inlet Valley Slopes 263 ac
McGowan Woods 26 ac
Mundy Wildflower Garden 25 ac
Negundo Woods 17 ac
Newman Tract 8 ac
Palmer Woods 44 ac
Renwick Slope 67 ac
Sapsucker Woods Bird Sanctuary 109 ac
Six Mile Creek Valley 1027 ac
South Hill Swamp 70 ac
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐71
Unique Natural Areas and Critical Environmental Areas | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐72
Critical Environmental Area
Coy Glen was designated in 1976 by the Ithaca Town Board as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). While
currently the only CEA, the Town is considering the designation for several other significant areas of the Town. State
Environmental Quality Review regulation (6 NYCRR 617.14(g)) allows local municipalities to designate specific
geographic areas within their boundaries as CEAs. To be so designated, an area must have an exceptional or unique
character covering one or more of the following: (1) a benefit or threat to human health; (2) a natural setting (e.g.,
fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space, and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); (3)
agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational, or educational values; or (4) an inherent ecological,
geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change.
State law requires that designation of a CEA be preceded by a written public notice and a public hearing. According
to State law, once designated, potential impact of any Type I or Unlisted Action on the environmental characteristics
of the CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated during the SEQR process. In
addition, Town Code, Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review, requires any Unlisted action taking place in or
within 250 feet of any CEA to be classified as a Type I Action.
B.4.7 Aesthetics and visual quality
The Town’s rich glacial history has endowed it with a landscape of deep carved valleys, rolling hills, and long
ridgelines. Nestled among the hills surrounding the City of Ithaca and the southern tip of Cayuga Lake, the Town
retains much of its rural character despite it close proximity to the City and increasing development pressures.
Forest-clad hillside and panoramic views of agricultural fields and woodlands enhances the areas visual appeal, as do
the cultural surroundings including the many historic buildings and institutional landmarks. Together these give the
Town its scenic beauty which in turn reflects the community’s character and contributes to a “sense of place.”
View from the Ithaca Country Club.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐73
The Town’s Scenic Resource Inventory and Analysis report (dated May 12, 2014) inventoried and analyzed 35 views
including the views from the New York State-recognized Forest Home Drive Scenic Byway and the Cayuga Lake
Scenic Byway on Route 89. The inventory followed the work of the Town’s Scenic Resources Committee (a
committee of the Conservation Board) which catalogued 33 views and then developed five factors to evaluate them.
Three of the factors were based on composition (distinctiveness, quality, and appeal). The other two factors were
practical considerations, and included how many people would see the view and how easily a view could be
preserved. Once the evaluation was complete, the Scenic Resources Committee presented ten of their highest scoring
views to the public with a Town Hall exhibition during April and May of 2007 and an insert published in the April
2007 Town of Ithaca newsletter mailed to Town residents. Public feedback was encouraged in the newsletter, with
ballot forms for voting on favorite views in the lobby and on the Town’s website. Maps of selected scenic viewpoints
with a recommended route for touring the views were also made available in the Town Hall lobby.
The subsequent Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis report builds on this initial effort, and advances the goal of
protecting the Town scenic resources by outlining and describing possible regulations and programs that the Town
should consider in establishing a protection program for scenic resources. While the Town currently has several
zoning and site plan regulations in place that help to mitigate impacts to views from development projects, these
planning tools are fairly limited and do not provide a proactive comprehensive means of protecting views. To achieve
a more proactive approach the report recommends the Town consider implementing several situation dependent tools
such as regulations applied to specific zoning overlay districts, conservation zoning, tree ordinances, and conservation
easements or land acquisition. Especially important scenic views identified in the Town are summarized in the
following table.
Important scenic views | Town of Ithaca
Danby Road/State Route 96
Danby Road pullout, just south of
Bella Vista Lane in front of Longview, a
residential senior retirement
community.
This gateway view is perhaps the best
public view of Cayuga Lake from any
of the hills in the Town of Ithaca. The
Lake is at its southern‐most point and
extends nearly into the horizon before
it curves around West Hill.
Pine Tree Road
Across the street from the
intersection of Snyder Hill Road with
Pine Tree Road.
This is perhaps the most natural and
most expansive view in the Town of
Ithaca looking west. The view is
largely intact and the sparse
development that appears in the
distance is not enough to detract from
it.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐74
Important scenic views | Town of Ithaca
Sandbank Road
One of several long stretches of scenic
views seen along the road.
This road meanders down the hill
through open areas and Buttermilk
Falls State Park. This largely intact
view overlooks the Bostwick Road
farms, some of the last working farms
in Ithaca, nestled within the wooded
landscape. It is a reflection of Ithaca’s
historic character.
East Shore Park/State Route 34B
East Shore Park on East Shore Drive,
across the street from Cornell’s Lake
Source Cooling building.
Cayuga Lake and the view from the
lake is a defining experience of the
Finger Lakes region. Tompkins County
Scenic Inventory identified this view
from East Shore Park as one of the 25
Distinctive views throughout the
County. East Shore Park is also the
Town of Ithaca’s only public access
point to Cayuga Lake.
Sheffield Road
There are several viewpoints between
the intersections with Mecklenburg
Road and Hayts Road.
This road represents the ridgeline of
West Hill as seen from the Cayuga
Lake valley. The road also features a
wide variety of farms, which open the
area up to provide for clear views to
the East for miles around. Distant
hanging deltas and truncated spurs
are part of the landforms created by
glacier action in previous ice ages.
Mecklenburg Road/State Route 79
Many points along Mecklenburg
Road, looking east.
One of many eye‐catching views from
West Hill’s Route 79; as farm fields
give way to the city sights as one
begins descending toward the valley
floor.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐75
Important scenic views | Town of Ithaca
Along Taughannock Boulevard/State
Route 89
This intimate westward view captures
Williams Glen Creek emerging from a
rustic culvert under the former Lehigh
Valley Railroad, splashing down
bedrock shale near Cass Park. This
small gorge is one of seven similar
streams observed as one travels along
the road.
Bostwick Road
Bostwick Road has many scenic
stretches.
This view from Bostwick Road, with
farm fields in the foreground and
Newfield hills in the distance, is one of
many in a variety of directions.
Wooded hillsides on the south‐west
bank of Inlet Valley, farm fields off
Sandbank Road and Buttermilk Falls
can all be seen from Bostwick Road.
Trumansburg Road/State Route 96
On the east side of the road the grand
lawns of the former Odd Fellows
building (now includes the Museum
of the Earth and Finger Lakes School
of Massage).
The Odd Fellows buildings are
treasured land marks, providing a
unique character and historic context
to the area.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐76
B.5 Energy and climate protection
Climate change is one of the most
urgent, pressing issues faced by the global
community. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), global GHG emissions resulting
from human activities have grown since pre-
industrial times, with an increase of 70%
between 1970 and 2004. The IPCC is the
leading international body for the assessment
of climate change. Thousands of scientists
from all over the world contribute to the work
of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Since
1750, global atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases have significantly increased
as a result of human activities, and now far
exceed pre-industrial values. Most of the
observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-made) GHG concentrations. Although the Earth’s
climate has changed throughout history, never before have we seen such significant disruptions to the systems that
make life on Earth possible.
According to the IPCC, human influences have:
“Very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century.”
“Likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns.”
“Likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days.”
“More likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of
heavy precipitation events.”
(Source: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html)
With its April 2009 resolution to participate in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
“Climate Smart Communities Initiative,” the Ithaca Town Board recognized that climate change is a threat not only
globally, but also locally, and likely to affect our water supply, food sources, infrastructure, sensitive ecosystems,
economy, and quality of life. The Town Board resolved to promote sustainability, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and adapt to climate change by implementing the following strategies:
Reduce GHG emissions from Town operations and in the community.
• Gather data on current GHG emissions from Town operations, as well as throughout the Town at large.
• Set GHG emissions reduction goals for Town operations.
• Develop and implement an Energy Action Plan to decrease Town government’s energy demand and achieve
reduction goals.
• Pursue renewable energy sources at Town government facilities.
Reduce solid waste generation and disposal and enhance recycling strategies in Town government facilities as
well as throughout the Town.
Implement land use planning that supports Smart Growth principles and GHG emissions reductions.
Assess risks and develop a climate adaptation plan for Town operations and within the Town at large.
Concentration of greenhouse gases: 0 AD to 2005 AD
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐77
As the first step in the process, the Government Operations GHG Emissions Inventory was initiated to assist the
Town in understanding the scope and nature of the challenges we face in reducing our impacts. Completed in April
2011 using 2009 data, the inventory revealed the largest sources of emissions and the most expensive energy
consumers within Town buildings, fleet, and infrastructure:
GHG emissions and energy costs by sector
Fleet
23%
Employee commute
3%Buildings
6%
Streetlights
and signals
3%
Water
45%
Wastewater
20%
GHG emissions
Wastewater
27%
Water
45%
Streetlights
and signals
3%
Buildings
6%
Employee commute
12%
Fleet
7%
Energy costs
The above figure illustrates the proportion of GHG emissions resulting from the Town of Ithaca’s government
operations, broken down into six sectors.42 Water treatment is by far the largest source of emissions in the Town,
comprising nearly half of the total emissions. The vehicle fleet and wastewater treatment facility are also significant
contributors to overall emissions in the Town’s operations. The figure also illustrates the costs associated with
powering, heating, cooling, and fueling the Town’s operations. This reveals that water treatment, wastewater
treatment, employee commute43 and vehicle fleet are the biggest expenses for the Town when it comes to energy. The
conclusions drawn from these data inform our next steps and prioritize actions. The biggest opportunities to save
money and reduce emissions are clearly within the water treatment, wastewater treatment and vehicle fleet sectors.
Efforts focused in these areas will yield the greatest return on any investment, whether through energy efficiency
upgrades, alternative fuel usage, renewable energy installation, or energy conservation policies.
These data guided the Town Board in setting emissions reduction targets for both the long- and short-terms, and
provided the foundation for the Energy Action Plan. The Town Board considered actions already planned, and
weighed the impacts of proposed actions before coming to agreement on ambitious, yet achievable emissions
reduction targets. Recognizing that all sectors of the community, especially the local government, must accept
responsibility for their share of reducing emissions and the risks associated with climate change, the Town Board
endorsed the following GHG emissions reduction goals for its government operations:
80% reduction below 2009 levels by 2050
30% reduction below 2009 levels by 2020
The 2020 Energy Action Plan, which is available for download on the Town of Ithaca’s website, was adopted by the
Town Board in October 2011 and provides a clear roadmap of the activities and measures that should be
42 The wastewater treatment facility, which is an intermunicipal system, entered into a 20‐year energy performance contract in 2010 and
will undergo significant improvements starting in 2011 to lower energy costs, and emissions over the long term.
43 Employee commute is not considered an expense to the Town, but is included in the inventory because local governments often have
opportunities to reduce emissions associated with employee commuting, such as encouraging and incentivizing alternatives to driving
to work alone.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐78
implemented to achieve GHG emissions reduction goals. A summary of these recommended measures by sector,
and their contribution towards the interim reduction target is as follows:
Water treatment
Energy efficiency improvements to water treatment system
Promote water conservation practices amongst residents
Wastewater treatment
Energy efficiency improvements to wastewater treatment facility
Energy efficiency improvements to wastewater pumping stations
Vehicle fleet
Use biodiesel (B20) as fuel source for vehicles
Limit idling of heavy duty trucks and other vehicles
Reduce vehicle fleet mileage
Optimize fleet and vehicle size
Maintain and repair vehicles regularly
Buildings and facilities
“Lights out” policy (electricity conservation)
Increase chiller efficiency
Efficient lighting retrofits
Energy efficient computer hardware (computers, printers, monitors)
Reflective roofing
HVAC fan upgrades
Increase boiler efficiency
Municipal green building policy
Streetlights and traffic signals
Replace streetlights with efficient lamps
Evaluate lighting districts and remove unnecessary lights
Install LED lamps in town-owned lights
Renewables
Purchase 10% of electricity from Renewable Energy Certificates (REC’s)
Solar power purchase agreement
Given that government operations constitute only 2% of the Town of Ithaca’s community-wide emissions, the Town
of Ithaca determined that it was critical to complete a Community GHG Emissions Inventory. The inventory details
emissions:
The following chart illustrates the proportion of total town-wide community GHG emissions associated with the
various sectors. Transportation is by far the single largest source of emissions within the Town of Ithaca (44% of
total emissions). Buildings, however, when combined from the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial sectors are
responsible for more than half of total emissions (53%). The Town can use this information to engage the public in
an effort similar to the Town’s to develop GHG emissions reduction goals, and to develop and implement an Energy
Action Plan. These data also have important implications for the Town’s land use planning and policy development,
given the authority the Town has to regulate and guide future development. With 97% of Townwide emissions
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐79
coming from transportation and buildings, the Town can adopt policies and implement programs to reduce vehicle
miles traveled and automobile dependence, create more walkable, livable neighborhoods, require greener, more
efficient buildings, and promote energy conservation amongst residents.
GHG emissions by sector | Town of Ithaca
Waste
2%
Transportation
44%
Industrial
4%
Government
32%
Residential
17%
Agriculture
1%
Robust data, ambitious goals, and well-articulated plans can only go so far in helping the Town achieve its energy and
sustainability objectives over the long-term. Without a centralized sustainability department or permanent staff
devoted to energy and climate change programs and projects, it is essential that the Town identify who will be
responsible for carrying out specific energy and climate change actions to meet the goals, and that the Town devote
resources to these areas. In addition to devoted staff time and resources to carry out the energy and climate change
goals, actions, and plans, the Town should also take the lead in establishing an Energy Action Committee. This
committee should be comprised of local community members and experts, and should guide the implementation of
the Town’s energy, climate change, and sustainability plans, goals, and actions. Critical to the success of these stated
goals is a commitment to tracking and evaluating the outcomes of various action items and goals to ensure
effectiveness and clarify the best path forward. Once the Town has identified responsible departments and individuals
for each goal and their related actions, those point people will report annually to the Town Board on their progress. It
is anticipated that the goals and actions will evolve continuously over the years, and the annual report can serve as an
opportunity to check in, reevaluate, and add or omit focus areas to reflect the needs and interests of the Town.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐80
B.6 Agriculture
Nelson Eddy farm
Before World War II, agriculture was a major economic sector and the predominant land use in the Town of Ithaca.
Despite the formidable barriers to farming presented by terrain, soils, and climate, the Town produced and exported
significant amounts of wheat and other agriculture products beginning around 1800. Throughout the 19th century,
potatoes, hay, tobacco, grain, fruit, and dairy and meat products were sent to market from the numerous farms
dotting East Hill, South Hill, Inlet Valley, and West Hill.
Although agriculture in the Town has declined since the end of World War II, it is still the predominant land use in
several portions of the Town. Farming areas are concentrated in the western part of the Town along the borders of
Enfield and Ulysses and extend in places into these other towns. Portions of South Hill also are actively farmed, and
Cornell University uses areas of East Hill for agricultural research and teaching.
Farmland, and the farmers who work the land, contribute to the well-being of all Town residents. In addition to the
direct contribution to the local economy through production and employment, local farmers also make significant
indirect contributions to the local economy through the purchase of equipment and supplies and through their
relatively low demands on costly public infrastructure. The rural character of the Town—enjoyed by Town residents
and essential to the local tourist industry—is provided largely by local farmers and State Parks. Perhaps most
importantly, farmers in the Town of Ithaca have established a tradition of stewardship of the land and its resources.
Agriculture in the Town of Ithaca reflects agriculture in the region. Even though the number of farms is relatively
small, agriculture in the Town is surprisingly diverse, in both types of operations and their longevity. Enterprises
include dairies, vineyards and wineries, direct-marketed produce (via area farmers markets, U-pick tree-fruit and
berry crops, farm markets, or roadside stands), field crops, forest crops, landscaping and nursery stock, Christmas
trees, greenhouses, horses, beef, chickens, fiber products, and even a “corn maze sound garden.” There are newly
developing farm operations, farms that have been operating 20 to 50 years, and several multigenerational farms.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐81
There are approximately 3,412 acres of agricultural land in the Town of Ithaca (including Cornell University
agricultural lands): 2,832 actively farmed acres and 580 fallow acres. Approximately 2,533 acres receive an
agricultural property-tax assessment. Of the 2,533 acres receiving agricultural assessment, 1,058 acres (42%) are
rented to farmers. This is evidence that rural landowners value the opportunity to keep land in agriculture and enjoy
the tax benefit of agricultural assessment, but in some cases the owner farms some of the land and another farmer
uses the rest. However, this also points out that should landowners decide not to rent land to farmers, it could have a
significant impact on the farm operation specifically and on the amount of farming in general in the Town.
Agricultural operations range from start-ups, to family-run only, to farm businesses employing seasonal and/or year-
around help. Most of the farms (among those whose owners were interviewed as part of the development of the
Town’s Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan) employ many farm-family members, including 14 full-time and
30 part-time positions in all. These farms also have paid non-family staff providing a total of 13 full-time and nine
part-time year-round jobs and 15 full-time and 10 part-time seasonal jobs (seasons range from a few to nine months).
Farm size is not an indicator of economic viability; some of the medium-sized farms are being worked just enough to
keep the land open, meet the criteria for agricultural assessment, pay taxes, and provide some money for
reinvestment. Some of the smaller operations have the highest sales and employ the most people. Six farms report
six-figure annual gross incomes; two gross close to or over $1 million annually. As reported during the interviews in
2009, using the high sides of ranges given, the total value of agricultural products is approximately $4,431,000.
Town agriculture is not isolated within the Town’s boundaries; several operations cross borders into neighboring
towns (Danby, Dryden, Enfield, and Ulysses). In one case, Town of Ithaca land supports a landscaping business in
Lansing. This illustrates the need to consider a regional approach to farm and agricultural-land preservation and to
work with adjacent municipalities whenever possible.
Cornell University, through many of its colleges and departments, has a large agricultural presence on East Hill in the
Town of Ithaca. Cornell has various teaching and research facilities related to agriculture, provides services to local
farmers (veterinary care, research, resource for questions, etc.), and supports local agriculture through purchasing and
selling agricultural products (hay, fruits, compost, etc.) and purchasing materials and equipment locally.
The Town of Ithaca adopted the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (AFPP) in November 2011 which
outlines ways the Town and other organizations can help to support and encourage agriculture in the Town. The
AFPP can be found in Appendix I, which provides additional background information on agriculture in the Town
along with specific goals and recommendations and implementation steps.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐82
B.7 Parks and recreation system
The Town of Ithaca’s park needs are served
by a variety of both private and public
facilities. These facilities include many
neighborhood parks, one developed
community park, six nature preserves, several
multi-use trails, and numerous walkways.
Existing Town parks provide a range of
recreational facilities including play
structures, ballfields, playfields, sledding hills,
picnic areas, gazebos, pavilions, nature trails,
and a community garden in one undeveloped
Town park. The multiuse trails and walkways
provide off-street alternatives for joggers,
bikers, and walkers, as well as commuting
paths to work, school or shopping.
The Ithaca area is also fortunate in having
two large City parks, four State parks, Village parks, and the open areas of Cornell University and Ithaca College,
Finger Lakes Land Trust lands and other public and private recreational facilities in the Town or nearby. Two of the
State parks, Buttermilk Falls State Park and Robert H. Treman State Park, are located within the Town of Ithaca.
B.7.1 Parks
The Town of Ithaca Public Works Department maintains a system of close-to-home space44 consisting of ten
neighborhood parks, one community park, and several undeveloped park sites. These parks provide a range of
recreational facilities including play structures, ballfields, playfields, grills, picnic tables, park benches, and walking
trails. Among its many duties, the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department is responsible for building and
maintaining parks and trails. The Public Works Department also maintains the playfield at the private Coddington
Road Community Center, which is open to the public.
Nearby communities (such as the City of Ithaca, Town of Lansing, and Village of Lansing) have park facilities which
may be used by Town of Ithaca residents. The Town of Lansing Community Center, for example, is an important
youth soccer and football facility for all of Tompkins County. City facilities include the Cass Park’s ice rink, tennis
courts, swimming pool, athletic fields, and picnic and play area complex; Stewart Park’s extensive lakefront, picnic
facilities, boathouse, tennis courts, playgrounds, and walking trails; the nearby Newman Municipal Golf Course (9
hole); and walking paths at Fuertes Bird Sanctuary and the Mulholland Wildflower Preserve at Six Mile Creek.
Numerous institutional and private recreational facilities are available to Town residents with memberships or for a
fee. These facilities, while part of the Town’s many recreational offerings, should not be considered as facilities open
to the public. Nonetheless, they are an important element of this inventory because they are a significant recreational
resource for the town’s student population, which makes up 40% of the whole.
44 The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) classifies “close‐to‐home space” as parks within easy walking distance of one’s
home (half mile or less) that serve parts or all of a neighborhood, including mini‐parks, neighborhood parks, and community or park
areas. Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, 1997.
Eastern Heights Park.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐83
Parks and trails | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐84
In addition to athletic facilities, Cornell University maintains large amounts of open space that is used for informal
recreational pursuits. The Cornell Plantations offer numerous opportunities for walking, hiking, biking, sledding, and
skiing. Off-season use of the University’s Robert Trent Jones Golf Course is high among cross-country skiers.
Schools in the Ithaca City School District (ICSD) provide facilities available for use by residents, but public use is
limited to times when they are not being used by classes or sports teams. An exception is the exercise trail at DeWitt
Middle School, which was built and maintained by the Town as a public facility. Ithaca High School and Boynton
Middle School offer a running track, athletic fields, tennis courts, baseball and softball fields, and a swimming pool
(at Ithaca High School). Northeast Elementary School and Cayuga Heights Elementary School have playgrounds,
which to some extent serve as surrogate parks and relieve the need to develop neighborhood parks in those areas.
The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYS OPRHP) operates two state parks in
the Town. The 646-acre Buttermilk Falls State Park encompasses Buttermilk Creek Gorge, Lake Treman, and
wetlands in Inlet Valley. Robert H. Treman State Park covers 291 acres in the Town of Ithaca and about 790 acres in
the Town of Enfield. Both state parks have ballfields and facilities for camping, swimming, hiking, and picnicking.
The City of Ithaca contains Allan H. Treman State Marine Park, which encompasses some 75 acres of undeveloped
woods, wetlands, and lakefront and offers boat launching facilities, 430 boat slips, and picnic areas.45
Town parks | Town of Ithaca
Park Area
Coddington Road Community Center Playfield 11.74 ac
Compton Park (undeveloped) 2.91 ac
East Shore Park 0.29 ac
Eastern Heights Park 15.24 ac
Grandview Park 2.65 ac
Hungerford Heights Park 1.2 ac
Northview Park 1.12 ac
Park (undeveloped) at East King Road and Saunders Road 1.78 ac
Park (undeveloped) at Perry Lane 1.98 ac
Salem Park 3.14 ac
Saponi Meadows Park (undeveloped) 8.20 ac
Tareyton Park 2.10 ac
Troy Park 4.87 ac
Tudor Park 2.22 ac
Tutelo Park 8.1 ac
Vincenzo Iacovelli Park 5.39 ac
West Hill Park (undeveloped park with West Hill Community Garden )21.71 ac
Woolf Park (undeveloped) 1.63 ac
Total park area 96.95 ac
Other parks | Town of Ithaca
Park Area
Buttermilk Falls State Park 646.00 ac
Cayuga Heights Park (Village of Cayuga Heights) 1.26 ac
Robert H Treman State Park 291.55 ac
Sunset Heights Park (Village of Cayuga Heights) 1.85 ac
Total park area 940.66 ac
45 New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 2011. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/35/details.aspx
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐85
B.7.2 Preserves
The six preserves in the Town of Ithaca (listed below) are a relatively new point of focus for the Town. The preserves
consist of a mix of habitat types that support a wide range of plants and animals. The Dress Woods Preserve and
Gerda Knegtmans’s Glen are located in the Culver Creek Ravine and Woods (UNA-140), and are completely
forested. In general, the preserves are managed on a passive basis, including infrequent mowing of paths, reduction
of invasive species, annual posting of the property lines, maintaining a walkable trail surface as appropriate, and
clean-up of storm damage as necessary. The Town will not be developing these preserves for active uses and many of
them have deed restrictions outlining their future uses with the intention that those parcels remain ‘forever wild’.
Town preserves | Town of Ithaca
Park Area
Dress Woods Preserve 11.72 ac
East Ithaca Nature Preserve 27.89 ac
Glenside Preserve 7.08 ac
Gerda Knegtman’s Glen Preserve 11.20 ac
Pine Tree Wildlife Preserve 14.15 ac
Westhaven Preserve 10.71 ac
Total preserve area 82.75 ac
B.7.3 Trails and walkways
The Town owns and maintains approximately
seven miles of off-road multi-use trails that
provide safe and quiet paths for jogging,
strolling, bicycling, horseback riding, and
cross-country skiing. Portions of the South
Hill Recreation Way and East Ithaca
Recreation Way pass through attractive
woodland and meadows and afford local
residents convenient access to high quality
natural settings. The Town’s multiuse trails
provide important commuter alternatives for
pedestrians and bicyclists. The southern half
of the East Ithaca Recreation Way connects
the Pine Tree Road/Honness
Lane/Grandview residential area with
Cornell University, and is heavily used by
bicycle and pedestrian commuters. The
Northeast Trail is a popular offroad
commuter route for students walking and
bicycling from the residential area east of
Warren Road to DeWitt Middle School and
Northeast Elementary School. Interwoven in
this trail system are the Lisa Lane, Sandra
Place, and Forest Home Walkways, which
offer attractive linkages within their
neighborhoods and afford a convenient
commuter route to the Triphammer Northeast Ithaca Recreation Way.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐86
commercial centers. The South Hill Recreation Way also serves, to a limited extent, as a commuter route between
South Hill residential areas, Ithaca College, and downtown.
Cornell University maintains the Plantations Path (a unique seven-mile network of self-guided walkways, roads and
paths on the University’s land). The Plantations Path begins at the Treman Triangle in the City of Ithaca, winds
eastward through Cascadilla Gorge, crosses the Cornell Campus, circles Beebe Lake, and wanders through the
Cornell Plantations’ botanical gardens and natural areas until it ends at the Newman overlook in Cornell’s
arboretum. Both ends of the Path connect with other regional walking trails, including the Circle Greenway in
downtown Ithaca and the Cayuga Trail hiking path along Fall Creek.
Trails and walkways | Town of Ithaca
Name Type Length (ft) Length (mi)
Chase Lane Walkway connector 2077'0.4 mi
Dewitt Exercise Trail local 2061'0.4 mi
East Ithaca Recreation Way connector 19,235'2.9 mi
Forest Home Walkway local 545'0.1 mi
Honness Lane Walkway connector 1,222'0.5 mi
Judd Falls Road Walkway connector 1,507'0.1 mi
Lisa Lane Walkway local 514'0.1 mi
Maple Ave Walkway connector 2,344'0.4 mi
Mitchell Street Walkway connector 2,581'0.5 mi
Northeast Ithaca Recreation Way connector 2,752'0.5 mi
Pine Tree Walkway connector 1,732'0.4 mi
Pleasant Grove Walkway connector 1,735'0.3 mi
Sandra Place Walkway local 277'0.05 mi
Texas Lane Walkway local 458'0.1 mi
South Hill Recreation Way connector 18,042'3.4 mi
Summerhill/East Hill Plaza Walkway local 236'0.04 mi
Warren Road Walkway connector 3,743’0.7mi
Winner Circle Trail local 324'0.06 mi
Winthrop Walkway connector 3,122'0.6 mi
Gateway Trail (proposed / undeveloped)
Michigan Hill Trail (proposed / undeveloped)
Peachtree Lane Walkway (proposed / undeveloped)
Perry Lane Walkway (proposed / undeveloped)
Sanctuary Drive Walkway (proposed / undeveloped)
Woolf/Evergreen Trail (proposed / undeveloped)
Total length 11.55 mi
B.7.4 Recreational services
The Town of Ithaca is a partner of Recreation Partnership, which provides youth recreation programs and services to
municipal partners throughout Tompkins County. These youth programs are administered through the City of Ithaca
Youth Bureau, and the Town provides funding to the Youth Bureau in return. Recreation Partnership offers many
fun and educational opportunities for youth in the Town of Ithaca such as soccer leagues, karate classes, and summer
camps.
The Town contracts with the Coddington Road Community Center, primarily for summer camps and childcare
services, and Life Long for senior recreational programs. The Town also provides funding to Cass Park to encourage
use by Town residents.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐87
In addition to organized adult and youth sports leagues, Town residents may also participate in recreational programs
through the YMCA, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, 4-H, Cayuga Nature Center, and other organizations. Seasonal
programs and summer camps are also offered at Cornell University and Ithaca College.
B.7.5 Future planning
As discussed above, the Town of Ithaca offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities for Town of Ithaca residents
and the Ithaca community. While the Town has made significant accomplishments to meet the recreation needs of
the individual neighborhoods and of the overall community, the Town needs to continue to address the recreational
needs of the growing population of the Town. There are several locations within the Town that have limited
convenient recreational facilities, and there are several types of recreational facilities that the Town may wish to
exploring adding or increasing.
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has standards for the amount of park and open space that is
recommended along with standards for specific types of facilities, all based on the communities population. The
1997 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan used these standards to outline the future needs for the Town, which should
be updated based on the new population numbers in the Town and current recreation trends.
As the Town continues to expand its recreational facilities, it is becoming a challenge for Town staff, with the
resources provided, to maintain everything. As the Town plans for and considers the development of future
recreational facilities, future maintenance and operating costs (equipment, personnel, materials, utilities, replacement
costs, etc.) should be considered as part of each project.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐88
B.8 Historical resources
B.8.1 Historical resources survey: structures and properties
Historic resources include structures and sites
and the historic environment in which they
exist. They serve as visual reminders of
Ithaca’s past, providing a link to our cultural
heritage and a better understanding of the
people and events that shaped the town’s
development. The Town of Ithaca is
fortunate to claim a number of resources of
historical importance within its boundaries,
including buildings on the Cornell University
campus, several neighborhoods, scores of
individual residential structures, and other
important landmarks such as abandoned
railroad corridors—some that have been
converted to multi-use trails—and former
Native American settlements.
The most recent survey of historical resources
in the Town of Ithaca was conducted by the
Historic Preservation Planning Workshop at
Cornell University. The scope of this project
was limited to above-ground historic
structures, and did not include prehistoric or
historical archaeological sites. The project
was conducted over a four year period (1997-2000) and utilized guidelines and survey forms adopted by the NYS
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the National Park Service. The project involved a
reconnaissance survey (“windshield survey”) to get a general picture of the distribution of types and styles of
buildings, structures, and neighborhoods representing different architectural styles and periods, followed by an
“intensive level survey” which involved in-depth archival research along with field work to document detailed
information about each historic property in the survey area. In general, structures that are a minimum of 50 years of
age are considered historic.
A total of 480 properties were surveyed as shown on Historical Resources Map. Information collected for each property
included: history of ownership, architectural description, identification of items of historic significance, additions and
alterations to the structure, a map and photograph. The following areas are represented in the survey:
86 properties in the southeast portion of Ithaca on Coddington Road, Danby Road, Mitchell Street, Hungerford
Hill Road, and Troy Road.
168 properties in the east and northeast portion of Ithaca on Slaterville Road, East Shore Drive, Warren Road,
Hanshaw Road, Renwick Place, Renwick Drive, and Renwick Heights Road.
112 properties in the southwestern portion of Ithaca on Stone Quarry Road., West King Road, Elmira Road,
Sand Bank Road, East Buttermilk Road, West Buttermilk Road, Seven Mile Drive, Enfield Falls Road, Gray
Road, Glenside Road, Coy Glen Road, and Five Mile Drive.
Former Grand Lodge of the International Order of Odd Fellows/Rebekah’s
Home, located on Trumansburg Road
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐89
115 properties in the northwestern portion of Ithaca on Coy Glen Road, West Haven Road, Elm Street, Five
Mile Drive, Indian Creek Road, Bostwick Road, Calkins Road, Hayts Road, Duboise Road, Bundy Road.,
Sheffield Road, and Mecklenburg Road.
Not included in the survey were a number of residences along Taughannock Boulevard where the buildings and
structures could only be studied and photographed from locations on the Lake or along shoreline. Also, the Village
of Cayuga Heights was not included in the project scope.
The Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey (September 2005) highlighted 28 “especially interesting” individual
properties (out of “scores” that were considered architecturally or historically significant) along with three clusters
(“districts”) of historic homes united by one or more themes as potentially significant. The report describes these
properties as being potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register is
the official list of cultural resources of significant historic or architectural merit. Authorized under the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support
public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources. This program is administered in
cooperation with the New York State Register of Historic Places. An owner interested in pursuing National Register
designation for their property must first work with the State Historic Preservation Officer to get it listed on the State
Register, which is required before listing on the National Register.
Currently there are four locations in the Town of Ithaca listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
This includes three sites and one district:
Forest Home Historic District, nominated to the State and National Registers in 1998, which encompasses 50
acres and includes 75 buildings and four structures.
Cornell University campus (within the Town), Rice and Wing Halls (part of the Agriculture Quad) listed in 1984.
Hayts Corner Chapel (Abolitionist Church) and Schoolhouse on the corner of Hayts and Trumansburg Roads
listed in 2006.
The New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) also maintains a broad range of information relating to
historic properties in the state. SHPO is another source of information on historic buildings, structures, and districts
and also includes information on historic sites and objects in the Town. The State Preservation Historical
Information Network Exchange (SPHINX) provides an electronic, program-wide database of SHPO records. It
identifies numerous properties in the town and provides a determination on many of them in terms of their eligibility
for listing on the National Register. In addition, in 1990, Historic Ithaca undertook an intensive level survey of
properties along Trumansburg Road/NY 96 in response to development pressure along that transportation corridor.
The National Register by itself does not provide any protection from alteration or demolition of a listed property,
though it can offer advantages in the form of certain tax provisions and incentives (i.e., grants) for preservation and
rehabilitation. The Town currently does not have a local historic preservation program. Such a program would be an
effective next step in taking the findings of the historic resource surveys and databases and establishing strategies to
protect and promote the Town’s historical resources. In 2011, the Town established a Limited Historic Commercial
Zone to encourage the retention and productive reuse of structures that have historic value. The floating zone allows
additional uses of historic properties not otherwise permitted under the base zoning. Property owners would still
need to apply for the rezoning and each request would undergo an examination to ensure that the proposed
commercial use would be appropriate and not negatively affect the neighborhood.
As a companion to the Cornell survey work, the Town also commissioned Historic Ithaca to write Historic Overview:
Town of Ithaca New York which serves as a useful reference concerning the Town’s history.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐90
B.8.2 Historical markers
In 1996, as part of the Town’s 175th anniversary, the Town purchased and installed 28 historic markers
commemorating the Town’s history. These maroon markers can be seen throughout the Town and describe historical
places and events.
Historical markers | Town of Ithaca
Name and location Type Subject
Town Hall Town of Ithaca
Formed March 15 1821 from portion of Town of
Ulysses. Nathan Herrick 1st Supervisor; Isaac Beers
1st Clerk. Original size 31 square miles.
Front Lawn of Village Hall, 836 Hanshaw Road Cayuga Heights
Incorporated in 1915. Begun 1901 by Ithaca
businessmen Jared Newman and Charles Blood as a
quality residential community.
Off East Shore Drive, south of NY 13 interchange Renwick Heights
Named for Revolutionary War veteran and early
settler Major James Renwick, whose Military Lot 88
encompassed much of the surrounding area.
Forest Home Drive, east of Pleasant Grove Road and
downstream bridge Forest Home
Settled in 1794. Known as Sidney's Mill, later Free
Hollow. 19th Century center of industry. Renamed
Forest Home in 1876
Forest Home Drive, west of downstream bridge and
The Byway Former Industry
Grist, saw, woolen, plaster and gunpowder mills,
foundry and furniture factory once tapped Fall Creek
waterpower here in Forest Home.
Judd Falls Road, ±1,000' north of Dryden Road/NY
366 Cornell University
New York's land grant university, founded in 1865 by
Ezra Cornell "where any person can find instruction
in any study"
Judd Falls Road, ±300' south of Tower Road
intersection Agriculture College Established in 1868 on Ezra Cornell's farm to realize
his vision for agricultural research and education
Caldwell Road, ±500' north of Dryden Road/NY 366 Veterinary College
In 1868 Cornell was the first U.S. university to teach
veterinary medicine. New York established the
college in 1894.
Pine Tree Road, 200' south of Dryden Road/NY 366 Judd Falls
Reuben Judd owned a waterpowered woolen mill
here from 1832 to 1858. Other nearby industry
included a lead pipe and a chair factory
Snyder Hill Road ±500' east of Pine Tree Road William and
Hannah Pew
In 1801 settled 600 acres that today comprise
Eastern Heights and vicinity. The Pine Tree/Snyder
Hill Road corner was once known as Pewtown.
Maple Avenue, ±1,300' east of Five Corners
intersection East Ithaca
Nearby was the East Ithaca railroad depot that
served Cornell and East Hill between 1876 and 1935,
and which gave this area its name.
Honness Lane, ±1,300' west of Pine Tree Road
Elmira Cortland
and Northern
Railroad
Formed in 1869, the Elmira Cortland and Northern
Railroad served Ithaca, Etna, Cortland,
Brooktondale, and Elmira. Absorbed by Lehigh
Valley Railroad in 1896
Coddington Road, ±1,500' east of Troy Road Ithaca and Owego
Railroad
Chartered 1828. Completed 1834. Among earliest
of New York railroads. Originally horses pulled trains
the 29 miles to and from Owego.
Danby Road/NY 96B, ±300' north of Ithaca College
entrance Ithaca College
Founded in 1892 as Ithaca Conservatory of Music.
Chartered as Ithaca College in 1931. Moved from
downtown Ithaca to South Hill campus in early
1960s.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐91
Historical markers | Town of Ithaca
Name and location Type Subject
Coy Glen Road, approx 1,000' west of Five Mile
Drive/NY 13A Glenside
Begun in 1928 by local contractor John Daley, who
named his new residential development Glenside
for its proximity to Coy Glen.
Bostwick Road, ±1,000' west of Five Mile Drive/NY
13A Tutelo Indians
In the 1700s the Tutelo settled Inlet Valley under
protection of the Cayuga Nation. The 1779 Sullivan
Raid drove then into Canada.
Seven Mile Drive, ±1,000 feet north of Elmira
Road/NY 13 Indian Path
From Coreorgonel over West Hill to Five Mile
(Enfield) Creek. then around Connecticut Hill and
Cayuga Lake to Cheoquagah, now Montour Falls.
East King Road, ±0.5 mile west of Troy Road Michigan Hill
Onetime name for this area. It parodied the
constant boasting by a local farmer about his plans
to move on to then frontier Michigan.
Trumansburg Road/NY 96, ±1,000' south of Dates
Drive Odd Fellows Home
Established in 1921 as home for aged and infirm
members of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows
or their orphans. Closed in 1977.
Trumansburg Road/NY 96, ±300' south of Hayts
Road Hayts Chapel
Built in 1847 as First Congregational Church of West
Hill. Was known as Abolition Church for the anti‐
slavery advocates among its leaders.
West Haven Road, ±2,000' south of Mecklenburg
Road/NY 79 Military Lots
New York State gave its Revolutionary War veterans
land as compensation for their service. 31 such lots
comprised the original Town of Ithaca.
East Buttermilk Falls Road, ±500' east of Elmira
Road/ NY 13 C.C.C. Co.1265
Between 1933 and 1941 men from Civilian
Conservation Corps Company 1265 built many of
the facilities at Buttermilk Falls and R.H. Treman
State Parks.
Burns Road, ±1,000' south of bridge over Six Mile
Creek Teegastoweas
Iroquois name for Six Mile Creek. Derived from
distance to Cascadilla Creek from place where
Warriors Path to Owego forded the stream.
Danby Road/NY 96B, ±500' north of Coddington
Road Incline Plane
Nearby was an incline plane that the Ithaca and
Owego Railroad used from 1828 to 1849 to haul
freight and passenger trains up and down South Hill
Enfield Falls Road/NY 327 opposite Gray Road Teeter Farm
In 1847 Isaac Teeter bought 112 acres of Military Lot
78. His descendents continue to farm this and other
portions of Lot 78 and adjacent Lot 77.
Enfield Falls Road/NY 327 ±1,000' west of Elmira
Road/NY 13 C.C.C. Co.1265
Between 1933 and 1941 men from Civilian
Conservation Corps Company 1265 built many of
the facilities at Buttermilk Falls and R.H. Treman
State Parks.
East Shore Drive/NY 34 ±0.75 mile north of NY 13
interchange Remington Point
From 1900 to 1921 Remington Salt Company
operated brine wells and processing plant at this
location. Salt was shipped by boat and railroad.
South Hill Recreation Way, ±300' west of Burns Road
Cayuga and
Susquehanna
Railroad
Built in 1849 to haul Pennsylvania anthracite coal to
canal at Ithaca. Later merged with Delaware
Lackawanna and Western Railroad. Abandoned in
1957.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐92
Historic resources | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐93
B.9 Transportation resources
A transportation system includes physical infrastructure, such as roads and walkways, as well as intangible aspects,
such as the government’s policies on transportation and transportation-related demographics. A transportation
network refers to physical infrastructure, like roadways and sidewalks. Many non-transportation related factors affect
the transportation system, including the history, geography, and demographics of an area and policies at the national,
state, regional, and local level.
B.9.1 Demographics and transportation
Demographics such as population distribution, household size, and age distribution affect the transportation system.
Trip generation rates are related to the number of persons per household, because small households tend to generate
more trips per person than larger households. This translates to more vehicle trips with lower vehicle occupancy.
According to the National Personal
Transportation Survey (1995) and the
National Household Travel Survey (2001),
the highest percentage of trips made by
Ithaca area residents are for family or
personal business, social or recreational
business, and work, in that order.
Residents travel the greatest number of
miles for weekend social or recreational
trips, followed by weekday or weekend
family or personal business and weekday
trips to earn a living. Finally, the average
length of a vehicle trip is longest for
earning a living during the week, or social
and recreational trips on the weekend.
The privately owned motor vehicle is the
most popular mode choice for Town of Ithaca residents, followed by walking. Between 1995 and 2001, however, the
percentage of trips made in private vehicle dropped from 83% to 70%, while the percentage of trips made on foot
increased from 11% to 15% and the percentage of trips made using public transit rose from 1.5% to almost 10%.
According to the American Community Survey (2006-2009), residents between the ages of 18 and 24 account for
nearly 36% of the Town’s population; not surprising, given the presence of Ithaca College and Cornell University.
According to statistics from the Census Bureau, students are more likely to walk and less likely to drive to work or to
school.
The American Community Survey shows that the total number of employees in Tompkins County was 52,609.
Nearly one in four people employed in Tompkins County live outside the county; 14,901 workers, or 24% of the
county workforce. This means that Tompkins County imports workers or commuters, and exports income, as
workers spend their income in their county of residence. The Town of Ithaca is home to many major employers
including Cornell University, the largest employer in the County. To get to work, or to move from one side of Cayuga
Lake to the other, commuters must pass through the Town and City of Ithaca. The Town’s unique circumstances—as
a doughnut with the City in the center—mean that Town planners have little control over much of the development
that creates traffic on its roads.
Forest Home.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐94
For more information about the demographic and transportation profile of Town residents, refer to the Town of
Ithaca 2007 Transportation Plan.
B.9.2 Metropolitan Planning Organization
The Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC) is designated as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County as a whole. All urbanized areas with a
population of greater than 50,000 people are required by the federal government to be represented by an MPO. The
ITCTC is charged with facilitating county-wide transportation planning and works jointly and cooperatively with all
transportation-related agencies in Tompkins County.46
A primary responsibility of the ITCTC is preparing and updating three critical documents on a regular basis: a Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and a Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). These three documents are critical because the US Department of Transportation will only allocate
transportation funds to MPOs which engage in this planning process.
Transportation Improvement Program
The TIP identifies the agreed-upon timing and funding of all specific transportation projects scheduled for
implementation in the Ithaca metropolitan area over a five-year period for which Federal funds are anticipated.
Projects outlined in the TIP must be consistent with goals and objectives identified in the current Long Range
Transportation Plan for the region. The TIP must be updated and adopted by the ITCTC at least every four years.47
Town of Ithaca’s projects in the 2011-2015 TIP include: improvements to Hanshaw Road from the Village of Cayuga
Heights border to Sapsucker Woods Road; construction of the Gateway Trail; and the planning and design of the
reconstruction of NY 13 from NY 13A to NY 327.48
B.9.3 Existing road network
Official highway map and road network design
The Town of Ithaca is shaped like a square with a hole in it. The City of Ithaca is in the center, and the remainder of
the County surrounds the perimeter. This means that much of the traffic in the Town is traveling into or out of the
City. Furthermore, the Town is segmented like a pie cut into slices by the creeks and gorges that converge in the Inlet
of Cayuga Lake. This unique geography and hydrology means that many roads in the Town radiate outward from
the City of Ithaca, while circulation in the Town is restricted because of the gorges.
The current road network of the Town is shown in its Official Highway Map. The purpose of an official map is to state
in the public record the specific locations of existing and proposed streets, highways, parks, and sometimes drainage
systems. By fixing the location of both existing and proposed infrastructure, the official map helps to prevent
development in planned rights-of-way.
The 1993 Comprehensive Plan reported that there were about 117 miles of roads in the Town in the early 1990s.
New York State owned 22.2 miles, Tompkins County 23.9 miles, the Town 45.6 miles, Cornell 3.1, and Ithaca
College 2.3 miles. Nearly 20 later, all of these mileage measurements have increased slightly except for roads owned
46 ITCTC website. http://www.tompkins‐co.org/itctc/about.html
47 Transportation Improvement Program Guidebook, Fall 2006.
48 ITCTC. 2011‐2015 Transportation Improvement Program.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐95
by New York State. As of 2007, the state owns approximately 20 miles of road within the Town’s municipal
boundaries, while Tompkins County owns about 25 miles, and the Town approximately 50 miles. Cornell University
owns about 15 miles of road, and Ithaca College about 11 miles.
Roads owned and maintained by the Town are mostly low- to moderate-speed, two-lane roads serving residential land
uses. Driveways connecting to Town owned and Town-maintained roads generally do not have access controls.
Existing Town roadways do not have bike lanes, and most do not have sidewalks adjacent to the roadway. Unless
otherwise posted, the default speed limit for Town roads is the state 55 MPH speed limit. The Town has successfully
appealed to NYSDOT to lower the limit to 25-45 mph in most areas.
The Town anticipates only a few new major roads outside of subdivisions. Roads that have been approved but not yet
built include the extension of Conifer Drive from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road and the future road shown on
the Overlook at West Hill Subdivision map, which loops from Trumansburg Road to Hayts Road. On the Official
Highway Map, these roads are shown with a dashed line. The Official Highway Map also indicates the location of a
potential future roadway corridor that connects the extension of Conifer Drive to Overlook using a cross-hatched
strip. This rights-of-way has not been formally proposed or approved.
Another potential roadway that has received attention in recent years is a northeast bypass road, which could help to
keep traffic out of residential areas on East Hill in the towns of Ithaca, Dryden, and Lansing. The 1999 Northeast
Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) called for a design and feasibility analysis for this potential connector.
Finally, Recommendation 7 of NESTS called for a connector road between Pleasant Grove Road and the Thurston
Avenue bridge that would act as a “gateway” to the Cornell campus and would help to divert unnecessary through
traffic out of the residential Forest Home neighborhood. The Town is currently exploring this option with Cornell
University, but it is not shown on the Official Highway Map.
Roadway functional classification and right‐of‐way design
Functional classification is the system that attempts to classify each road according to its role in the road network.
The functional classification system is made up of arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. Ideally, an arterial
road carries relatively intense traffic, and land access to arterials is subordinate to the traffic flow on the arterial itself.
Conversely, local roads are intended to carry lower traffic volumes with lower speeds and should provide the highest
level of access to land uses. Collectors fall in between.
The Distance of roads by functional classification table shows the total roadway mileage for each functional classification
in the Town and gives a few examples for each functional classification.49 The Functional classifications of roads map
shows roads in the Town by their functional classification.
Many Town-owned roads are classified as local roads. While these roads are ineligible for Federal aid for
maintenance or improvement projects, the Town has more flexibility in the design of the roadway. The Town’s
current design standards are limited to road construction specifications, which relate to the actual construction of
roads, including substrate needs, pavement thickness, and so on. There are no criteria to guide design of the cross-
section of the rights-of-way, nor guidelines for how to provide for multimodal travel, including non-motorized travel.
49 Data were generated by the Ithaca‐Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), distributed by the Tompkins County Information
Technology Services, GIS Division, and compiled by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐96
Road functional classification | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐97
A lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes, adequate shoulders, and other infrastructure for non-motorized travel sets a
dangerous precedent for the long-term development of the Town’s transportation system. Many existing
neighborhoods have no bike or pedestrian infrastructure; not even for circulation within a subdivision. Often the
reserved right-of-way width is inadequate for facilities beyond a two-lane road. As the number of subdivisions and
commercial centers across the Town increases, it will be difficult to link nodes of activity with facilities for non-
motorized travel if the basic physical and policy infrastructure for non-motorized transportation is not in place.
B.9.4 Traffic
Volume and congestion
In fall 2003, the Town Transportation Committee initiated a survey to gauge residents’ travel habits and attitudes.
46% of respondents cited a generally high volume of traffic as the most obvious transportation problem in the Town.
Roadway capacity
Vehicle over capacity (V/C), the ratio of traffic volume on a road to its design capacity, is one measurement of traffic
congestion. A V/C of 1.00 indicates traffic volume on a road is at its design capacity, a lower number indicates traffic
is below design capacity; and a higher number that the road is carrying more traffic than it was designed to handle.
Volume over capacity during the 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM peak hour for selected roads in the Town, as measured by the
ITCTC in 2011, is as follows.
Volume over capacity: west | Town of Ithaca
Road segment Peak hour V/C
Elm Street: West Haven Road to Ithaca city line 0.05
Five Mile Drive: Ithaca city line to Bostwick Road 0.12
Five Mile Drive: Bostwick Road to Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) 0.14
Hayts Road: Enfield town line to Trumansburg Road (NY 96)0.12
Mecklenburg Road (NY 79): Enfield town line to Rachel Carson Way 0.33
Mecklenburg Road (NY 79): Rachel Carson Way to West Haven Road 0.42
Mecklenburg Road (NY 79): West Haven Road to Ithaca city line 0.43
Taughannock Boulevard (NY 89): Ulysses town line to Ithaca city line 0.25
Trumansburg Road (NY 96): Ulysses town line to Hayts Road 0.36
Trumansburg Road (NY 96): Hayts Road to Cayuga Medical Center 0.52
Trumansburg Road (NY 96): Cayuga Medical Center to Bundy Road 0.53
Trumansburg Road (NY 96): Bundy Road to Ithaca city line 0.57
Distance of roads by functional classification | Town of Ithaca
Classification Distance Examples
Urban principal arterial 4.51 mi Elmira Road (NY 13)
Urban minor arterial 16.38 mi Slaterville Road (NY 79), Trumansburg Road (NY 96)
Urban collector 19.10 mi Ellis Hollow Road, Coddington Road (Burns Road to Ithaca C/L)
Urban local 48.60 mi Honness Lane, Indian Creek Road, Winthrop Drive
Rural minor arterial 3.46 mi Mecklenburg Road (NY 79)
Rural major collector 2.55 mi Enfield Falls Road (town line to entrance of Treman Park)
Rural minor collector 2.76 mi Bostwick Road, Sheffield Road
Rural local 14.01 mi West King Road (west of Buttermilk Falls Park), Culver Road
Unknown / not available 11.93 mi Approved but not yet built roads, some small subdivision roads
Total 123.3 mi
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐98
Volume over capacity: west | Town of Ithaca
West Haven Road: Mecklenburg Road (NY 79) to Elm Street 0.01
Volume over capacity: southwest / Inlet Valley | Town of Ithaca
Road segment Peak hour V/C
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Ithaca city line to Five Mile Drive 0.49
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Five Mile Drive to Enfield Falls Road 0.50
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Enfield Falls Road to Newfield town line 0.13
Enfield Falls Road: Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) to Treman State Park entrance 0.02
Enfield Falls Road: Treman State Park entrance to Enfield town line 0.01
Volume over capacity: south | Town of Ithaca
Road segment Peak hour V/C
Burns Road: Coddington Road to Slaterville Road (NY 79)0.12
Coddington Road: Ithaca city line to Troy Road 0.09
Coddington Road: Troy Road to King Road East 0.07
Coddington Road: King Road East to Updike Road 0.10
Coddington Road: Updike Road to Danby town line 0.05
Danby Road (NY 96B): Ithaca city line to Ithaca College entrance 0.48
Danby Road (NY 96B): Ithaca College entrance to College Circle Drive 0.23
Danby Road (NY 96B): College Circle Drive to King Road East/West 0.28
Danby Road (NY 96B): King Road East/West to Danby town line 0.26
King Road East: Danby Road (NY 96B) to Troy Road 0.10
King Road East: Troy Road to Coddington Road 0.09
Volume over capacity: east / northeast | Town of Ithaca
Road segment Peak hour V/C
Caldwell Drive: Forest Home Drive to Dryden Road (NY 366)0.55
Dryden Road (NY 366): Ithaca city line to Pine Tree Road 0.27
Dryden Road (NY 366): Pine Tree Road to Tower Road 0.30
Dryden Road (NY 366): Tower Road to Caldwell Road 0.35
Dryden Road (NY 366): Caldwell Road to Dryden town line 0.33
Ellis Hollow Road: Pine Tree Road to Dryden town line 0.38
Hanshaw Road: Cayuga Heights village line to Warren Road 0.23
Hanshaw Road: Warren Road to Dryden town line 0.31
Mitchell Street: Ithaca city line to Pine Tree Road 0.34
Pine Tree Road: Dryden Rd (NY 366) to Ellis Hollow Road 0.10
Pine Tree Road: Ellis Hollow Road/Mitchell Street to Honness Lane 0.18
Pine Tree Road: Honness Lane to Slaterville Road (NY 79)0.14
Slaterville Road (NY 79): Ithaca city line to Honness Lane 0.23
Slaterville Road (NY 79): Honness Lane to Pine Tree Road 0.17
Slaterville Road (NY 79): Pine Tree Road to Burns Road 0.24
Warren Road: Lansing V/L to Christopher Lane 0.28
Warren Road: Christopher Lane to Hanshaw Road 0.20
Warren Road: Hanshaw Road to Bluegrass Lane 0.26
Warren Road: Bluegrass Lane to Forest Home Drive 0.38
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐99
Traffic volume
Annual average daily traffic (AADT) is the number of vehicles that would be assumed counted on a typical day of the
year. Based on established formulas, a measured traffic count is factored to an AADT by adjusting it for seasonality
and vehicle classifications. AADT for selected roads in the Town, obtained from data compiled by the ITCTC in
2011 and other noted sources, is as follows. Road segments are approximate, based on where traffic counting devices
were placed. Some segments will be different than segments where V/C was determined.
Annual average daily traffic: west | Town of Ithaca
Road segment AADT
Elm Street: West Haven Road to Ithaca city line (NYSDOT 2010)892
Five Mile Drive: Ithaca city line to Bostwick Road (NYSDOT 2010)4,653
Five Mile Drive: Bostwick Rd to Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) (NYSDOT 2010)4,995
Hayts Road: Enfield town line to Trumansburg Road (NY 96) (Town of Ithaca 4/2004)1,265
Mecklenburg Road (NY 79): Enfield town line to Ithaca city line (NYSDOT 2010)4,077
Taughannock Boulevard (NY 89): Ulysses town line to Ithaca city line (NYSDOT 2010)3,169
Trumansburg Road (NY 96): Ulysses town line to Ithaca city line (NYSDOT 2010)9.104
West Haven Road: Mecklenburg Road (NY 79) to Elm Street 419
Annual average daily traffic: southwest / Inlet Valley | Town of Ithaca
Road segment AADT
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Ithaca city line to Five Mile Drive 16,715
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Five Mile Drive to Enfield Falls Road 18,703
Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96): Enfield Falls Road to Newfield town line 18.418
Enfield Falls Road: Elmira Rd (NY 13/34/96) to Enfield town line (NYSDOT 2010)904
Annual average daily traffic: south
Road segment AADT
Burns Road: Coddington Road to Slaterville Road (NY 79)2,007
Coddington Road: Ithaca city line to Troy Rd 3,192
Coddington Road: Rich Road to King Road East 1,309
Coddington Road: King Road East to Danby town line 2,478
Danby Road (NY 96B): Ithaca city line to King Road East/West 7.943
King Road East: Danby Road (NY 96B) to Coddington Road (NYSDOT 2010)2,758
Annual average daily traffic: east / northeast
Road segment AADT
Dryden Road (NY 366): Ithaca city line to Game Farm Road (Dryden town line)7,758
Hanshaw Road: Cayuga Heights village line to Warren Rd 6,315
Hanshaw Road: Warren Road to Dryden town line 6,357
Muriel Street: Hanshaw Road to Rose Hill Road 837
Pine Tree Road: Dryden Road (NY 366) to Maple Avenue 7,196
Pine Tree Road: Maple Avenue to Ellis Hollow Road 9,657
Pine Tree Road: Maple Avenue to Snyder Hill Road 6,030
Pine Tree Road: Snyder Hill Road to Slaterville Road (NY 79)4,499
Slaterville Road (NY 79): Honness Lane to Pine Tree Road 5,245
Warren Road: Lansing V/L to Hanshaw Road 5,347
Warren Road: Hanshaw Road to Forest Home Drive 5,543
Winthrop Road: Warren Road to Cayuga Heights village line 695
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐100
Speeding
Like traffic volume and congestion, speeding is quantified in several ways, including the percentage of vehicles that
speed and the 85th percentile speed (the speed that 15% of drivers exceed). There is a distinction between the extent
and severity of speeding: the extent of speeding refers to the percentage of motorists exceeding the speed limit, while
the severity of speeding also considers the characteristics of the adjacent land uses and the impacts of speeding on
those land uses. Thus, prioritizing locations for speed mitigation is not as simple as determining the location with the
highest ratio of the 85th percentile speed to the speed limit.
Based on the data collected for the 2007 Transportation Plan, some areas in the Town that may need speed mitigation
include the Northeast, the southern part of Pine Tree Road, Forest Home, and Coddington Road near Ithaca College.
All of these areas are in neighborhoods of medium density with significant pedestrian activity.
Accidents
1,900 vehicle accidents were reported in the Town of Ithaca between 2000 and 2007. 655 accidents (34.5%) involved
another vehicle. 27 accidents (1.27%) involved a collision with a deer, while 153 (8.0%) a collision with another
animal. Six accidents involved a crash with a cyclist, and 13 with a pedestrian. The remainder involved collisions
with trees, ditches, signs, and other stationery objects; or other types of accidents not involving other vehicles or
objects.
478 accidents (25.1%) resulted in injuries, while five accidents resulted in fatalities. 836 accidents (44.0%) resulted in
property damage.
Locations of crash clusters in the Town are fairly predictable; the vast majority occur on state routes where volumes
and speed limits are highest. Small clusters of crashes on county roads occur on Coddington Road, East King Road,
Pine Tree Road, Warren Road, and Hanshaw Road. Very few crashes occur on Town roads; most were one-vehicle
crashes involving an animal or object.
In the fall of 2005, the Town of Ithaca Transportation Committee worked with Fisher Associates (a consulting firm
from Rochester) to analyze safety at several intersections and along several road segments in the Town. Building on
Fisher Associates’ work, Town Planning staff evaluated the crashes at the locations to determine if there was a
pattern. The crash screenings showed no obvious, immediate safety hazards. In most cases, possible mitigation
measures are as simple as improving signage to alert drivers to unexpected intersections or road curves. In other
cases, the crash screening showed that mitigation measures might be needed in the future, such as improved traffic
controls like a traffic light. (See the Town of Ithaca 2007 Transportation Plan for Fisher Associates’ final report and
the Town’s Crash Screening Report.)
B.9.5 Road maintenance
During the summer of 2004, the Town of Ithaca Highway Department conducted an inventory of the condition of
every Town-owned road. Each road or road segment received a Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is a
measure of several signs of pavement deterioration, including several types of cracking, patching/potholes, drainage,
and roughness. The goals of the project were to prioritize Town roads in greatest need of maintenance, to create a
regular maintenance schedule, and to assist the budgeting of Town resources. The information in the PCI shows that
most of the Town-owned roads are in good to excellent condition.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐101
Location of serious crashes 2000‐2007 | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐102
According to a road condition study
conducted by the Town of Peterborough,
New Hampshire, pavement quality drops
only 40% over the first 75% of the
pavement lifespan (i.e. after 10 to12 years,
the pavement is still in acceptable or
“good’ quality). Over the next four years,
however, pavement quality drops another
40% from “fair” to “very
poor.” More importantly, allowing
pavement to degrade from “fair” to “very
poor” increases repair costs at least five-
fold. Considering that pavement condition
inventory was conducted eight years ago as
of 2012, Town-owned roads in good to
excellent condition in 2004 might now be
degrading to “fair” or “poor” conditions.
The Town is currently on a 33-year
reconstruction schedule. Every year, the
Public Works Department repaves about
1.5 miles of road of the approximately 50
miles the Town owns and performs
preventive maintenance on five to seven
miles. This schedule is sufficient to
maintain high quality roads, but there is
little room for putting off necessary
maintenance.
B.9.6 Automobile alternatives
Alternatives to the private automobile
provide choice, protect safety and health,
and reduce congestion. Alternatives can
be available for everyone (including the
young, old, disabled, and low income), and
protect the natural environment by keeping air clean, conserving fossil fuels, reducing wear-and-tear on the roads
which can negatively affect water quality due to increased runoff, preserving open space by avoiding the need to build
new roads, and so on.
Public transportation
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) is a not-for-profit corporation that provides public transportation
for Tompkins County. TCAT’s annual ridership is nearly 4 million, covering a distance of 1.7 million miles. The
fleet of approximately 55 buses includes eight hybrid electric-diesel buses.50 TCAT also offers complementary ADA
Paratransit services through Gadabout. In 2011 operated 35 routes (34 fixed routes and one hybrid fixed/demand
50 Doug Swarts, TCAT Service Development Manager, 8 June 2012 email
Maintenance activity on Stone Quarry Road.
TCAT bus at the Pew Trail.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐103
responsive route) with a diverse range of schedules for academic year, summer, and yearlong service.51 Routes
change periodically based on need. Currently, TCAT’s Zone 1 single-ride fares, which apply to travel within the City
of Ithaca and most of the Town, are $1.50 for adults, $0.75 for youth, and $0.75 for seniors.52 Zone 2 fares, which
generally apply to areas outside of the City and Town, are $2.50 for adults, $1.25 for youth, and $1.25 for seniors. In
addition to single-ride fares, TCAT also offers 15-ride cards, along with day, weekly, monthly and annual passes.
These passes can provide substantial savings for frequent riders. TCAT additionally contracts with Cornell University
and Ithaca College to craft special offers for students, faculty, and staff to encourage them to use transit.
The TCAT routes in the Town of Ithaca table summarizes select destinations within the Town of Ithaca and the TCAT
routes that serve them, as of summer 2012.
TCAT routes | Town of Ithaca
Route Origin / destination / corridor
11 Ithaca College, South Hill Business Campus
14 Linderman Creek, Cayuga Medical Center, Overlook Apartments. Conifer Senior Apartments
20 EcoVillage, Mecklenburg Road (NY 79)corridor, Cornell University
21 Trumansburg Road (NY 96) corridor, Cornell University
22 Taughannock Boulevard (NY 89 – summer service only)
30, 90 Cornell University and Cayuga Heights
31 Northeast neighborhood, BOCES, DeWitt Middle and Northeast Elementary Schools, Forest Home, Cornell
36 East Shore Drive (NY 34) corridor, Cornell University
40, 43 Dryden Road (NY 366) corridor, Cornell University
41 Hanshaw Road, Sapsucker Woods
51, 93 Eastern Heights neighborhood, East Hill Plaza, Honness Lane
52 Slaterville Road (Route 79E), Pine Tree Road, Cornell University
53 Slaterville Road (NY 79E), Cornell University, Dryden Road (NY 366)
65 Danby Road (NY 96B), Ithaca College, Longview
67 Elmira Road (NY 13), Cornell University
81, 82 Cornell University, East Hill Plaza, Maplewood Apartments
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit operators to offer equal services for those
with disabilities. Paratransit is an alternative mode of flexible passenger transportation that does not follow fixed
routes or schedules, and is often used to increase mobility options for people with disabilities and the elderly. TCAT
contracts paratransit service out to Gadabout, a not-for-profit private service demand-responsive transportation
service. Gadabout provides vans specially equipped for wheelchairs and volunteer drivers who are sensitive to the
needs of the disabled. Gadabout also serves the senior population of Tompkins County (aged 60 and over) by
providing on-demand service in a comfortable atmosphere. This indispensable service provides opportunities for
education, employment, personal and health care, and social interaction for vulnerable populations.
Founded in 1976 with just one bus, the Gadabout service has grown to 26 small buses which provide an average of
60,000 rides per year, traveling over 330,000 miles.53 A 67% ridership increase in the decade 1999-2008 culminated in
a record 63,809 riders in 2008.54 To request a ride, patrons call a local number (607-277-1878) the morning before the
day of the trip. In 2012, the Town provided $12,000 in funding to Gadabout for services to Town residents.
51 Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca, New York, ITCTC, 2011 Yearbook
52 TCAT, Frequently Asked Questions
53 Szudzik, Christine, Gadabout Gets…
54 ITCTC, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, pages 4.6
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐104
TCAT integrates different modes of transport with public transit through the bikes on bus program, park-and-ride
lots, and service to local bus stations and airports. In 1996, TCAT purchased 64 bike racks for installation on the
front of buses, a project known as BobCat (“Bob” is an acronym for “bikes on buses”). The bike racks hold two
bicycles each and are easy to operate. The racks serve riders who might not otherwise incorporate bicycling into their
commute or travels because of Ithaca’s hilly terrain. The racks are very popular—they now sit on the front of every
TCAT bus—and the program has become the most successful intermodal effort in the county. Park-and-ride lots
across the County capture commuters to Ithaca from outlying rural areas. TCAT has routes running past fourteen
formal park-and-ride lots. TCAT also offers routes that serve the airport (32 and 72) and the bus station in the City of
Ithaca (14, 20, and 21).
The greatest concentration and frequency of public transit service is in the City of Ithaca and the Cornell campus.
Many Town residents expressed a desire for greater transit coverage in the Town in the aforementioned Town
transportation survey. Transit provision for many parts of the Town, especially West Hill and South Hill, is difficult;
because of low residential densities, buses must travel long distances to pick up few persons at each stop. This can
make routes prohibitively long for riders and prohibitively costly for the transit provider. Also, routes through West
Hill and South Hill only run on major state and county roads. This puts bus stops too far away from many residential
homes to be convenient.
Bus-based park-and-ride facilities are an increasingly popular traffic management tool used to intercept car traffic on
the periphery of an urban area by providing parking and direct bus service to the urban core or employment center.
Currently there are 13 small park and ride lots in communities around Tompkins County; none within the Town of
Ithaca. All of these sites are shared use (serve other parking needs) rather than exclusively planned and designed as
park-and-ride facilities. While park-and-ride facilities offer a positive approach to getting people out of their cars and
reducing urban highway traffic congestion and worksite parking demand, they must be part of a carefully thought out
integrated transport strategy to ensure positive benefits. Any consideration of creating park-and-ride facilities in the
Town needs to be carefully considered. A discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of park-and-ride can be
found in the Park and Ride for Tompkins County (2004, Fernando De Aragon, Director Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council).
In addition to local service by TCAT and Gadabout, three private companies, Shortline, Greyhound, and Trailways,
provide bus service between the Ithaca metropolitan area and other metropolitan areas. Every day, between 27 and
30 intercity buses serve the Ithaca area.55 According to a 2001 study, intercity operators have estimated that 179,000
people per year use the Ithaca bus station. Of those, 133,000 were arriving or departing passengers. 46,000
passengers transferred to another bus.56 This indicates that buses carry a significant amount of travel between the
Ithaca metropolitan area and other municipalities.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Besides serving as a mode of transportation, biking and walking offer personal and societal benefits. Biking and
walking improve personal physical fitness and well-being. Promoting walking and biking will play an important role
in protecting public health; in fact, exercise is a component of the FDA’s revised food pyramid. Walking or biking
instead of driving for short trips conserves fossil fuels, saves money, alleviates traffic burdens, promotes the health of
the natural environment, thus protecting human health, and protects the integrity of neighborhoods. Walking and
biking foster healthy communities by encouraging social interactions on the street and by getting motorists out of
their cars and onto the sidewalks. The option of using a non-motorized mode provides a real choice for residents and
visitors.
55 Mengel and Rakaczky, The Inter‐City…
56 Ibid.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐105
The four main types of non-motorized transportation infrastructure are: dedicated pedestrian facilities such as
sidewalks, walkways, pedestrian bridges and paths; dedicated bicycle facilities such as bike lanes; multi-use trails and
paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, inline skaters, parents with children in strollers, and so on; and roadway shoulders.
In many rural areas, it is impractical to provide dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
More often, paved roadway shoulders take the
place of sidewalks and bike lanes, although
some rural areas have multi-use recreation
trails.
The Town of Ithaca has approximately 11
miles of walkways in its jurisdiction. These
walkways are owned and maintained by the
Town. There are also a limited number of
newer residential areas with sidewalks, such
as Linderman Creek, in which property
owners own sidewalks and are responsible for
their upkeep and maintenance. There are
some bicycle lanes on the Cornell campus,
and many roadways in the Town have
sufficient shoulder width to permit
comfortable bicycling. Two of the longest
multi-use trails owned and maintained by the
Town are the East Ithaca and South Hill
Recreation Ways. The Town’s 2003 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan called for the creation of a multi-use trail
system. The Town is already in the process of implementing that plan. In fact, off-road multiuse trails in the Town
are more extensive than walkways or sidewalks that run next to roadways.
Walkways and paths not owned by the Town include the Plantations Path (a seven-mile network of self-guided
walkways, roads, and paths through Cornell Plantations); the Circle Greenway (the Walk Ithaca path which passes
through both the Town and City); the trail systems in Buttermilk Falls and Robert H. Treman State Parks; and the
500-mile long Finger Lakes Trail hiking path which passes through the southern portion of the Town.57 These paths
generally serve recreational needs.
Non-motorized modes of transportation play a significant role in the transportation system of the Town of Ithaca.
For example, the 2000 Census calculates that more than one in five Town residents get to work by walking. Many of
these residents are students, professors, and staff traveling to one of the institutions of higher education in the area.
Walking and bicycling are popular in the Town despite limited supporting infrastructure, and these non-motorized
modes would perhaps be even more popular if sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle infrastructure were more available.
Many roadways with significant pedestrian traffic do not even have sufficient shoulder space for a single pedestrian.
Furthermore, a 2002 study examined 4.75 miles of Town-owned walkways and found that 60% do not meet ADA
standards.
As previously mentioned, shoulders are available to bicyclists on some State and County roads. Unfortunately, roads
with shoulders are generally roads with high volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic, which can lead to an
uncomfortable and unsafe bicycling environment. On all other roadways, bicyclists share lanes with motorists--which
57 Town of Ithaca, 1997
Honness Lane Walkway.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐106
is the least desirable arrangement for both bicyclists and motorists when motor vehicle speeds are higher than
bicycling speeds.
The Town's 2007 Transportation Plan includes more information on the Town's bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
B.9.7 Air, rail and freight
Airports and air travel
Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport (ITH), in the Village of Lansing, is the closest airport to the Town of Ithaca that
provides regional passenger air travel. ITH has been operated by a division of the Department of Public Works of
Tompkins County since 1956, when it purchased the East Hill Airport from Cornell University.58 The airport covers
531 acres, includes a 33,000 square foot terminal with six gates (four walkway, two sharing a single jet bridge) and has
two runways (6,601 foot paved, 2,018 foot turf). The airport is served by TCAT Route 32, connecting it to Cornell
University and downtown Ithaca.
As of June 2012, commercial passenger airlines serving the airport include United Airlines, US Airways Express and
Delta Airlines, with 10 scheduled passenger flights with departures from the airport at least four times a week.
Destination airports include Newark, Philadelphia, and Detroit. US Airways Express terminated service to New
York-LaGuardia in March 2012.
The passenger count at ITH was 242,293 in 2011, an increase of 53% since 2005. Routes to and from ITH are
usually flown by small regional and commuter jets and turboprop planes.
Many small cities and towns in the United States are facing the loss of all passenger air service, as airlines face
financial problems and subsidies are reduced. Crowded airspace conditions in the Northeastern United States, and
slot exchange agreements between airlines, may affect passenger service at ITH. However, the presence of Cornell
University and Ithaca College provides a passenger base that insulates ITH from the most severe cuts that face other
airports in small cities.
Many Ithaca area residents travel to nearby airports in Syracuse, Elmira and Binghamton, all about an hour drive
from the Town.
Rail and freight
Passenger rail service to Ithaca ended in 1961. The nearest Amtrak station is in Syracuse.
Beyond the movement of people, the regional transportation system supports the movement of freight via rail, air,
and trucks. The Norfolk Southern Railroad provides rail freight transport in Tompkins County. Rail can carry much
larger quantities of freight than a truck. For example, one freight car can carry 100 tons, while a truck can only carry
20 to 25; thus one train of 20 cars carries the freight of 80 to 100 trucks. Besides being capable of carrying more
freight, rail uses less fuel than trucks to carry any given amount. One gallon of fuel will carry one ton of freight 59
miles via truck and 202 miles via rail.59 Despite its efficiency, rail transport is prohibitively expensive for most
shipping, except for objects shipped in bulk or extremely large quantities. Rail freight in Tompkins County consists
mainly of coal to the Milliken Point Power Plant in Lansing, and salt from the Cargill Corporation.
58 Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Airport Facts.
59 Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐107
While the airport and rail freight terminals are not actually located within the Town of Ithaca, they still affect the
transportation system and economic base of the Town. Railroad trains run through the Town, passing through
residential areas along East Shore Drive, where they impact the quality of life for residents.
Trucks carry the majority of freight in the County, often to or from destinations within the City of Ithaca. Thus,
much of the truck freight traffic is merely passing through the Town; most of it is limited to state highways. Many
trucks travel on non-truck routes and local roads to take shortcuts, avoid congestion, or make local deliveries. While
excessive commercial truck traffic impacts livability and safety in some residential neighborhoods, in many cases the
afflicted roads were established as through routes long before residential development took place.
The following table lists truck volumes for roads within the Town.
Truck volume on roads | Town of Ithaca
Road Truck volume/day
Bostwick Road 82
Bundy Road 82
Burns Road 41
Caldwell Road 92
Coddington Road 62
Culver Road 6
Danby Road (NY 96B) 242
Ellis Hollow Road * 184
Elm Street 24
Elmira Rd (NY 13), City of Ithaca 309
Hanshaw Road (near Warren Rd) 125
Hayts Road 20
King Road 94
Pine Tree Road 173
Pine Tree Road (Maple Avenue to Mitchell Street)*315
Poole Road 9
Seven Mile Drive 35
Slaterville Road (NY 79) 412
Snyder Hill Road 25
Stone Quarry Road 40
Troy Road 13
Trumansburg Road (NY 96), north of the Town * 385
* ‐ data from Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study (2002, Sear‐Brown).
All other data were collected by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department in 2003‐2004.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐108
B.10 Municipal services and infrastructure
B.10.1 Water supply
Public water in the Town is supplied by three
entities: the Southern Cayuga Lake
Intermunicipal Water Commission (locally
referred to as Bolton Point and which supplies
water from Cayuga Lake); the City of Ithaca
(which provides water from the Upper
Reservoir on Six Mile Creek); and Cornell
University Water Filtration Plant (which uses
Fall Creek).
Some residents living along Taughannock
Blvd/NY 89 are still served by the City of
Ithaca. 40 Forest Home residents and the
Cornell University campus are served by the
University water system, and some Town
residents are served by private wells in rural
areas. However, the vast majority of the
Town is served by Bolton Point (see Water
service areas Map).
While the three entities operate independently from one another, emergency agreements and multiple permanent
interconnecting valves located throughout the system ensure emergency backup water supplies.
Bolton Point Water System: treatment and distribution
The Bolton Point water plant was constructed in 1976. Before this time, public water in the Town of Ithaca was
provided by the City of Ithaca, which also served the Varna area of the Town of Dryden and the Village of Cayuga
Heights. By 1972, demand for city water was approaching 6 million gallons per day (MGD), surpassing the amount
of water the city system could supply under drought conditions, which had been experienced in the mid-1960s. The
City of Ithaca, wary of added demand upon its system, declared a moratorium on the number of new water
connections outside the City. In 1974, the Towns of Ithaca, Lansing, and Dryden and the Village of Cayuga Heights
formed the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission to develop a water plant on Cayuga Lake (the
Village of Lansing joined in 1975).60
The facility, jointly owned by the five municipalities, is overseen by a Commission made up of two representatives
(one of whom must be an elected official) from each municipality. The commission via a cooperation agreement
makes decisions on various aspects of the facility from expansion decisions, operating costs, debt retirement, and
personnel. Each municipality retains ownership of the distribution system within its borders and has responsibility
for system maintenance and in establishing their own water rate structure.
There are three basic elements of the Bolton Point water system: (1) the intake system, (2) the water treatment plant,
and (3) the transmission system.
60 Bolton Point website, http://www.boltonpoint.org/PopUps/ourhistory.html, accessed 1 August 2011.
Christopher Circle water tank.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐109
Water service areas | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐110
The intake system consists of a 36-inch diameter intake pipe that stretches 400 feet into Cayuga Lake to a depth of 60
feet, and the raw water pump station located on the shore. The raw water pump station has three pumps, with a
combined rated capacity of 9 MGD. With the construction of additional filters and two pump systems, its capacity
can be increased to 12 MGD; the original plans allow for a maximum expansion of the system to 24 MGD. From
the lakeshore pump station, there is a 20-inch diameter pipe running from the pump station up to the water treatment
plant on East Shore Drive, a rise of about 270 feet and a distance of about 1,800 feet.
The water treatment plant contains a chemical storage room, flocculation tanks, settling tanks, filter tanks, storage
well, a control room, and a pump room. The pump room has three pumps that raise the water another 360 feet to the
Burdick Hill storage tank; a distance of approximately 3200 feet. The plant is designed to process 9 MGD of water,
and its capacity can easily be increased to 12 MGD or more. Provision has been made for the eventual expansion of
the system to 24 MGD.61
The transmission system is made up of the Burdick Hill storage tank of 1.5 million gallons capacity, the Oakcrest
Road pump station (in the Village of Lansing), and over 10 miles of 16-inch to 20-inch transmission pipeline running
from the treatment plant through East Ithaca to its termination point at the Pearsall Place pump station on South
Hill. The transmission lines provide water to the five municipal systems, from which each municipality operates and
maintains distribution lines that serve their individual customers.
Town of Ithaca: distribution system
The Town operates and maintains all of the distribution system for Bolton Point supplied water within its municipal
boundary. The Water service areas map indicates the areas in the Town that are served. The Town’s varied topography
plays a large role in the complexity of this water delivery system and necessitates numerous water tanks and pump
stations throughout the served area. Service areas are established by the elevation of the water storage tanks and the
ground topography. The service area boundaries are essentially defined by the specified ranges of acceptable water
pressure that are maintained by each tank.
Approximately 72% of residential properties in the Town (outside of the Village of Cayuga Heights) with existing
dwellings have access to public water. Of those served, 7% are non-residential users and 93% are residential users.
Average daily consumption rates (based on billing records) are 131 gallons/day for residential usage and 3,607
gallons/day for non-residential usage.
The Town of Ithaca’s water distribution system consists of 12 water storage tanks and nine pump stations. The Water
supply tanks table provides information on Town-owned and maintained water tanks.
Until recently, the City of Ithaca supplied water to the Inlet Valley and West Hill areas of the Town of Ithaca.
Problems with water pressure fluctuation, fire fighting flow, and the City’s aging infrastructure led the Town to look
for a way to bring Bolton Point water to these areas. In 2001 the Town embarked on a series of system improvements
to make that happen. Modifications included:
A 16-inch transmission pipe was installed from Pearsall Road control station to Danby Road, with connection to
an existing eight inch line to the Danby Road tank and Ithaca College.
A 12-inch line was laid from Danby Road tank to Buttermilk Falls State Park using an existing abandoned
railroad bed.
A 250,000 gallon tank was installed on Bostwick Road to supply water to the distribution grid at Inlet Valley.
61 Bolton Point Water System website, http://www.boltonpoint.org/aboutus.html, accessed 1 August 2011
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐111
A one million gallon tank (West Hill tank) was place near Mecklenburg Road at EcoVillage.
A pump station was placed on Coy Glen Road to pump water uphill to the new West Hill Tank; an existing 12-
inch line connected the West Hill tank with the Trumansburg Road Tank.
In addition, in 2006 a new three million gallon tank was placed near Hungerford Hill Road as part of improvements
to the existing transmission system. The new East Hill transmission tank, which acts as a reservoir for the system and
does not directly supply customers, enables Bolton Point to pump water at night to this tank, using off-peak electric
rates. In the daytime the transmission system delivers water to the East Hill, South Hill, Inlet Valley and West Hill
distribution grids and is filled at night. In case of a power outage or fire, the East Hill Tank reinforces the
transmission system with a two day supply of water.
Future planned improvements of the water system are aimed at addressing the aging system, with specific plans for
replacing and rehabilitating several of the older water tanks.
Water supply tanks | Town of Ithaca
Region Tank name Year built Capacity Customers * Average use **
Northeast Christopher Circle 1959 500,000 gal 400 80,000 gal/d
Sapsucker Woods 1959 500,000 gal 520 110,000 gal/d
East Hill
Pine Tree 1954 200,000 gal 442 160,000 gal/d
Hungerford Hill 1970 500,000 gal 219 60,000 gal/d
East Hill Transmission Tank 2003 3,000,000 gal Does not directly serve customers
South Hill
Ridgecrest 1968 500,000 gal 399 80,000 gal/d
Troy 1968 160,000 gal 129 50,000 gal/d
Danby (serves Ithaca College) 1954 500,000 gal 17 352,000 gal/d
Northview 1954 200,000 gal 200 60,000 gal/d
Inlet Valley Bostwick 2003 200,000 gal 120 33,000 gal/d
West Hill Trumansburg 1932*** 500,000 gal 151 152,000 gal/d
West Hill 2003 1,000,000 gal 125 50,000 gal/d
Total 2,722 1,187,000 gal/d
* 2007. Refers to water meter count, not actual number of consumers.
** 2007. Based on distribution meter readings at each tank supply line. Readings taken weekly. Figures reflect customer use
and do not include additional pass‐through water that supplies neighboring tanks.
*** Rehabilitated in 2006.
City of Ithaca water system: treatment and distribution
The City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has been serving customers in the City of Ithaca and portions of
the Town of Ithaca since 1903. The plant serves over 35,000 customers and on average treats 3.27 million gallons of
water daily. Water is drawn from the Six Mile Creek reservoir in the Town of Ithaca (just north of Burns Road) and
flows by gravity to the WTP in the City on Water Street. After treatment, finished water is distributed to the public
through a distribution network consisting of roughly 85 miles of ductile iron and cast iron water mains. The
distribution system includes three pumping stations and six water storage tanks.62
Due to the age of the City WTP and the impending changes in water quality regulations, the City has proposed to
rebuild the existing 7 MGD WTP with a 6 MGD plant on the current Water Street site. The source of water would
continue to be the City’s existing Six Mile Creek supply impounded by the 60-foot dam. Raw (untreated) water
62 City of Ithaca, Water Treatment Plant website, http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/departments/dpw/water/wtp.cfm. accessed 15 August
2011.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐112
would continue to flow by gravity from the reservoir to the new WTP through the City’s existing 24-inch diameter
cast iron pipeline. The proposal will require a number of modifications in the vicinity of the water intake at the 60-
foot reservoir; construction of facilities, security monitoring, upgrade of the access road to allow year-round access,
reservoir dredging, and so on.63
Cornell University water system: treatment and distribution
Cornell University owns and maintains its own potable water system, which serves the campus and portions of the
surrounding community. The Cornell Water Filtration Plant (WFP); originally constructed in 1929, serves a
population of 35,000: students, faculty, academic and non-academic employees, residents of the hamlet of Forest
Home, and a portion of the City of Ithaca.
The Cornell WFP produces an average of up to 1.7 MGD to meet the needs of its customers. Upon reaching the
plant, water is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and polyaluminum chloride for sediment removal.
The treatment process begins with the rapid mixing of coagulants followed by flocculation and sedimentation. The
water is then filtered, disinfected, and pumped to a 1.0 million gallon and a 1.5 million gallon water storage tank.
From these tanks, water is distributed to the campus via a network of piping that is approximately 120 miles long.64
Current daily average consumption is 1.5 to 1.7 MGD. Even though the campus building square footage has almost
doubled, water conservation measures have led to a reduction in consumption from a high of 3.0 MDG in the early
1970s. Strategies like requiring low-flow fixtures in campus buildings, district cooling, and improved lab practices
have contributed to the savings. Cornell’s water system is fully metered and water usage can be tracked for most
campus buildings online; information is available to the public on the facilities services Web site.65
B.10.2 Wastewater
The Town of Ithaca is a single townwide sewer district, although not all lands in the Town have access to municipal
sewer. There are six distinct geographic service areas within the Town that have approximately 3,200 connections.
The West Hill collection system serves properties on and adjacent to Trumansburg Road, Dubois Road, Woolf Lane,
Bundy Road, Mecklenburg Road, Westhaven Road, and Elm Street. The sewer mains along these highway corridors
connect to jointly owned interceptor pipes in the City. The three interceptors converge near the Buffalo Street Bridge
at the Flood Relief Channel. A combination of gravity and low-pressure (siphon) piping convey flow over and under
the Channel, respectively. Lakefront parcels along Taughannock Boulevard (from the City boundary to the Town of
Ulysses’ border) are also served by a Town sewer main. The Taughannock Boulevard main connects to a jointly
owned interceptor pipe and pump station in Cass Park. A force main from the pump station extends beneath the
Cayuga Inlet to Pier Road.
The Inlet Valley system extends from a jointly owned interceptor on Floral Avenue and serves parcels along Five Mile
Drive, Seven Mile Drive, Elmira Road, and Enfield Falls Road. A siphon beneath the Flood Relief Channel
discharges to a pump station in the Cherry Street industrial park.
63 City of Ithaca Water Supply Project SEQR draft scoping document, 22 June 2007.
64 Cornell University Facilities Services Energy and Sustainability website,
http://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/util/water/drinking/distribution.cfm, accessed 12 August 2011.
65 Building Utility Use and Costs History, http://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/em/bldgenergy/history.cfm
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐113
Sewer service areas | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐114
Sewer mains throughout the South Hill neighborhoods converge at jointly owned interceptors in the City of Ithaca on
Aurora Street, Hudson Street, and Crescent Place. The Danby Road corridor serves most of Ithaca College, the
South Hill Business Campus, and the commercial uses in the vicinity of the West King Road intersection. The
collection system along Coddington Road serves a limited number of residential customers between the City of
Ithaca boundary and West Northview Road. Therm, Inc. and residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of
Pennsylvania Avenue, Northview Road, Troy Road and East King Road (Southwoods, Deer Run, and Chase Lane
developments) connect to the interceptor at Crescent Place.
The East Hill system includes extensions of jointly owned interceptors on East State Street/Slaterville Road (from the
City of Ithaca boundary to Burns Road) and on Mitchell Street from the City of Ithaca boundary to Summerhill
Lane. Collection pipes serving residential and institutional uses on Pine Tree Road, Honness Lane, Snyder Hill
Road, and the Eastern Heights neighborhood connect to the Slaterville Road interceptor. Commercial and high
density residential properties surrounding the East Hill Plaza discharge through the Mitchell Street interceptor.
The Northeast system includes the Town’s sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of the Warren Road and Hanshaw
Road corridors north of the Cornell University Campus. Sewage from the residential and institutional properties is
ultimately discharged into the Village of Cayuga Heights collection system and treated at the Village of Cayuga
Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Lake Street system includes gravity collection mains along Lake Street and throughout the Renwick Heights
neighborhood; they extend from an interceptor sewer at the Ithaca High School. The East Shore Drive properties,
including a few City parcels adjacent to Stewart Park, drain to a pump station which lifts sewage to the Lake Street
main.
There are also many portions of the West Hill and South Hill areas that do not have access to the municipal sewer
and use private septic systems to handle their waste.
Village of Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant
The WTP for the Village of Cayuga Heights is a trickling filter plant with tertiary phosphorus removal. It treats flow
from the Village of Cayuga Heights, the northeast portion of the Town of Ithaca, parts of the Village and Town of
Lansing and the Town of Dryden. The wastewater collection system is a gravity system and is operating at 1.477
MGD of a permitted 2.0 MGD maximum 30-day flow. The plant has been upgraded to improve the phosphorus
removal capability. All of the capacity is owned by the Village and is allocated to neighboring municipalities by
contract. The recent activation of the Kline Road bypass in the Village of Cayuga Heights collection system directs a
portion of the volume of sewage for Town of Ithaca customers in Northeast Ithaca to the Ithaca Area Wastewater
Treatment Facility.
Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant is jointly owned and operated by the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca,
and Town of Dryden. The maximum 30-day flow through the facility in 2008 was 9.83 MGD (approximately 75% of
the 13.0 MGD permit limit). The surplus capacity of 3.17 MGD is owned in varying percentages by the three
municipalities, with the Town of Ithaca owning approximately 1.181 MGD of the surplus capacity. Sewage
generated in the Town of Ithaca is transported to the plant via portions of the City’s sewer system.66
66 Countywide Inter‐municipal Water and Sewer Feasibility Study for Tompkins County, T.G. Miller, P.C., Stearns & Wheler, and John M.
Andersson, P.E., 31 March 2010.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐115
B.10.3 Stormwater
Until relatively recently, the primary objective for municipalities managing stormwater was to control the quantity of
it. Because this often posed problems for downstream locations, stormwater management evolved into the use of
detention facilities to delay the rate and flow of runoff downstream. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan described just
four detention facilities that existed at that time, including only one publicly owned stormwater management facility,
constructed in conjunction with the DeWitt Middle School.
With recent involvement from the Federal and State governments as a result of amendments to the Clean Water Act,
municipal management of stormwater runoff has significantly evolved with a major focus now aimed at water
quality. This broadening of the concept of stormwater management has brought about elaborate new techniques for
controlling and treating stormwater runoff--
and has also brought about a host of new
responsibilities for the Town of Ithaca,
including oversight for an expanding number
and variety of stormwater management
facilities
Beginning in 2003, the Town of Ithaca and
many other municipalities in Tompkins
County were mandated to comply with
Federal and State water quality regulations,
commonly referred to as the Stormwater
Phase II Program. These regulations
administered by the NYS DEC required all
regulated municipalities to obtain a permit
from the DEC for the discharge of
stormwater runoff into surface waters. As a
condition of this permit, regulated
municipalities were required to develop and
implement a comprehensive stormwater
management program that included
mandated programs and practices for the
following elements:67
Conduct outreach and education about
polluted stormwater runoff.
Provide opportunities for residents to be
involved in conversations and activities
related to stormwater management.
Detect illicit discharges, such as a pipe
dumping directly into a stream.
Control construction site runoff.
Control post-construction runoff.
Perform "municipal housekeeping" by taking steps to prevent runoff from municipal grounds and activities.
67 Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and NYS Department
of State, September 2004.
Stormwater inlet on Winthrop Drive, part of a larger drainage improvement
project in Northeast Ithaca.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐116
To comply with these regulations, the Town adopted a Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Law in 2008. The law requires the installation of temporary erosion control measures at construction sites
and the construction of permanent onsite stormwater treatment and control facilities at many new building sites
meeting certain thresholds. The Town of Ithaca is required to review and approve Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans (SWPPP) plans and designs for controlling runoff and pollutants resulting from these projects, as well as for
conducting regular inspections of the temporary erosion control measures used during construction activities. The
Town is also required to monitor and perform periodic inspections of permanent stormwater management facilities to
ensure that they are regularly maintained and continue to function as they were designed for in perpetuity.
As required by NYS DEC, the Town maintains an inventory of all permanent stormwater management facilities in
the Town. The current inventory (as of 2012) includes 40 permanent stormwater facilities. These include stormwater
wetlands (created), bioretention ponds, swales, sand filters, and rain gardens. Most facilities are privately owned and
maintained. Owners of permanent stormwater facilities are required to enter into an operation, maintenance and
reporting agreement with the Town, specifying that current and future owners of land containing stormwater facilities
are responsible for future operation, maintenance, and repair to ensure that they continue to function for their
designed purpose. The agreement reserves the right for the Town to access and conduct inspections of stormwater
facilities. If deficiencies are found and not remedied, the Town reserves the right to have repairs performed at owner
expense.
The Town also adopted an illicit discharge detection and elimination law in 2008. The Storm Sewer System and
Surface Water Protection Law is intended to prohibit non-stormwater discharges (pollutants) from entering the
stormwater conveyance system. Illicit discharges can inadvertently enter the stormwater system from failing septic
systems, or they can intentionally enter the system through illegal dumping of material (e.g. used motor oil) into
storm drains or ditches. To implement this law, the Town has developed and continues to update a map of its entire
stormwater conveyance system. The Town is required to inspect a portion of this system annually.
The Town is a partner in the Stormwater Coalition of Tompkins County. This intermunicipal organization was
created in 2003 to provide a means for regulated communities in Tompkins County to work collectively to meet the
goals of the NYS DEC’s stormwater management requirements. The Coalition is composed of 10 Tompkins County
municipalities along with ex-officio members, including the Tompkins County Soil and Water District which provides
technical and administrative assistance. Among its many benefits, the Coalition sponsors trainings and various public
outreach efforts to educate the public about the impacts of pollutants and stormwater runoff.
Implementation of Federal and State stormwater regulations has increased the role of the Town in managing
stormwater impacts. These regulations mandate compliance but offer very little in the way of assistance, leaving the
Town and other local municipalities on their own to find and allocate resources to implement the program. Funding
and staffing needs will need to be carefully examined so the Town meets the challenges of implementing evolving
regulatory requirements, and of ensuring that ever- expanding stormwater infrastructure is adequately maintained.
B.10.4 Road maintenance
There are approximately 121 miles of roads in the Town, of which 50 are owned and maintained by the Town of
Ithaca. The roads owned by the Town are maintained by the Town Public Works Department. The latter is
responsible for paving and repairs, winter maintenance (plowing and salting), roadside mowing (where needed to
keep the area clear and provide adequate site distance for road users), catch basin and ditch cleaning and
repairs, and other road maintenance duties. Public Works Department also plows and salts sections of State and
County roads through shared agreements with these entities.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐117
The Village of Cayuga Heights maintains its own roads except for a few small sections maintained by the Town.
Cornell University and Ithaca College build and maintain most of their own internal roads.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐118
B.11 Community services
B.11.1 Fire protection and emergency services
The Town of Ithaca contracts with the City
of Ithaca Fire Department (IFD) and the
Village of Cayuga Heights Volunteer Fire
Department (CHFD) for fire protection and
emergency rescue services. The Cayuga
Heights Fire Department serves Northeast
Ithaca and the Forest Home neighborhood.
The IFD serves the rest of the Town.
The CHFD is an all-volunteer department
that depends on community members to
provide 24-hour fire protection, emergency
medical assistance, and some rescue services.
As of 2011 there were 50 members serving in
the department, not including additional
volunteers providing non-emergency support
functions. The CHFD also offers community educational programs, most notably regular CPR classes, in their fire
house at 194 Pleasant Grove Road.68
CHFD fire protection to the Town is provided under a contract that was renewed in 2007. Fire protection cost is
divided based on the ratio of Town property values in the service area to village property values. In 2011 the Town’s
share amounted to 36.3% of costs (about $172,300 for operation costs). The same ratio is allied to capital purchases.
Operational expenses that solely benefit the Village (i.e. fire inspections or flushing mains in the Village) are not
included in these calculations.
CHFD answered 517 calls in 2009; 169 of these (32%) were in the Town outside of the Village and 54 of the calls
being outside of their normal service area. The number of calls has increased 81% since 1989, when total calls
reported in the 1993 Plan was 285.69
The IFD is largely staffed by career fire fighters and emergency response personnel. As of 2011 the IFD had 67
uniformed staff. IFD has four fire stations; two in the City, one in the South Hill area, and one in the West Hill area.
The minimum staffing level for the department on duty at any one time is 11; eight fire fighters and three officers. In
addition to basic firefighting, the IFD services include fire prevention, rescue, hazardous material control, and public
education. It also provides emergency medical services for serious accidents and life threatening emergencies.
The number of alarms answered by the IFD has steadily increased over the decades. In 1990 the total number of
calls answered was 3,362, which by 2010 had increased to 4,874. Calls originating from the Town also steadily
increased; 563 reported in 1990, 776 in 2000, and 1,206 in 2010. Percentage of total calls to the IFD originating from
the Town of Ithaca varies from year to year and has averaged around 20% over the last two decades, fluctuating
between 16% to 25%, with percentages since 2005 being above 20%.70
68 Cayuga Heights Fire Department website, http://www.chfd.net/about.php, accessed 8 August 2011.
69 Cayuga Heights Fire Department records.
70 City of Ithaca Fire Department data
IFD West Hill Station on Trumansburg Road.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐119
Community services | Town of Ithaca
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐120
The Town and City of Ithaca last renewed and revised their fire contract in 2010 to provide for fire protection and
emergency medical services until 2014. In return, the Town pays for approximately 37% of operating expenditures
and capital items over $25,000. It also stipulates that the Board of Commissioners must have two Town
representatives.
The Tompkins County Department of Emergency Response oversees the County-wide emergency dispatch and
communications systems that allows residents to dial 911 to receive emergency medical, fire, police, or other
emergency help from any phone in Tompkins County. Ambulance service is provided by a commercial provider; in
the area of the Town of Ithaca, Bangs Ambulance is the provider.
B.11.2 Police
Police protection for the Town is provided primarily by the Tompkins County Sheriff Department, although the New
York State Police also patrol the Town. The Village of Cayuga Heights has its own police force, as do both Cornell
University and Ithaca College. All police forces in the County have mutual assistance policies for large or special
emergencies.
The Tompkins County Sheriff, headquartered on Warren Road in Lansing, has three to five deputies on patrol at any
given time, and 26 deputies total. The department also has seven sergeant deputies and five criminal investigators.
The Tompkins County Jail is also located on Warren Road with an overall inmate capacity of 74 beds.71 The County
is split up into four zones. The zone that includes the Town of Ithaca has at least one officer on patrol at any given
time. There are 20 uniformed NY State Troopers for road patrol and four investigators. The Village of Cayuga
Heights Police Department has six full-time and seven part-time officers with at least one on duty at any given time.72
B.11.3 Town government facilities
Ithaca Town Hall is located at 215 North Tioga Street in the City of Ithaca. Town Hall moved to its present location
in 2000 after determining that its Seneca Street location, one block away, had become grossly inadequate to meet its
needs. Built in 1910, the building is formerly the main Ithaca Post Office, and is considered one of the finest local
examples of Beaux Arts Classicism, an architectural style highly favored for public buildings designed at the turn of
the 20th century. The building is listed on both the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places and as
part of the DeWitt Park Historic District in the City of Ithaca.
Following significant renovations and rehabilitation of the former post office, with care to maintain its historical
character, the structure now provides approximately 13,000 square feet of usable space for Town office activities
(18,000 square feet total). It contains offices, a board/court room, meeting rooms, and storage space. All Town
functions outside of Public Works and Engineering occupy offices within this spacious building.
While having changed location over the years, the Ithaca Town Hall has been located within the City of Ithaca for
over 45 years, providing a central and convenient location for residents. Prior to its Seneca Street office location, now
the site of the Hilton Hotel, Town Hall was located in the City of Ithaca City Hall annex from 1964 until 1975.
The Town Public Works Facility is located on Seven Mile Drive and houses equipment, vehicles, operations, and
administrative offices for the department. Built in 1976, the 10,900 square foot facility was renovated and expanded
by 16,000 square feet in 2003 to accommodate the needs of the department and to provide storage and protection of
equipment and vehicles. The addition included a wash bay, mechanics shop, office space, and a staff break room and
71 2009 Annual Report, Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office
72 Tompkins County Sheriff Department, communications with multiple staff, August 2011.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐121
meeting space. With the steady growth of the Town has come a steady increase in the amount and type of work
being done by the Public Works Department. Part of the growth has put a strain on the current facility to
appropriately store material and equipment. The Public Works 2010 Master Plan called for upgrades to the facility,
some of which have since been completed, including a new salt storage shed, new wash bay, and additions to the
annex building.
B.11.4 Schools
Most Town residents attending public schools are served by the Ithaca City School District, which includes eight
elementary schools (grades K-5), two middle schools (grades 6-8), one high school, and two alternative middle/high
schools (grades 6-12 for Lehman Alternative Community School and grades 9-12 at New Roots Charter School).
Four of the public schools are located within the Town: two elementary schools (Northeast and Cayuga Heights) and
both middle schools (Boynton and DeWitt). About 5,500 students are enrolled in the 12 schools.
An additional public education resource is Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services
(BOCES), which offers special and vocational education and other shared services designed to meet the needs of
member districts. BOCES began in 1949 and in 1970 opened its campus on Warren Road in the Town of Ithaca. As
of the 2010-2011 school year there were 477 school-age students and 527 adult students attending programs. BOCES
has approximately 286 staff members.
Several private and parochial schools service students in the area. The Ithaca Waldorf School is in the Town of
Dryden (early childhood through 7th grade); the Elizabeth A. Clune Montessori School is in the Town of Ithaca
(ages 3-14); and Immaculate Conception School is in the City of Ithaca.
Other schools
The Community School of Music and Art (CSMA) in Ithaca is a private nonprofit organization that has served the
community for over 50 years. It provides instruction in the visual arts, music, dance, theatre, and languages for
students of all ages and backgrounds. CSMA enrolls about1700 students annually.
B.11.5 Library
Library services are provided by the Tompkins County Public Library (TCPL). TCPL serves the residents of
Tompkins County and is the Central Library for the Finger Lakes Library System, serving libraries and users in
Tompkins, Tioga, Cortland, Seneca and Cayuga counties. In 2000, TCPL moved into the former Woolworth store on
Green Street in downtown Ithaca. The move allowed the Library to double in size and attract thousands of new
users. As of 2011, TCPL had over 47,000 registered borrowers and an annual circulation of 835,000 items.73
TCPL offers a circulating collection of 263,000 items including books, paperbacks, magazines, videos, DVDs, music
CDs, and recorded books. An extensive interlibrary loan service provides patrons with items that are not owned by
TCPL. Reference and information services are available in person, by phone or by e-mail. Access to comprehensive
databases, the library's catalog, and the extensive resources on the Internet is available through free public
workstations. Specialized services include microfilm scanners and Rosetta Stone, a language software program for
learning English and Spanish. Public programming for all ages includes author readings, story time, art shows,
music, cultural celebrations, and an annual Community Read in collaboration with Cornell University.
73 Tompkins County Public Library, http://www.tcpl.org/libinfo/about‐history.php, accessed 8 August 2011.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐122
Funding for TCPL continues to be a challenge, and staffing and hours of operation have declined from their peak in
2001. County support for the library has declined in recent years; fundraising campaigns have been conducted and
alternative funding mechanisms explored.
B.11.6 Solid waste management
The Town of Ithaca is not directly responsible for solid waste management. Waste is handled countywide by the
Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division, and garbage collection is provided by private haulers. The
Cayuga Heights Department of Public Works collects garbage within the Village of Cayuga Heights.
The solid waste program is funded largely by transfer station tipping fees, which are reflected in trash tags and an
annual user fee collected through property taxes. The annual fee pays for closing and maintaining old landfills,
curbside recycling collection, the Household Hazardous Waste and Reuse programs, capital costs of the Recycling
and Solid Waste Center, and administration costs. Solid waste handled by the County is exported to Seneca
Meadows landfill in Waterloo.
As outlined in Tompkins County’s Solid Waste Management Plan (1995), a major focus of the Solid Waste
Management Division is diverting materials from the landfill through waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and
composting. The Division has established an extensive countywide recycling program; curbside collection is offered
every other week, and residents may also bring recyclables to the Recycling and Solid Waste Center (160 Commercial
Avenue in the City of Ithaca). This facility underwent a $2.5 million upgrade through the summer and fall of 2011,
enabling Tompkins County to reach its goal of diverting 75% of waste by 2016 and 80% by 2030.74
Tompkins County residents are required by law to recycle newspaper, glass bottles and jars, metal food and beverage
cans, and corrugated cardboard. Beyond their direct programs and services, the Solid Waste Management Division
encourages reuse, home composting, and green purchasing by providing extensive information and resources on their
website for County residents, businesses, and schools. It also sponsors the Compost Education Program at Cornell
Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County. In 2005, approximately 2,200 tons of food waste and 3,000 tons of yard
waste were diverted from landfills through home composting in Tompkins County. 75
B.11.7 Public health facilities
The primary health care facility in the area is the Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) and its satellite facility, the
Convenient Care Center at Ithaca. CMC is located on West Hill, off NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) in the
Town of Ithaca. It is a 204-bed facility with more than 200 affiliated physicians and over 1,200 total health care
professionals. The CMC is a not-for-profit, acute care medical center with many state-of-the-art diagnostic and
treatment services. Over the past decade the facility has undergone significant renovations and expansions, increasing
approximately 100,000 square feet76 to improve and increase services.
The Convenient Care Center at Ithaca facility is located off Warren Road in the Village of Lansing. This facility
provides a variety of medical and emergency services in a location that is convenient to population-growth areas in
the eastern portion of Ithaca and Lansing. The facility is staffed by full-time physicians, registered nurses, and
support personnel who offer medical care on a walk-in basis. They also provide outpatient surgical care, radiology
imaging services, laboratory services, physical therapy, and the Veterans Primary Care Clinic.
74 News Details: Partners Break Ground for Recycling and Solid Waste Center Upgrade. 3 June 2011. Tompkins County website.
http://www.tompkins‐co.org/detail.aspx?ContentID=1705, accessed 21 July 2011.
75 Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division, 2006. http://www.recycletompkins.org., accessed 21 July 2011.
76 Town of Ithaca Planning Department records.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐123
B.12 Economic development
The following provides an economic profile of the Town. The information includes countywide economic and
employment information and a Town-specific profile of commercial and retail development.
B.12.1 General economy
The economy of Tompkins County has been steady and growing moderately over the last several decades. Since the
1960s, the economy has transformed from being primarily driven by durable goods manufacturing to being dominated
by the educational service sector. In 1962, manufacturing peaked with 6,200 jobs accounting for 36% of all private
sector jobs in Tompkins County. By 2005, manufacturing accounted for less than 8% of all private sector jobs, while
service sector jobs accounted for 90%. Conventional service jobs, such as retail, food service, and hospitality, have
remained steady over recent decades, and account for 16% of private sector jobs. Starting in the mid-1960s, and with
a rapid rise in the 1980s, educational services grew into the dominant sector and by 2005 accounted for 49% of
private sector jobs in the County. Technology firms producing software, equipment, and high tech services emerged
in the 1980’s and by 2005 accounted for 5% of permanent private sector jobs. Health services, transportation,
professional services, and other business services make up most of the remaining service jobs. The key wealth-
generating sectors in Tompkins County are education, manufacturing, and high tech. Agriculture and tourism, while
smaller in their economic contributions, add significantly to the community’s overall quality of life and help diversify
the economic base.77
The annual growth rate of the economy over the last decade has averaged around 1.5 %. The recent recession, which
started in 2008, hit Tompkins County much harder than the recession of 2002 and about equal to the 1991-92
recession. In the 1991-92 recession, Tompkins County lost approximately 1,600 jobs.78 Current figures indicate job
losses between 2008 and 2011 in Tompkins County at about 1,551.79 Unlike manufacturing or high tech
employment, which tends to fluctuate with the market, the relatively stable employment in the educational sector
allowed the area to fare better than the national and State average during the last recession. In addition, thousands of
students, many from outside the State, bring millions of dollars in consumer spending to the region each year. This
spending helps to support a host of industries from restaurants and real estate to other retail establishments in Ithaca
and the surrounding area.
There is no established economic development policy or strategy for the Town of Ithaca. However, the Tompkins
County Area Development (TCAD) is an excellent resource to develop incentives and initiatives to attract certain
industries and businesses. TCAD, a private, not-for-profit organization founded in 1964 is the economic development
agency for the County. The organization provides a number of services aimed at attracting, retaining, and fostering
the growth of businesses that create quality jobs and increase the tax base. TCAD identified three major goals in its
2006 economic development strategy for Tompkins County:
1. Increase and diversify housing supply,
2. Improve workforce and business skills,
3. Revitalize unique commercial districts and town centers.
Among its many efforts, TCAD manages a revolving loan program to help area businesses; serves as a conduit to the
tax-exempt bond market for local not-for-profit employers; partnered with the Workforce Investment Board to create
77 Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy, Tompkins County Area Development (2006).
78 Index of Economic Activity in Tompkins County, Department of Economics at Ithaca College,
http://www.ithaca.edu/economics/tcindex.htm, accessed 4 August 2011.
79 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wagers (QCEW), Department of Labor, Labor Statistics, http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/ins.asp
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐124
a comprehensive Workforce Strategy for Tompkins County; coordinated the efforts in producing the Countywide
Inter-Municipal Water and Sewer Feasibility Study for Tompkins County (March 2010); and in 2008 contracted with
Chumura Economic and Analytics to produce the Tompkins County Labor Market Region Study (April 2008).
B.12.2 Employers
Four of the top ten employers in Tompkins County are located wholly or partially within the Town of Ithaca: Cornell
University, Ithaca College, the Ithaca City School District and the Cayuga Medical Center.
Top employers in Tompkins County
Rank Employer Sector
1 Cornell University Education
2 Ithaca College Education
3 BorgWarner Manufacturing
4 Ithaca City School District Education
5 Cayuga Medical Center Health services
6 Tompkins County Government
7 Wegmans Retail
8 Franziska Racker Center Social services
9 City of Ithaca Government
10 William George Agency Social serrvices
Source: TCAD, http://www.tcad.org/businessInfo/factsandfigures.php#employ, accessed 1 August 2011
Institutions of higher learning
Higher education has provided a stable foundation for the local economy. Together the area's three institutions of
higher learning, Cornell University, Ithaca College and Tompkins Cortland Community College, have more than
14,000 employees, enroll more than 30,000 students per year, and generate billions of dollars worth of economic
activity. These institutions also provide numerous opportunities for cultural, recreational, and sports events for the
enjoyment of area residents,. These institutions provide continuing education opportunities for residents and provide
student interns and volunteers to support community programs and activities.
Cornell University, founded in 1865, has grown over the years in size, enrollment, and breadth of activity. It has
become internationally known as a research and development center. According to the Cornell University Division
of Planning and Budget, for the Fall 2012 semester, Cornell had a workforce of 9,734 full- and part-time employees
(faculty of 1,587, academic non-faculty of 1,073, and non-academic staff of 7,074).80 Its extensive holdings of land
also make it possible for Cornell to play a significant role as a local real estate developer and as a steward of
significant natural areas. While most of Cornell’s core campus is located in the City of Ithaca, many of its facilities
are situated within the Town of Ithaca, including the School of Veterinary Medicine, athletic fields, the Orchards
area, Plantations, the Tennis Center, Equestrian Center and the area around East Hill Plaza that is planned for future
University expansion as East Ithaca Village.
Ithaca College was founded in 1892 as a music conservatory, and was originally located within the City of Ithaca. In
the 1960s, Ithaca College moved its campus to South Hill in the Town of Ithaca. The College employs 1,697 faculty
80 Cornell University Office of Institutional Research and Planning, www.irp.dpb.cornell.edu/tableau_visual/academic‐workforce‐at‐a‐
glance, www.irp.dpb.cornell.edu/tableau_visual/non‐academic‐workforce‐at‐a‐glance
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐125
and staff (non-student, full- and part-time in 2010).81 Most of its students live on campus. The College has been
expanding its facilities on campus in recent year, most recently with the addition of a new Athletic and Events Center.
Tompkins Cortland Community College (TC3), founded in 1967, is located in the Town of Dryden, with extension
centers in the City of Ithaca and Cortland. TC3 serves more than 3,000 students in credit programs, and another
3,000 in non-credit workshops and customized training. TC3 has 266 full-time employees (faculty, administration,
support) with 250 adjunct instructors. TC3 plays a vital role in the area’s workforce development.
Other major employers in the Town
The Cayuga Medical Center has been expanding its size and services over the years. Currently the facility employs
1,200 health care professionals, and has a medical staff of more than 200 affiliated physicians.
The Ithaca City School District (ICSD) has 5,247 students enrolled in its 12 schools; eight elementary, two middle,
one high school, and one 6-12 alternative school.82 The District covers an area of 155 square miles, covering urban,
suburban and rural areas. According to the ICSD 2011-2012 budget proposal, the District has 1,181 employees.
The Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES), located in the Town on Warren
Road, provides career and technical programs for high school students, students with disabilities, and literacy and
employment training for adults. As part of its shared services mission, BOCES also provides non-instructional
support services to local school districts. The facility on Warren Road has about 290 employees.
B.12.3 Employment: major occupations
Education, training, and library-related occupations are the largest occupation group in Tompkins County, with 9,500
jobs in 2007, while office and administrative support occupations accounted for more than 8,600 jobs.83 Total
employment during the period was 50,341, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The occupation profile for Town residents indicates the most common occupations as: educational services,
healthcare, and social assistance (58%), followed by professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
management service (12%), arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food service occupations (7%), and
retail trade (6%).84 Of employed people, 82% were private wage and salary workers, 13% federal, state, or local
government workers, and 5% self-employed workers.85
Tompkins County has a highly skilled workforce. Many students choose to stay in the region after graduation,
resulting in a high percentage of residents with college and graduate degrees. This creates opportunities for industries
requiring highly educated workers and entrepreneurial activities. However, the skills embodied in the residents do not
necessarily match the skills demanded by firms in the region. According to the Chmura Economics and Analytics
report (2008), in 2006, close to half the positions created by Tompkins County firms needed workers with a minimum
of basic skills (short- to long-term on-the-job training), while 18.1% required medium skills (experience in a related
occupation, postsecondary vocational award, or associate‘s degree) and 32.7% called for high skills (four-year degree
or greater). High-skilled workers composed 40.3% of the labor supply while medium-skilled workers composed
81 Ithaca College Facts in Brief 2010‐11, Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research.
http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/facts/Ithaca_College_Facts_in_Brief_2010‐11.pdf, accessed 1 August 2011.
82 Ithaca City School District Registrar Office, 2012 school year.
83 Tompkins County Labor Market Region Study, Chmura Economic and Analytics for Tompkins County Area Development, April 2008.
84 American Community Survey 2008‐2012, United States Census Bureau.
85 American Community Survey 3yr. dataset 2010‐2012, United States Census Bureau.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐126
33.9% of the supply. The result was potential underemployment for 23.4% of the workforce. Such workers are likely
candidates to migrate out of the area in search of more suitable work.
Employment sectors: Town of Ithaca residents
Source: American Community Survey 2008‐2012
B.12.4 Commuters
The County labor market extends well beyond the borders of Tompkins County. According to the American
Community Survey data, approximately 14,901 workers commute from various neighboring and nearby counties into
Tompkins County.86
Due to the growing demand for workers in Tompkins County, the number of people incommuting has been steadily
increasing. In 1990, about 11,350 workers, or 20% of the workforce, commuted into Tompkins County. In 2000,
there were 13,713 incommuters; about 24% of the workforce in the county.
Incommuting into Tompkins County
County % of incommuters
Cortland (Cortland, Homer, McGraw) 22%
Tioga (Spencer, Candor, Owego) 21%
Cayuga (Auburn, Moravia, Aurora) 15%
Schuyler (Watkins Glen, Odessa, Montour Falls) 11%
Chemung (Elmira, Horseheads, Van Etten) 8%
Seneca (Seneca Falls, Interlaken, Ovid) 7%
Broome (Binghamton, Whitney Point, Lisle) 3%
Onondaga (Syracuse, Tully, Skaneateles) 2%
Other counties 11%
86 American Community Survey data (2006‐2008), Census Transportation Planning Products, United States Census Bureau. The Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey program has replaced the standard decennial census long form. This “continuous measurement”
program began in 2003.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐127
B.12.5 Commercial and manufacturing profile
The Town of Ithaca has some limited commercial and retail businesses but most of this type of economic activity is
concentrated in the City of Ithaca and Village of Lansing. There are currently four neighborhood commercial zones
and one community commercial zone in the Town. The neighborhood commercial zone is intended to serve nearby
neighborhoods, be low-volume traffic generators, and be minimally intrusive on residential neighborhoods. The
community commercial zone is intended to provide a broader range of economic activities that might draw clientele
from all areas of the Town and beyond its borders. These areas include:
Neighborhood commercial
Inlet Valley/ Elmira Road (NY 13). This area and includes several motels, a veterinary hospital, and a
stereo/electronics store. It has not experienced much change over the last decade
Danby Road (NY 96B) near the City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca border . This site, known as Rogan’s Corner,
includes a restaurant, convenience store, gas station, liquor store and dessert catering business. The site is
constrained physically and is not anticipated to expand, but turnover in the occupants of some businesses has
occurred over the last ten years.
Danby Road (NY 96B)/King Road. This area includes a gas station/convenience store, furniture store, hotel,
coffee shop, and a food delivery/take-out store. Commercial uses continue to grow in this area, including the
proposed 19,000 square foot College Crossings neighborhood retail center.
Community commercial
Pine Tree Road/Ellis Hollow/Mitchell Street. This area continues to be in fluctuation and has recently
experienced a decline in the number and variety of commercial businesses. Once supporting two plazas, one on
each side of Pine Tree Road, now only East Hill Plaza remains, along with a number of freestanding businesses
along the perimeter of the plaza and on the west side of Pine Tree Road. East Hill Plaza is owned by Cornell
University, and operated by a private management company. It includes a supermarket (about 50,000 square
feet), several restaurants, a liquor store, laundromat, gym, and other retail spaces, along with almost 50,000
square feet of Cornell University administrative offices in former retail space. The freestanding businesses in the
Plaza include a hotel, several banks, gas station, dental office, and car wash. East Hill Plaza occupies about 22.2
acres. A drug store/pharmacy and a bank are the only commercial uses that remain on the opposite side of Pine
Tree Road. In recent years, Cornell University has significantly expanded their property holdings in this area.
Manufacturing and technical businesses
South Hill Business Campus on Danby Road (NY 96B). This 271,000 square foot facility originally opened in
1957 as the new regional headquarters of the National Cash Register Company, and later became home to the
Inlet Valley Corridor area. (DT)
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan B‐128
corporate headquarters of Axiohm Transactions Solutions. The manufacturing component eventually left Ithaca,
and the expansive factory stood idle for a time, until its most recent transformation into a successful multi-tenant
mixed use facility. The South Hill Business Campus was rezoned from Industrial to Planned Development Zone
in 2005 to allow a wide mix of uses. Currently, some 43 businesses occupy the complex, including approximately
30% manufacturing, 30% research and development, and 40% office use. As of 2011, approximately 90% of the
facility was rented and the owners are interested in future expansion of the campus.
Therm Incorporated. Therm is located on Hudson Street Extension, near the city-town boundary. It is a
manufacturer and supplier of state-of-the-art turbine blades, and has supplied custom-machined components
since 1935. The company has approximately 170 skilled and cross-skilled employees at its 130,000 square foot
facility.
Emerson Power Transmission was the most recent owner of the 760,733 square foot manufacturing complex
located off Aurora Street/Danby Road (NY 96B) in the Town and City of Ithaca. The plant was built in 1928,
with several subsequent expansions, and was used for manufacturing equipment for industrial and automotive
applications. The plant, closed since 2010, offers many opportunities for reuse and/or redevelopment.
Portion of Inlet Valley along Elmira Road (NY 13)/Five Mile Drive. This light industrial zoned area contains a
small cluster of construction and trade-related uses, a small machine manufacturing business, and a brewery
located near Five Mile Drive. The Ithaca Beer Company is a noticeably thriving presence in this area. The
company will be expanding into a new 15,000 square foot facility that will include a brewery, pub, beer garden,
and retail space on an adjacent site.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐1
APPENDIX C
RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐3
RESIDENT SURVEY RESULTS
The Town of Ithaca hired the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University to conduct a telephone survey of Town
residents. The goal of the survey was to determine how residents feel about the town, its character, municipal
services offered, and its future goals and spending. The results of the survey, along with other public input, will help
to inform and assist the town as it proceeds in the update of its Comprehensive Plan.
Residents were randomly selected to participate in the survey via their telephone number. Telephone numbers for the
survey were randomly selected using a random-digit dial sample of telephone exchanges covering the Town of Ithaca
including the Village of Cayuga Heights. This method of selecting phone numbers was chosen because of the ability
to obtain unlisted and cell phone numbers that would be missed had the numbers been selected from a phone book.
Excluded from the project were residents of dormitories on the Cornell University and Ithaca College campus. The
telephone survey was conducted over a three and a half week period in January 2009. In total, 359 surveys were
completed.
The survey questionnaire was divided into five topic areas: (1) quality of life, (2) growth and development, (3) quality
of municipal services, (4) spending priorities, and (5) laws and policies.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐4
1. Quality of life: How important are these aspects to your quality of life?
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Natural areas
Quality of public schools
Nearby state parks
Town parks and trails
Scenic views
Policies guiding growth and development policies in Town
Ability to buy locally produced farm products
Living in close proximity of your place of employment
Availability of services near your neighborhood
Proximity of CU and IC
Recreational use of Cayuga Lake
Predominantly residential nature of Town
Sense of community with your neighborhood
Historic sites, structures and markers
Downtown Ithaca as the hub of the area
Farmland
Average rating on 4 point scale (1 – very unimportant to 4 – very important)
Quality of life
Quality of life aspect
Ver y
unimportant
%
Unimportant
%
Important
%
Ver y
important
%
Natural areas 1 4 28 67
Quality of public schools 2 11 25 62
Nearby state parks 1 8 39 52
Town parks and trails 2 7 39 52
Scenic views 1 8 40 51
Policies guiding growth and development policies in Town 2 10 47 41
Ability to buy locally produced farm products 3 14 36 46
Living in close proximity of your place of employment 3 14 40 44
Availability of services near your neighborhood 2 14 47 38
Proximity of CU and IC 2 19 40 39
Recreational use of Cayuga Lake 4 18 41 37
Predominantly residential nature of Town 2 17 49 32
Sense of community with your neighborhood 3 19 43 35
Historic sites, structures and markers 2 25 48 25
Downtown Ithaca as the hub of the area 6 22 45 26
Farmland 8 21 46 24
Sense of community with the Town 5 30 49 16
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐5
2. Growth and development: To what extent should the Town encourage or discourage the following types of
development?
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Senior citizen housing
Housing for moderate income residents
Traditional single family housing
Compact developments with large common open or green space
Housing for low income residents
Owner occupied condos or duplexes
Development combining residential and commercial uses
More small‐scale shopping opportunities near where you live
Flexibility to develop additional housing unit adjacent to home
Housing for high income residents
More restaurants within one mile of where you live
More student housing
Apartment complexes
Services within one mile of where you live
Mobile home parks
Average rating on 4 point scale (1 – strongly discourage to 4 – strongly encourage)
Growth and development
Growth and development issue
Strongly
discourage
%
Discourage
%
Encourage
%
Strongly
encourage
%
Senior citizen housing 1 8 60 30
Housing for moderate income residents 2 9 68 20
Traditional single family housing 2 16 57 25
Compact developments with large common open or green space 4 16 56 25
Housing for low income residents 6 14 55 24
Owner occupied condos or duplexes 6 27 52 16
Development combining residential and commercial uses 10 26 52 12
More small‐scale shopping opportunities near where you live 11 31 40 18
Flexibility to develop additional housing unit adjacent to existing
home 11 33 40 16
Housing for high income residents 9 37 49 5
More restaurants within one mile of where you live 12 44 32 12
More student housing 12 41 37 10
Apartment complexes 10 41 42 6
Services within one mile of where you live 13 41 36 10
Mobile home parks 36 45 16 3
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐6
3. Municipal service: How would you rate the quality of the following services provided in the Town of
Ithaca?
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Recycling
Fire protection/EMS
Municipal sewer
Municipal water
Snowplowing
Park/trail maintenance
Maintaining quiet neighborhoods
Police presence
Recreation programming
Limiting excessive street/sign lighting
Notify neighbors of development proposals
Road maintenance
Pedestrian walkway maintenance
Average rating on 4 point scale (1 – poor to 4 – excellent)
Municipal services
Service Poor %Fair %Good % Excellent %
Recycling 3 7 43 47
Fire protection/EMS 2 9 46 44
Municipal sewer 4 6 53 36
Municipal water 5 8 48 39
Snowplowing 3 13 46 38
Park/trail maintenance 3 9 58 30
Maintaining quiet neighborhoods 3 12 57 28
Police presence 4 24 50 23
Recreation programming 5 20 54 20
Limiting excessive street/sign lighting 8 21 56 16
Notify neighbors of development proposals 14 24 42 20
Road maintenance 15 33 40 11
Pedestrian walkway maintenance 20 29 40 11
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐7
4. Spending priorities: How do you feel about the Town spending money on the following activities?
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.6
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Improving road shoulders for bikes
Protecting farmland from development
Managing deer populations
Scheduling pickup of large items
Increasing bike/walk trails
Increase the number of designated natural areas
Increasing the number of sidewalks
Increasing the number of parks
Decrease neighborhood traffic
Average rating on 4 point scale (1 – strongly oppose to 4 – strongly support)
Spending priority
Activity Strongly
oppose % Oppose % Support % Strongly
support %
Improving road shoulders for bikes 4 8 43 44
Protecting farmland from development 3 15 43 39
Managing deer populations 7 14 35 44
Scheduling pickup of large items 3 15 49 34
Increasing bike/walk trails 5 20 43 32
Increase the number of designated natural areas 5 24 47 24
Increasing the number of sidewalks 6 26 45 23
Increasing the number of parks 8 32 46 13
Decrease neighborhood traffic 8 34 43 14
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐8
Open‐ended survey responses
This section provides a general overview of residents’ individual responses from a more lengthy collection of
responses gathered during the 2009 Residential Survey. Responses were grouped and rearranged into four categories:
strong opinions, positive comments, constructive recommendations, and need for clarification.
Strong opinions:
Deer concerns
Lower taxes
Positive comments:
“Ithaca is a friendly place.”
Trail appreciation: “I feel very strong about environmental issues. Natural areas in Ithaca are very important. I
use these areas, myself, everyday. I do a lot of walking and I walk my dog. I live on South Hill next to a
recreation trail, and I use it every day.”
“It’s a really good place to live!”
“I am happy where I live.”
“I really love living in the town of Ithaca, and I think they are doing a great job.”
“We enjoy all the things the two universities have to offer and the small-tow feel. We love it here.”
“I have been living in Ithaca for 58 years and I love it here.”
“I am happy that my opinion was sought. I feel that the town should be very cautious in how they spend their
money and try to keep taxes as low as possible. I believe that prioritizing will be important in the economic
situation that we’re in. I also feel that one income level group should not be considered more important than
another and that there should be proper housing and resources for all groups.”
“I really appreciate the bi-annual newsletter they send out. It’s informative.”
“Ithaca is unique, keep it that way.”
“I really love Ithaca, moved here about two years ago and am very please with it. There is not much I feel would
need to be changed.”
“Ithaca is unique for its international population and should be supported and kept “Ithaca.”
Constructive recommendations:
Considering updating utility payments system to allow automatic withdraws from checking or online payment
ability.
Address the lack of sidewalks and poor road maintenance.
Require better attention to road side tree planting and reviewing speed limit and speed traps on Elm Street,
Chestnut, and Hector Street.
“I think it’s important for local governments to reach out to social and cultural organizations in the community. I
feel that the government has missed many opportunities to encourage citizens to participate.”
“Need more athletic facilities and to better maintain what we have and add to it, for kids and adults. More
outdoor pools for public use and have them be open longer.”
Increase bike paths and road shoulders.
Request more bulk trash pick up.
Consider revising energy conservation policies and codes.
Consider improving pedestrian crosswalk on Lake Street to Boynton Middle School.
Increase support for senior services.”
Consider reducing the speed limit on route 79 and re-touting trucks.
Televise Town Board meetings, or perhaps consider webcams for internet users.
Improve snow plowing.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan C‐9
Increase residents’ awareness of new developments besides local newspaper.
More flyers and newsletters.
Better leave clean up.
“Senior housing should be encouraged, but be integrated, not isolated. Higher-income housing should not be
discouraged, but the town doesn’t need to do anything to encourage it.”
“The town and city should be more united in services” as well as county.
Consider limited billboards and rights-of-way advertisement regulations.
Improve residential accessibility construction safer route from school to home for disabled children.
Improve handicap parking.
“Deal with the pot hole on Pine Tree Road that is under the overpass!”
“The value of surveys like this are pretty limited.”
Warren and Hanshaw Road is a major safety problem for bicycles.
“There needs to be boundaries established pertaining to growth and sprawl to maintain a good balance.”
“Our part of town doesn’t get certain services that are available in other parts for the town like DSL cable
because the road is split between two townships. I think the townships should get together and solve the
problem.”
“Build more convenient bike and pedestrian access from West Hill to downtown like trails not on the road. More
convenient and regular bus service linking the outlying areas of the town to reduce carbon and car use.”
Improve bus service on Coddington Road.
More sidewalks, no sidewalks near Ithaca College, very dangerous.
Viewsheds and regulations: “There’s a barn blocking my view of the lake. It was a surprise. If I had know about
it, maybe we could have worked towards setting it so it didn’t block my view.”
“The town should have aggressively pursue funding for development rights.”
“The town should have a development plan, and it should include planned unit developments. I’d like to see
natural resources used better. I appreciate low density, but I don’t know if five-acre individual lots are the best
way to do this. I’m interested in denser developments surrounded by open space. I’d like to see these
developments include senior and low0income housing. The town may be working too hard to pursue matching
funds for employment programs, rather than efficiently maintaining the roads.”
Support low income housing.
Misconceptions on taxes, and municipal services.
More police.
Speed concerns.
“The town administrative staff is discourteous, obstructive, and rude. Their job is to serve residents. For
example, when residents need to find out about new developments in their neighborhood, the town staff stands
between the residents and public records. They are biased and self-protective.”
What the Town needs to clarify for residents:
Explain what services are offered by the town and what private services are.
Create better communication changes between resident complaints and what service offices the town uses, e.g.
sheriff’s department.
Town boundaries and explanation town’s jurisdictions.
Explain how municipal water or sewer works with payments, especially with homes that also have a private well.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐1
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC AND FOCUS GROUP
MEETING SUMMARIES
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐3
PUBLIC AND FOCUS GROUP MEETING SUMMARIES
D.1 Focus groups
D.1.1 Neighborhood focus group
26 February 2009
Town Hall Board Room
There were several related topics that were touched upon in the Neighborhood focus group meeting, including growth
and development, housing, neighborhood character, transportation and traffic. Each topic area was addressed
according to an area of the Town: South Hill, East Hill, Northeast, and West Hill.
South Hill
Residents of South Hill were concerned about the area’s growing student population, particularly in the Kendall and
Pennsylvania Avenue area, where trash, noise, lack of landscaping, large parking areas, and speeding have become
significant problems. There was also concern over the conversion of single family homes to student housing along
Coddington Road, near the City/Town border. There was praise for the maintenance of the South Hill Recreation
Way and for new plantings at the Coddington Road entrance to Ithaca College. However, overall, residents pointed
out that a transient, student rental population has altered the area’s character and created difficulties for elderly
residents.
Coddington Road was also the subject of traffic complaints. Residents noted the challenge of parking along the road,
its lack of lighting and sidewalks, prevalence of speeding (especially approaching the Hudson Street and Coddington
Road intersection), and general difficulties with the road’s Ithaca College entrance. Residents often observed students
walking four or five people wide along roads and suggested that sidewalks would reduce dangerous pedestrian-vehicle
conflicts.
In terms of future directions, residents advocated for more infill development, catered to a mixed population. In
particular, there was a desire for more walkable commercial development, and for continued housing development in
the King and Danby Road areas. Residents also pointed out the need for better pedestrian access around Ithaca
College.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐4
East Hill
Similar to South Hill, residents expressed concern about students populating the area, especially around the
Eastwood Commons, Honness Lane, and Pine Tree Road. They suggested that Cornell and Ithaca College construct
more on-campus apartments to prevent overpopulated student neighborhoods. For students that do live off campus,
residents advocated for more integrated neighborhood housing that incorporated green spaces, rather than clusters of
large, tightly packed apartment complexes. In addition to student housing, there was also a desire for Cornell-
provided affordable housing for employees, in places such as Eastwood Commons.
In Forest Home, residents stressed the need for safety and accessibility, particularly in terms of sidewalk provisions
and safe play areas for children. Similarly, residents pointed out the poor appearance, maintenance, and lack of
playgrounds for children in the Maplewood Apartments development. Speeding, slippery surfaces, and lack of
pedestrian crossings along Pine Tree Road, as well as the road’s intersections with Route 79 and Honness Lane, were
also seen as jeopardizing pedestrian access and safety.
Other topics that surfaced during the course of discussion included the loss of services at East Hill Plaza and the
influence of the Cornell 30-year master plan on the area’s development.
Northeast
One main concern expressed by residents of the northeast area of the Town included the proposed Briarwood II
subdivision development, located adjacent to Sapsucker Woods. It was noted that in the past three years, homes
along Hanshaw Road have been converted from single family to multi-dwelling units. The units have not been
maintained and have generated parking and traffic difficulties. Issues of commuter traffic through Forest Home and
the main intersection at Community Corners were also discussed.
The area's natural beauty and preservation, particularly Sapsucker Woods, was highlighted as an asset.
West Hill
Residents expressed worry over the Carrowmoor project and the lack of pedestrian access to and from the Linderman
Creek development, stating that any new development should have pedestrian accommodations and bus stops. There
was also concern over high end housing and its impact on the existing character of the neighborhood. The loss of
farmland along Mecklenburg Road and the Eco Village area was also seen as a major issue. In general, residents
were unsure of how the Town would go about convincing residents to live in denser, more compact housing.
Overall, residents desired more discussion between Cornell, Ithaca College, the Town, and residents. They reiterated
the need for consistent and standard crosswalk designation and lines, and for better enforcement of traffic in the
Town. They also believed that the Low Density Residential zone needed to be improved to prevent individual
building lots and to encourage more clustered housing. Where possible, trees should be preserved and required in
new developments, including single family residential subdivisions.
D.1.2 Agricultural focus group
4 March 2009
Town Hall Board Room
The Agricultural focus group meeting included very positive and encouraging statements about the value of
agriculture in the Town of Ithaca. Residents noted that farming has helped with environmental issues, such as
stormwater retention and erosion. It has provided a number of jobs and services, and has satisfied local food
demand. Finally, agriculture has provided both valued green space as well as space for various land uses, such as
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐5
energy and biofuel production (it was noted that an energy collective was in place in Enfield). Overall, in comparison
with other municipalities, there was recognition that locally grown food was both fundamentally valued and
supported by Ithaca consumers.
Farmers’ primary concern was concentrating development and infill close to the City of Ithaca, rather than
leapfrogging into agricultural areas. The Carrowmoor development’s conversion of farmland to housing was
highlighted as a poor example of farmland preservation. In general, farmers desired better coordination with Town
staff on proposed zoning changes, permit applications, and deed restrictions. A new Town farm liaison could provide
farmers with additional help in working through approvals and permits, and communicating their needs. Lastly,
attendees reminded the Town that farms often cross municipal boundaries, and that better coordination was needed
among municipalities with respect to laws, regulations, and general attitudes towards agriculture.
Famers were also concerned about vehicular traffic and speeds on Town roads. They emphasized the difficulty of
operating farm equipment on heavily trafficked roads, especially where there were minimal shoulders. Special
concern was given to traffic speeds at the Dubois and Trumansburg Road intersection, where it was suggested that a
flashing light be installed.
Attendees mentioned a number of strategies that could facilitate long term agriculture in the Town. In terms of
community services, farmers noted that they have paid more than they have received and suggested that the Town
provide deer fences, water, and other infrastructure items in order to achieve the Town’s goal of local small-scale food
production. Attendees also suggested that the Town create a program to assist farmers with putting up fences and
other capital projects, similar to the Michigan Orchard Program. Finally, participants stated that the Town could do
more to encourage young buyers to purchase farmland through programs such as “Farm Link,” which would
encourage the transferring of farms between generations.
The meeting also addressed more specific business issues and ideas. First, attendees advocated for relief from high
taxes. They noted that tax breaks were not available when individuals purchased farms, which has made it difficult
for new farmers to enter the profession. Farmers could provide community benefits, such as school tours, in
exchange for tax relief. Providing tax breaks for Town restaurants that served local food was also recommended.
Second, farmers and residents expressed their desire for a more permanent seven-day-per-week sales location for their
products. At minimum, they pointed out the need for designated off-site locations to gather and sell produce. Lastly,
farmers proposed that farm districts be advertised as farmers market destination clusters, similar to the wine trail.
Agricultural tourism would encourage people to come from the City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and surrounding
municipalities and enjoy their food in green spaces closer to production sources.
Finally, attendees suggested implementing some sort of resident education awareness to preserve farmland and
promote support for local agriculture. Participants brainstormed educational ideas like mailing pamphlets, offering
educational programs during certain times of the year (e.g. during the seasonal movement of equipment), and
creating a Town welcome bag for area newcomers that included agricultural information. Mobile signs, especially
those that indicate traffic speeds in agricultural zones, were also suggested.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐6
D.1.3 Energy focus group
11 May 2009
Ithaca Town Hall
The Energy focus group meeting began with a discussion of the shortcomings in the environmental review process
for new developments. Specifically, residents asserted that the review process should consider climate change impacts
and that the Town’s environmental quality review law should be modified to include climate change sections, thereby
making the process more stringent than state requirements.
The group then went into a discussion about local organizational and municipal energy efforts. Attendees noted that
Tompkins County, with its high quality software tracking system, saw its role as an umbrella for the administration of
programs, such as alternative fuels, Finger Lakes Environmental Procurement, and distribution lists. The County
also has included a number of green elements as part of its Comprehensive Plan, was currently conducting a green
fleet study, and was also looking into a loan fund for energy efficiency improvements for low income residents.
Another local organization, the Tompkins County Area Development (TCAD), was trying to incorporate more green
jobs in their structure.
Additionally, the City of Ithaca, with its 2006 Local Action Plan, has been striving to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from its operations. The Plan includes a green fleet and purchasing and building policies for city
operations, including building deconstruction (disassembling and reuse/recycle) and energy efficiency. As part of the
Plan, each department has been developing its own energy strategy. Sustainability training is being provided for City
employees, and funding to pay for a sustainability coordinator comes from the Mayor’s budget. Cornell’s Climate
Action Plan was also briefly mentioned. Discussion of the Town’s municipal energy usage was brief. The Town’s
building audits were mentioned, as was the need to reduce energy loss from the large windows in Town Hall.
Attendees discussed the necessity of partnerships between organizations, especially because climate change goes
beyond local, state, and national levels in its scope. One participant noted that Portland, Oregon had a sustainability
department and that their codes provide incentives for builders to go beyond the existing energy code. Residents also
discussed the value of partnership organizations such as the ICLEI (formerly International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, now called Local Governments for Sustainability), of which the City and County are
members.
A number of energy topic areas were addressed, including housing, energy production sources, education, and the
Town government’s own energy usage in its daily operations.
In terms of housing, participants suggested that the existing housing coalition should be closely connected to any
energy discussions. There was criticism of current energy housing programs at various government levels (e.g.
current incentives that are targeted at builders, not towards homeowners that make improvements). Current
programs have tended to favor low, rather than middle income households.
Attendees suggested modifying the Town’s zoning regulations to favor projects that included solar or wind energy.
Attendees also had questions about the possibility of hydropower in the Town and how the Town proposed to handle
the demand for natural gas drilling in the region.
Residents pointed out the difficulty of trying to get people to make energy improvements to their homes, given the
area’s highly transient population. In response, it was mentioned that tax credits are available, as are loans for
improvements that are tied to mortgages.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐7
The group then discussed the strides that were needed in educating consumers about energy improvement strategies
(e.g. simple changes that could increase sustainability, like installing better insulation, mowing smaller lawns, and
having more naturally landscaped properties). To promote sustainability, residents suggested having energy efficiency
contests and holding open houses on energy efficiency improvements. On a larger scale, it was suggested that
neighborhoods work together and obtain grants. Cornell Cooperative Extension noted that they provide energy
educational support, but acknowledged that they needed to do a better job of reaching out to those who were less
receptive to changing behavior.
D.1.4 Housing focus group
27 October 2009
Ithaca Town Hall
The Housing focus group meeting centered on the condition of existing housing in the Town, need for additional
housing, and possible locations for new housing units. The discussion also touched upon methods of incorporating
green building practices into future housing stock.
The group recognized that there has been a housing shortage in the County, particularly affordable housing.
Attendees discussed the need for homes in the $150,000-$250,000 range ($150,000-$200,000 for workforce housing,
$200,000-$250,000 for young professionals or retirees looking to downsize) that could accommodate the growing
number of single-person households. One resident illustrated the point by noting that the Conifer development on
West Hill had a waiting list for its 325 currently occupied affordable rental units.
When asked what they perceived to be “affordable”, residents responded in a variety of ways. They noted that the
Tompkins County median family income was approximately $74,000, and that nearly 80% of residents could not
afford a $150,000 home with a $1,000/month mortgage, excluding utilities. They weighed the variety of other factors
that affected affordability, such as one’s debt to income ratio, transportation and utility costs, local tax rate, and the
amount of competition from other buyers and renters.
Participants then discussed strategies to encourage affordable housing in the area. First, attendees recognized the
challenges to implementing affordable housing. They pointed out the funding difficulties associated with mixed
income rental housing, and in particular, the large profits needed on market-rate units to offset the cost of affordable
units. Residents also noted the challenges of using federal and state credits for market-rate housing, although the
success of Conifer Village in applying federal and state low income tax credits was noted. There was verbal support
for the large number of residents at Linderman Creek that were either employed or receiving assistance.
Residents came up with a number of proposals for ensuring more affordable housing. For example, they suggested
creating more areas with higher density and inclusionary and incentive zoning, similar to what the County has been
doing. In particular, there was criticism that the Town zoned very little land for multiple residences (MR zoning).
Attendees suggested that the Town plan for MR zoning in advance, instead of rezoning parcels to MR as
development proposals occur.
There was also an idea to create a Town Community Housing Trust (similar to the IHNS model), where owner-
occupied housing would be made affordable by keeping all land in a community-wide system of ownership. The
Town and other landowners could contribute land to help grow the model, and private owners that donated land
would be rewarded with tax breaks. Participants had other ideas for affordable housing financing, including
purchasing land for a land bank (similar to the southwest area of the City) to encourage growth in certain areas, and
using CDGB funds, tax incentives, and property taxes for promote affordable housing.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐8
In terms of the role of universities in providing housing assistance, residents noted the difficulty of finding a balance
between on-campus housing to relieve housing pressure, versus off-campus housing to increase economic bases for
surrounding communities. Cornell attendees indicated that they would not likely get directly involved with providing
housing for employees; however, they would provide land and incentives to find locations for employee housing (e.g.,
Cornell would provide incentives for future $150,000-$250,000 housing in the Northeast).
Major discussion revolved around the necessity of housing rehabilitation, particularly regarding older rental stock
and some Cornell buildings. There was an emphasis on ways to make homes more efficient and sustainable. There
was agreement among participants that the New York State Building Code was not adequate in terms of green
building incentives, and should be modified. Residents emphasized incentivizing smaller housing footprints,
particularly for homes around 1,200 square feet in size and around $100,000 in price. Incentives, rather than
restrictions, should encourage green building practices and higher building standards.
Residents conversed over possible locations for new housing in the Town. It was thought that infill development
might be suitable on Cornell-owned parcels on Honness Lane, within East Hill Plaza, and near Briarwood.
Remediation of the Emerson site and possible locations on South Hill were also discussed. Locations for new, non-
infill development included East and South Hill, areas closer to Cornell, West Hill (near the medical center), the
Route 96B/King Road intersection, and Varna, just past NYSEG. Residents agreed that new housing should be
located near employment, transportation, and municipal services.
Lastly, a discussion occurred on whether housing decisions should be made based primarily on where one’s
workplace was, when Cornell, the county’s largest employment center, only provided 17% of jobs in the county.
Attendees also debated the idea that growth should occur within the Town and City, when not all people desired to
live in denser areas. One resident suggested that attendees approach the question of new growth by first discussing
the areas that residents wish to preserve.
D.1.5 Ecology focus group
10 November 2009
Ithaca Town Hall
The ecologists in the group stated that many local forests were not healthy, due in large part to an overabundance of
deer and invasive plants and insects. They also noted that dead wood (cleared for biomass use) was actually
important for forest regeneration and nutrient replenishment. Arnot Forest research showed that the removal of slash
had a particularly detrimental effect on salamanders. A healthy, regenerative forest, it was noted, should contain oak
saplings and an understory with key indicator species (e.g., trillium plants), especially where light gaps occur.
Attendees advocated for comprehensive deer management and better educational awareness among landowners
regarding invasive plant identification and forest protection strategies.
Residents in the group pointed out the need for more comprehensive forest management knowledge among Town
Board members, noting that the scope of the Town’s forest management plan should go beyond protection of stream
banks and include types of harvest, timing and frequency of cuttings, and information on leaving behind slash for
wildlife and nutrient replenishment. Additional discussions involved land use changes (particularly reforestation
trends and development along roads), water quality assessments for temperature, pollutants, organisms, and flow
regimes, and the types of ecological mapping projects the Town was working on. Residents ultimately suggested that
the Town find ways to better incorporate concepts from best management practice documents before imposing
standards on developers and residents.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐9
A number of other ecological impacts were identified, including noise, light pollution, gas drilling, and building color.
The importance of quiet areas for both wildlife and people was emphasized, as were ways to reduce noise from
compression stations.
In terms of lights, it was noted that light pollution made it difficult to observe a truly dark night sky. Moreover, light
pollution has reduced firefly populations, and lights on towers may have affected the migration of birds. Residents
mentioned that the colors of buildings on hillsides were important for retaining visual quality, although one resident
questioned whether preserving quality views went hand in hand with ecological preservation.
Participants pointed out that fragmentation caused by development was a major threat to local ecologies. They
suggested establishing a developer-supported mitigation fund, wherein money would support protection and
rehabilitation of sensitive lands. Such funds had been established in areas with intensive gas drilling operations.
Ecologists in the group stressed the need for additional intermunicipal conservation plans, specifically recommending
an ecosystem approach, wherein a municipality collaborated with bordering municipalities on specific projects to
create a more connected natural area system. For example, the Town of Ithaca could work with the Town of Dryden
on hydrologic issues in the northeast area. Ultimately, a series of biological corridors could form an “emerald
bracelet”, in conjunction with the highly praised plan for the greater “emerald necklace”. It was also noted that the
Town and surrounding municipalities were in need of quality wetlands maps that identified hydric soils as potential
wetlands areas so that development restrictions could be put in place.
Overall, attendees thought that the Town could engage in more proactive, rather than reactive, goal setting. They
acknowledged that the designation of Unique Natural Areas was a good starting point, but that an abundance of
other privately held land should also be protected. The Town should designate areas for public ownership, where it
wishes to have development, as well as lands that were so sensitive that even hiking should not be allowed (e.g., Coy
Glen).
To achieve an integrated, contiguous habitat system, the Town could utilize GIS to map layers that include “herps”
(amphibians and reptiles) and birds. The connectivity plan could indicate wildlife connections that were both within
and outside Unique Natural Areas and other protected areas. Once the boundaries of a biological corridor were
defined, goals and objectives could be created to govern its protection.
Lastly, residents identified ecological potential in the Town. It was recognized that the Town has seen a decline in
agricultural areas, and that it should reclaim vacant agricultural fields. The northwest area of Town was singled out
in particular. It was also suggested that, rather than establishing set-asides for small pocket parks when developments
are proposed, the Town should consider setting aside areas for preserves or natural areas. On the whole, the Town’s
environmentally protective regulations were praised, and it was suggested that the Town do more to share its
information with others.
D.1.6 Health focus group
8 February 2010
Ithaca Town Hall
Attendees were asked what they believed were the most crucial community health needs for the next 10-20 years.
Responses were heavily oriented towards accommodations for the elderly.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐10
Health representatives stated that the physical activity levels of residents needed to be increased, through the use of
recreational trails and facilities. Housing, services, and other facilities—benches along paths, restrooms at
community gardens, public transit, assistance for retrofitting homes for health and accessibility needs, and general
universal design principles—needed to be provided for the aging population. The elderly, in particular, needed indoor
exercise spaces during the winter months. It was suggested that the Town review the Health Planning Council’s
Improving Outcomes for People by Strengthening the Long Term Care System, a report that includes
recommendations for providing better community services.
Attendees were also asked about how the Town’s Comprehensive Plan could provide better services for disadvantaged
populations, through universal design changes to the built environment. Responses were varied, but tended to focus
on pedestrian access, housing needs, transportation, and obesity.
First, residents stated that recreation should encompass more than just playground equipment. It should include
trails that are situated between destinations and that are accessible to the elderly. In general, the design of spaces
must be conducted from the perspective of the elderly. Signage font must be large enough to be seen by aging eyes,
signals for crosswalks need to be timed for slower, aging bodies, and intersections must include adequate lighting.
Moreover, wheelchair accessible entrances and mail delivery locations should be conveniently situated, and the
lengths of routes between handicapped parking spaces and destinations within buildings must be relatively short.
One attendee noted in particular that the walkway between P&C and Rite Aid at East Hill Plaza, which is located
near senior housing on Ellis Hollow Road, is insufficiently visible to drivers. Another pointed out that Pine Tree
Road needed a sidewalk south of the Honness Lane intersection.
Second, emphasis was placed on constructing and maintaining appropriate housing for the elderly, using universal
design principles that created livable communities. For example, it should be easy and efficient for services to be
provided in home. In-home services reduce boredom and physical and social isolation (e.g. Eden Alternative).
Moreover, providing more appropriate in-home care encourages aging populations to remain in their homes longer
and retain their independence. The NYS Office of the Aging and the “Empowering Communities” section of the
AARP website each provide guidelines for implementing universal design principles.
The group suggested modifying Town codes to allow more people to live together, which would reduce social
isolation. Clustering housing units would also permit easier and more affordable transit services, home-nurse visits,
delivery of meals, and neighbors to keep watch and provide social interaction. The concept of “visit-ability” was
emphasized; that is, the designing of homes so that anyone, regardless of age or ability, is able to visit. According to
one attendee, the Town should continue to allow elder cottages, although it was pointed out that the cottages were not
ideal for handicapped persons. There was general consensus that additions to the supply of median income
affordable housing are necessary. According to attendees, the lack of willing developers, rather than the Town’s
zoning, was an impediment to the provision of medium and low income assisted living units.
Third, health care officials noted the importance of safe, affordable, and accessible transportation. Specific requests
included adding bike racks at retail outlets, adding more TCAT service during the evenings and on weekends, and
providing more rural bus service. One attendee suggested that in order to make rural bus service available, adult
family members could pay to ride school busses to travel to work. It was also recommended that TCAT be used for
older school children, which would reduce the amount of time that children spent on busses. Lastly, transportation
costs for special needs children was high and should be more affordable.
Finally, combating obesity was addressed. Specifically, residents should have access to places to obtain healthy foods,
especially farm stands, CSA programs, and community gardens (the latter of which should have raised beds and
restrooms to facilitate the participation of seniors and others who are disabled), and other opportunities that
discourage sedimentary time.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐11
Other comments included a recommendation for the Town to enhance access to health care by providing service
information available on its website, and that it provide more consistent EMS service. The Health Planning Council
offered assistance with letters of support when advocating for health related issues (with NYS DOT, etc).
D.1.7 Recreation/museum focus group
Stakeholder meetings
March – April 2009
Attendees had concerns regarding reduced buffer areas around their land due to increased residential development.
The consequence, as noted by stakeholders, was that reduced buffer areas limited the ability of organizations to
expand and protect additional land. Increased development also meant that people would be living closer to natural
areas, which could threaten habitat and encourage the expansion of invasive species. Other attendees noted that one
benefit of development near natural areas was that people would be living closer to recreational opportunities.
Participants noted numerous concerns regarding the potential effects of new development on existing open spaces. In
particular, there was concern that properties developed near Cornell Plantations and state park lands would
encourage unauthorized use of parks and impact the long-term viability of habitat areas. Recommendations included
making Conservation zoning stricter on development and maintaining the lowest possible density on properties
adjacent to state park lands. Attendees suggested changing the zoning designations of properties between Route 327
and Treman State Park from Low Density Residential to Agricultural or Conservation zoning. Overall, there was
consensus that stakeholders would like work with the Town and other landowners to purchase properties located are
adjacent to their institutions.
Stakeholders were highly supportive of the Town’s efforts to create and expand recreation trails in the Town. Specific
recommendations included future trail connections between the Black Diamond Trail and PRI, a footbridge across
Cayuga Inlet where the Finger Lakes Trail crossed, and expansion of the South and East Hill Recreation Ways.
Attendees were concerned that, because of the location on private property, the Finger Lakes Trail might be halted if
private property owners denied access to the public. There was also fear that the expansion of trails in the Coy Glen
or the South Hill Unique Natural Areas would have environmentally detrimental effects.
The group’s general recommendations included increasing lengths of trails, addressing unleashed dogs, installing
more trailhead signs and interpretive or historical signs, and developing more loop or destination trails (trails with
scenic views, historical landmarks, etc.). Stakeholders saw traffic and speeding as problems that needed to be
resolved, especially on Route 96 and Hanshaw Road. They also recognized that bike lanes and sidewalks were
needed in many areas. Finally, stakeholders were concerned about proposed changes to TCAT routes, including
reduced access to Sapsucker Woods and the fact that there was no direct TCAT line from Cornell to PRI.
Other comments entailed the need for dog parks in all municipalities, building permits for temporary tents, the
recommendation that Town staff join the Cayuga Bird Club list serve in order to post pertinent site plan or
subdivision applications, and the possibility of utilizing personal yards as habitat areas near the Lab of Ornithology.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐12
D.2 Public information meetings
D.2.1 Public information meeting 1
Open house group visioning session
23 September 2008
Ithaca Town Hall
Purpose: to introduce the public to the process of the Comp Plan update and begin to get the public involved.
As part of the open house, the audience was divided into three groups to discuss a number of questions related to
their vision for the Town’s future. Below is a compilation of discussions.
General vision (discussed in all three groups)
Why is the Town of Ithaca a good place in which to live?
Proximity to Cayuga Lake.
Proximity to nature and open space.
Proximity to the City.
Town has parks and trails and is proximal to other parks and trails.
Natural surroundings and natural beauty. (Review to make sure it’s protected.)
Buttermilk Falls.
Feeling of open space.
Geology and topography.
Low crime.
Easy to get around by car.
Rural residents are still close to shopping and cultural opportunities .
Isolated yet convenient to many resources.
Financial health.
Good utility and infrastructure.
Low development pressure until recently.
Community supported agriculture nearby.
Walk to a farm and get food.
Agricultural land. (Recruit farmers to ensure working agricultural uses stay in agricultural areas)
University makes this an interesting place to live.
Horse community.
Affordable housing.
Windmills.
Town encouraging solar and wind.
What don’t you like about the Town?
Traffic.
Topographic shape results in lack of neighborhoods, and trouble getting from one hill to the other.
Few shopping opportunities for certain items like furniture.
Increasing housing costs and too expensive.
Lack of small neighborhood stores.
Loss of traditional nodal development (true village).
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐13
Not pedestrian and bicycle friendly.
No public access to lake.
Restrictive sign law limits off premises signs, which would be beneficial to u-pick farms, agriculture, and other
business.
Open space/conservation zoning. Only rich can purchase; it’s elitist.
Overdevelopment of West Hill.
Need more solar energy use.
Proximity to Cornell/IC leads to student neighbors and it is difficult for the town to enforce rules on occupancy.
Town lacks a center or identity. There is a need to engage the entire community .
What do you wish the Town to be like in the future?
Off road system of bike and pedestrian trails.
Comprehensive plan to depend on.
Fewer single occupancy vehicles.
Ferry service across Cayuga Lake.
Protection of neighborhood.
Supported and expanded bus service.
Nodal development.
Supported small businesses and home businesses.
Protected views.
Retain agricultural land.
Protected and buffered gorges and natural areas.
Energy that meets needs in a variety of ways.
Aggressive purchase of development rights (PDR) for agriculture and natural areas.
What does the Town need?
Planning to maintain neighborhoods in areas contiguous to colleges.
More parks connected to each other.
Do comprehensive plan with input from surrounding municipalities.
Town needs small nodes of development for localized services.
Town needs to guide nodal development to work with areas of employment.
What things about the Town do you hope remain the same in 15 years?
Protect natural areas.
Protect neighborhoods.
Maintain relative density while protecting resources.
Mix of economic diversity.
Maintain cultural diversity.
What things about the Town would you like to see change in 15 years?
Greater cultural diversity.
Greater stewardship of Cayuga Lake.
Ecological planning: take ecology into account during plan reviews.
Greater proportion of energy from renewable resources.
Effective and accessible alternative transportation other than cars, fewer single occupancy vehicles.
Regional cooperation, consolidation of services.
Development of recreational facilities that keep pace with population.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐14
Regulations and infrastructure for clean water.
Medical care.
More orderly development; spread it out around the Town more; there is too much development on West Hill.
More places for community activities.
Specific subjects (each topic was discussed by only one group)
Growth and development
How should the Town grow over the next 15 years? What types of development should the Town encourage?
Development that concentrates/clusters housing to protect natural areas; use EcoVillage as an example.
Greater range of housing types for variety of age groups and needs; condos for example.
Energy costs will drive the need for nodal development. The Town should plan ahead for this and not wait until
this happen.
Expansion of agriculture so we don’t have to travel for food.
Do not plan growth around the automobile.
Height restrictions limiting building heights.
Fine tune zoning to allow appropriate building heights.
Restrict size of big box commercial stores.
Requirements on commercial nodes to address noise, lighting, and aesthetics.
How is the Town different from the City of Ithaca?
Town has yard and suburban character.
Mix of suburban and rural in the Town.
Views in the Town.
Open space in the Town, but not in the City.
Lack of neighborhoods in certain locations of the Town, just rows of individual houses along roads, and nothing
to bring people together.
City is pedestrian friendly, has a social atmosphere, and people are brought together.
Encourage design to create neighborhoods, on the street interactions (i.e. Fall Creek at Halloween).
Natural and environmental features, open space
Are we doing enough to preserve significant natural, environmental, and scenic features in the Town?
Purchase of development rights: need money to accomplish goals.
Do more to protect the gorges.
Do more to encourage agriculture, town is not ag friendly.
Maintain more natural shoreline along lake, habitat protection, buffers for runoff, etc.
Ecological planning: look at ecosystem in land use planning.
Be sensitive to land owners rights, because of expectations established under 1993 comprehensive plan/zoning.
Housing
What are the important housing issues in the Town?
Need houses for moderate income families.
Need mixed housing for different levels of income in the same neighborhoods.
Explore options for the above.
Cornell University and Ithaca College need to provide more housing for students.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐15
Set aside scenic viewpoints before they are developed, and establish through zoning.
Clustered housing preserves open space, and limits the needs for lots of infrastructure.
Limit new houses to where infrastructure exists.
Transportation and traffic
What are the most important issues relating to transportation? Do we need more accessibility for pedestrians and
bicyclists and more mass transit services?
In a transition phase, town’s transportation plan will need to be updated in three years.
Walkways are needed: connected to each other, some weather limitations, a must in new neighborhoods, work on
adding to established neighborhoods, add along streets, place paths strategically.
Economy
What are the strengths and weaknesses of our local economy? How important is agriculture to our area’s future
economy? How important are Cornell University and Ithaca College to our area’s future economy?
Preserve local agriculture.
Tough competition with PhDs, two class economy,
Low unemployment.
Economic stability.
Encourage new green jobs that use our expertise and pay reasonable wages.
Developers need to use local labor and local materials, and smart design for our climate and location.
More facilities for agriculture to do business.
Smaller scale agriculture.
Small scale clean industry: more local jobs, not just service jobs. Electronics, small scale manufacturing of
consumer goods, designate space for light industrial, green high tech.
“Take your land in a heartbeat” – Cornell.
Not sure if I want to live near a new business.
Zone business away from established neighborhoods.
Housing is so expensive that workforce has to travel from outside.
Natural gas is making land more expensive.
Community services and infrastructure
How is the Town doing in terms of providing the necessary public services to the community? How are we doing
with our parks and trails system, walkways, recreation and youth programs, senior programs, water and sewer?
Major parks (bigger than neighborhood park) – none on South Hill, West Hill, Inlet Valley; activity playground;
ball fields, community center; all ages; does not need to be in town.
West Hill needs a school.
Route 79 traffic: town development impacts city infrastructure, not enough sidewalks, bike trails, bus service
Create bypasses around city.
Contribute to TCAT.
Better upkeep of roads.
Expansion with more and larger roads.
Senior and youth services: city and county provide so the town does not need to duplicate.
Multiple use trails with other municipalities, Black Diamond and South Hill Recreation Way.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐16
Energy
Should Town government encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels?
How can we help to make our future more sustainable?
How much will it cost to reduce greenhouse gas?
Lower speed limit encourages biking and will save gas.
Widen bike lanes and create walking space.
D.2.2 Public information meeting 2
11 May 2010
Ithaca Town Hall
Purpose: report on the progress of the Comp Plan update, report on the resident survey completed in 2009, overview
of existing conditions and trends in the Town since the 1993 Plan, focus discussion regarding growth and
development in the Town, and provide opportunity for resident input on the draft vision statement and process for
feedback on goals and objectives review.
Staff presentations
Existing condition: regional location, roads and parks, developed and undeveloped lands, agriculture, Unique
Natural Areas (UNAs) and Critical Environmental Areas (CEAs), streams, lakes and wetlands, slope, scenic
views.
Demographics: population, location, housing units, housing types and location, population and housing growth.
Development type
Need less government intervention for residential and commercial development.
Town directs development to areas with water and sewer.
Towns of Lansing and Dryden are favorable for development.
Developing in the Town of Ithaca is expensive.
How much does it cost the Town to have planning staff?
The Town should not encourage growth.
Nodal development works as villages with space between, and discourages otherwise continuous sprawl
Preserves
Open space: what should there be?
The agricultural community is shrinking. Don’t nickel and dime them.
Controls on agricultural related signage is an issue, and the Town should be more flexible.
Housing location and type
Multi-unit complexes on West Hill: is there too much of the same thing in this area?
People are moving outside the Town.
The Town should not encourage housing development.
Smaller lot sizes, single family homes.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐17
What is the Town’s position on extending water and sewer service into neighboring towns?
Are utility extensions planned?
Is development restricted to areas with water and sewer?
Development appearance
New housing should have larger planted trees.
Keep height restrictions.
Farmland and grassland provide scenic views.
Houston has no zoning, and development there is successful.
Mixed use development: where?
Small stores cannot compete with big box stores.
Allow other commercial development.
The town should consider vertical zoning. For example, 1st floor for commercial uses, and upper floors for
residential uses.
Development should have a dense note in the middle, and rural on the periphery.
If the Town wants mixed nodes, start where there isn’t current development.
The node recommended near Cayuga Medical Center in the Route 96 Corridor Study makes sense.
Development should be concentrated.
Other comments
Resident survey: is a mile too far to walk to services? How far would you walk to get milk?
Walk able communities concept = ¼ to ½ mile radius to services.
The concept is great in summer, but alternatives are needed in bad weather
Change zoning to allow mixed use, and put more services within walking distance from residents.
Cul-de-sacs and dead-end roads are not an ideal way to develop. The Town should not allow any more
development with dead end roads.
The previous Planning Board approved subdivisions with dead-end streets because didn’t want through streets.
According to the 1993 Plan, one half of Town residents live on cul-de-sacs.
Traffic is a big issue in Town, to those who don’t live on cul-de-sacs.
Emerson: what should happen to it?
Pray for a big company to come in and provide employment.
Housing development for next 25 years.
Older building may not be usable, but newer building could be used for business. Look into the structural
integrity of buildings.
No traffic problem on South Hill. Why promote development on roads that have traffic problems and not on
roads that don’t have problems?
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐18
D.3 Neighborhood meetings
D.3.1 West Hill
17 June 2010
Linderman Creek Community Building, 201 Cypress Court
1. What do you like about the area where you live? What keeps you there?
Bought my first home on West Hill because the area is quiet, beautiful, “uneventful,” with convenient and close
proximity to Town, but a country neighborhood feel.
There is a strong sense of community on West Haven Road, people walk and bike in the area.
The rural character, yet close to the City.
The views are lovely-didn’t want to be near a commercial center.
Wanted a farm but also wanted to be close to community and West Hill has that rural setting only a few miles
from town - a three to four minute drive is not far to get to services.
Built home here 44 years ago because it was peaceful and beautiful and it is still peaceful and beautiful even now.
I like the sense of being in the country.
Public transit is easily accessible, an easy walk to the bus stop.
2. What are the conditions and trends that you see in your area? What do you NOT like about the area where you
live? Impact of the city on town residents? Any issues that pull city and town residents apart?
West Haven Rd. residents tried to get speed limit reduced on their street and were refused. Living sustainably
means more walking and biking, but can’t do that here because of the speeding, frustrated that there wasn’t a lot
of action taken to deal with speeding and traffic impacts on neighborhood.
Traffic and TCAT buses have become problems- might have thought twice about buying a home here if those
problems existed when I purchased my house on Oakwood Lane.
Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) is really scary without sidewalks.
There has been increased traffic, increased development, and increased speeding.
Loss of farmland on Route 79 is a concern.
Traffic and congestion is a problem. Worries about the separation of services, particularly fire and ambulance
services. Learned from a fire fighter neighbor in the area that the West Hill fire station was not regularly fully
staffed. Also if one needs to get to the hospital but cannot drive themselves, they have to wait for the ambulance
to come from across the railroad tracks to get them.
Large development proposals are being proposed here that are unlike the other proposals in other parts of the
Town.
Open space and farmland being replaced by development is a concern – West Hill has the best farmland and
open areas but development pressure is mounting and we could lose the best farmland in the Town to
development if we don’t preserve it.
Farms are important to all of the residents of West Hill (not just farmers) and once they are built upon, they are
lost forever.
There are deep concerns regarding the Town not working with the City on the comprehensive planning process.
Does the Town’s plan meld with the City’s plan? [this spurred lots of discussion about Town/City relations –
comments below]
Coordination of roads and infrastructure (mainly road systems) is an issue between the Town and City, although
there is an imaginary boundary between the two municipalities. The Route 96 Corridor Study, for example, talks
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐19
about methods to reduce traffic impacts with these nodes, but the traffic impacts to the City at the base of West
Hill won’t be reduced. Where is the coordination?
There needs to be an integrated and continued channel of discussion between the Town and City with their plans
– there’s no integration of ideas that would benefit both municipalities. There is a city representative on the
Town’s Comprehensive Plan Committee, but it’s a token – there’s no real discussion between the two
municipalities. Rural areas add so much to the community and sprawl will continue to ruin that and will destroy
the overall community in both municipalities.
Frustrated by both municipalities’ only identifying with their own area and both saying “we don’t want growth.”
Ithaca is attractive to people, so they will continue to move here and Ithaca will continue to grow – but we’ve
never accepted the fact that we’re going to grow and we haven’t accommodated the growth. The City hasn’t
explored growing up (taller buildings). It’s the same issue with affordable housing – land values are staggering
here. One way to reduce land costs and promote affordability is to increase density – concentrates infrastructure
and services. We need affordable housing on tighter, denser areas. Hope that the Town and City Comprehensive
Plans acknowledge growth and figure out where they want it to go.
Town Board member asked the group where they think development should go, and they responded:
At what point is there a line crossed where too much development is happening? Do you keep building and
building or can you say enough is enough?
We need to look at channeling growth to finite areas. We also need to accommodate the increased traffic along
with population growth. I have a relative who is a planner and has seen a lot of developments in her area and
loss of farmland, but along with that development are green areas and services placed within the developments
themselves. Maybe there needs to be more services available within some of the Town developments that are
“out there.”
3. What needs to be improved/preserved to enhance your area of the town? (ie sidewalks, parks, open space, natural
areas, historic buildings, commercial services, agriculture, transportation, etc)?
This question was skipped – discussion lead from question #2 into nodal development conversation.
4. The committee has discussed encouraging compact neighborhoods or nodes.
Possible node sites in the town: the intersection of King and Danby Roads for a South Hill node; near the hospital for
a West Hill node; and East Hill Plaza area for an East Hill node. What are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? What
suggestions do you have for development in this area? (Herb explained the nodal development concept)
Nodal development is a great idea – have seen it operate well in England and in Europe.
There will still be infrastructure problems in the City, even if there’s a Route 96 node.
Don’t believe people will want to live near CMC. It’s not a big enough employer to
draw people and there aren’t any services around it to draw people in.
Having separate little entities in small areas is problematic. Nodes would create a separate entity, where the City
is/should be the center node for the area. How can these little nodes work? Is there enough population to
support alternative modes of transportation? What population density would one need to support a node at
Route 96?
Based on a past meeting at the County, the County as a whole has issues with sprawl, with homes on 2 and 3 acre
lots. This was even a problem 8-10 years ago. It costs too much money in infrastructure to support that kind of
density – it’s inefficient to have sprawl. Nodal development should be where infrastructure already exists and
density should be increased in existing areas. More cost effective to the community.
The bus services can be made more reliable with more concentrated development.
Supporter of nodal development. Use Zoning as a tool to define uses within the node. The Comprehensive Plan
provides future guidance for Zoning.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐20
Likes Ecovillage for two reasons (1) it’s off the main road, and (2) parking is kept separate from houses. Nodal
designs should study and follow the Ecovillage model/layout versus the Linderman layout (lots of parking at the
street or visible from the road, buildings very visible).
Raleigh-Durham area of NC has a lot of very large scale nodal development that includes a mix of housing
along with services, offices, retail, etc. There’s a sense of community that is formed in nodes – nodal
development draws people to it and it creates communities of people.
How do you tell people to not just plop buildings down without adding more services (i.e. commercial, office) to
their development?
You have to start with a group of people who want to do something different, like a node, – that’s how Ecovillage
started.
Holochuck example: there is no commercial planned for that development, it’s only housing. For nodal
development to work, you must define, in detail, what should go in the node before it is established - and it has to
include more than just housing.
Will the future nodes have mixed housing and uses? The current proposals only have high-end housing. We
need to see more mixed uses, not just high end housing projects. The proposed Conifer development across from
the hospital is more in line with the nodal concept.
One participant was a tepid supporter of nodes. Creating new nodes out of thin air with retail and commerce
defies market realities. We first need a population to support commercial and retail enterprises. Economics is a
factor that needs to be considered. Density needs to be closely considered. Besides Zoning, we can provide
incentives to promote nodes.
What about TCAT? They have no interest in providing services to these areas (Holochuck used as an example).
Member of the TCAT Board spoke – developers come to town, apply for federal money, and make the
assumption that TCAT will provide bus service to their developments without checking with TCAT first. There
is a process to follow and they do not follow it. The amount of service TCAT can provide depends on the
amount of money they get. There are limits, but they are nonetheless very interested in providing services.
(again, Holochuck as an example) – TCAT explicitly told one participant that the people in the Holochuck
development were not the kind of people who would use bus service and that is one reason why they weren’t
interested in providing service to that development.
Any other thoughts? Comments?
One resident asked about the 26-acre parcel left over from the County’s sale of the Biggs building (near the
hospital).
Someone suggested that the parcel could be made into a park.
Another participant asked, “Why park that land when it’s got the infrastructure (water, sewer) ready and
available for housing or other uses?”
One resident asked what the status of the 79 to Bundy Road connector road was.
If a connector road to 79/Bundy existed, then it would take the pressure off of Route 96.
Developers, not the Town, seem to determine the fate of West Hill and it feels like the community is dying with
no way to save it. It is imperative that the Town and City work together in planning.
The County has this Affordable Housing strategy that says it needs 4,000 affordable units. Is the Town
considering what proportion of needed affordable housing the Town wants and can accommodate? The City can
possibly accommodate 500-1000 units, although it is struggling to figure out specific numbers and locations.
Nodes are determined by volume/population sizes – we must consider affordable housing in them. Growth
should be anticipated – put tools in place to guide it. The question of “how big do we want to be?” will dictate
where the nodes will be located.
The Vision Statement lists ‘urban’ areas as one of the town characteristics (along with rural, suburban, etc)…but
where are these urban areas? There are no urban areas in the Town.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐21
5. What future involvement would you like to have in planning and developing your neighborhood area? How can
the town communicate better about proposed changes?
Can the Town create a listserv from its website where people can opt-in to get updates on what’s happening?
Update the website regularly
Add neighborhood association websites to the Town’s website and also mention them in the Town newsletter.
Attendance: 18 residents
D.3.2 South Hill
9 June 2010
Campus Center, Ithaca College
1. What do you like about the area where you live?
The Deer Run development is a perfect location for this (resident’s) stage of life. The townhouse type
development is great. There is a shortage of townhouse development the town.
Pleasant Street (in the City) is near downtown and walkable.
Danby Road business finds transportation for employees including transit, walking, and bikes difficult south of
Ithaca College; transportation options are essential for students - this needs improvement.
South Hill Recreation Way is great.
South Hill is beautiful for the Montessori School, the location allows children to play in woods; the green space is
appreciated.
Natural beauty and space to garden is important; the less dense/non-compact development provides
opportunities for property owners to have large gardens; public transportation would be nice but not as feasible in
these less dense areas (Coddington Road resident).
Ability to walk to work to Ithaca College from just inside the City line, but has worries about the lack of
sidewalk; having more transportation options would be nice.
The natural area, the gorge in my backyard, gardening and nearness to the park; but can’t walk safely on
Coddington Road and doesn’t like the deer (Coddington Road resident).
Can walk to downtown and can easily catch bus to airport; since 1967 this resident has lived without a car (south
end of Coddington Road resident)
No bus service on King Road. Having transit would really help. If transit could be extended just another mile
(to King Road) you would find many eager riders.
Town should pursue a trail connection between South Hill Recreation Way and Buttermilk Falls State Park.
2. What are the conditions and trends that you see in your area?
Student populations living in residential areas; increasing density of students relative to other residents in some
neighborhoods. Need to keep a better balance, especially at the city line. The older neighborhoods on East Hill
have been ruined; landlords are not taking care of these properties; nice to have density for students but not the
negative aspects.
Parking problems; people living downtown actually park on South Hill so they don’t have to pay for parking in
the City.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐22
Lack of sidewalks leads to people walking along the shoulder, this is particularly scary during rush hour traffic.
Need to create a safer environment for walkers, so people can safely walk from where they live to Ithaca College.
Make it safer for cars and students.
Sidewalks needed to King Road and beyond too.
Efforts to address the need for sidewalks require many parties to collaborate.
Need bike shoulders. Shoulders are soft and narrow on South Hill roads, except for 96B.
Trash pickup in the Kendall / Pennsylvania Ave area; solid waste services disconnected, IC became transfer
station for waste; landlords not addressing this – City and Town need to do better job with landlords.
Town and City have been increasing amenities for residents, but this means more taxes. We need to think
broadly – what we do can lead to more sprawl causing problems and antithesis to what we like about living here.
Traffic is a problem. Drivers are traveling into the Town from out of the County; Route 96B traffic is non-stop
now and it is only going to get worse.
Coddington Road is a choke point for traffic – the County is not doing what it needs to do to improve the road
because of the ongoing lawsuit. The road needs shoulders, so people can walk, etc.
3. What needs to improved / preserved in your area?
There is never enough protection for our waterways.
Roads enhancement, while needed, must be built to a reasonable size – they should not be built too wide as that
will only increase traffic speed and impact the safety of pedestrians. There is no disagreement that Coddington
Road needs improvements; but it should be reasonable for the character of the area (i.e. 10 foot lanes, 3-4 foot
shoulders).
City needs to get its act together and allow more density.
Town parkland located between properties on Saunders Road and Whitetail Drive (located directly across street
from Ridgecrest Road/King Road intersection) should be developed into a park. The population in this area has
been increasing and there are many children in the area now. A children’s park would be welcome.
4. What do you think should happen at the Emerson Site when Emerson moves out? (100 acres, approximately one
third within the City and two thirds in the Town)
Clean it up, it could solve everyone’s problem if developed; residential density, trails, energy improvement
district, affordable housing – but needs to be clean to residential standards.
South Hill Business Campus is an example of what is possible; taking a brown field building, identifying the
commercial potential and making it very attractive. With South Hill Business Campus someone took the risk.
Emerson has done very little to clean up the site – the potential to develop is there if someone would clean it up;
need to find someone to sink money into the project.
Give priority to job creation, we really need employment opportunities; good paying jobs are important.
Private developer is unlikely to come in until the site is cleaned up.
Town regulations are cumbersome and could make it difficult for developer; strict and time consuming building
regulations for interior changes, for instance, long delays for a building permit. Delay is a real problem if you are
trying to attract business tenants. Town needs to look at its regulations, to assist a developer, and make the
process smoother and less time consuming.
Green building codes in Seattle give priority for “green” building proposals; move to front of list in building
permit reviews – fast track – Emerson site could benefit from this.
Preference for South Hill?
When Emerson was a manufacturing location it was a good neighbor, except for the pollution, there were there
were no loud parties. Manufacturing would be okay.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐23
The ultimate “palazzo” – great place for views – should be living units.
Love to see mixed uses – houses and clean jobs.
Retail space.
District energy (heating and cooling) plant.
Should be preserved and if can be devoted to housing; mixing uses, it is a huge property with many potential
uses.
Options for traffic; plans for connection (play role in) from Ithaca College to downtown to Route 13.
Must make economic sense to pay the mortgage.
Industrial zoned but now there is more interest in research and development. South Hill business zoning
prevents some uses.
Markets, places to buy goods near neighborhoods, desire to go back to that; hear that people want mixed uses –
don’t zone out neighborhood store from residential.
5. Possible node/compact neighborhood in the King Road/Danby Road area – discussion and comments on node
idea:
What are the incentives for developers? Tax incentives are needed – IDA (Industrial Development Agency) – it is
tough currently for the private sector; a density zone is being pursued by Lansing and Town should look into this.
District energy idea being pushed by U.S. EPA for areas with dense zoning. Denmark has examples of district
energy. It is a stable energy source that would create an incentive and draw in developers.
Exchange for protecting open space – denser development?
Don’t want “Collegetown” on South Hill – worried about another Collegetown on South Hill – a pitfall to
caution against.
Commercial feel should not take over the area.
Public transportation to serve the node.
Too easy to end up with just another strip development – put small shopping - need bounds on the node – say a
10 year plan).
Community Corners is growing but maintains community character.
Need to have more aesthetic way to encourage development.
Collegetown in early days was rundown; it needed the density and it needed a boundary to keep from spreading
to other neighborhoods.
Collegetown is not attractive; mistakes have been made
Seattle has a Neighborhood Review Board – this help keep the neighborhood identity – see Seattle website and
how it can be done.
Higher buildings with setbacks, lower towards road.
What should be height of building?
(Allows view at Lake from Route 96)
Collegetown Terrace project (State Street in the City) – wide project with 6 stories is dense – for some areas this is
okay. City facing this issue – how much will to take; how high and how widely spread)
East side of Route 96B is already built; IC tall buildings, slopes down – have buildings follow the contour –
density move inward from there
(Who do you want to market to?)
Need to gear to specific resident’s lifestyle – college students – young professionals – young families – be sensitive
to needs of different lifestyle in terms of Emerson development ideas.
Collegetown has problem with parking - unworkable parking ordinance
Node idea might have “park and ride” to catch buses from there – could become more viable node – conception
of residential and commercial to create density for more frequent TCAT service.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐24
TCAT will respond to increases in density, example with Challenge Industry relocation to South Hill Business
Campus and subsequent TCAT study to determine need.
Caution on “park and ride”. People in the transportation business say riders are willing to drive one mile to go
nine miles; but not drive nine miles to park the last mile.
Ithaca is ill-suited poor for solar. Centralized power grid is the way to go, similar to what CU is doing.
Community non-profit energy is being explored.
Ithaca College pedestrian route should ideally be through the campus, and not to weave through neighborhoods.
Attendance: 22 residents
D.3.3 East Ithaca
16 June 2010
Trinity Lutheran Church, 149 Honness Lane
1. What do you like about the area where you live? What keeps you there?
(Positives)
Close to downtown, but feel like being in the country.
Able to walk to Cornell University for employment.
Can walk to East Hill Plaza and downtown.
East Hill Recreation Way is very popular, likes being walking distance to three trails (for recreational walking);
but bikes don’t follow rules.
Like having international neighbors; Belle Sherman School; East Hill Recreation Way; and having convenient
bus service available.
Property backs up to undeveloped Cornell University land, along Honness Lane; buses can go anywhere, well
connected.
Forest Home – socially active, close knit – defined neighborhood – Cornell University surrounds the
neighborhood on all sides
Safety – like feeling of being protected – Eastwood Commons, limited access.
Pine Tree Road – close proximity to services, but open space around, have neighborhood, know neighbors.
East Hill Recreation Way – very positive.
Eastwood Commons – vacant area in there should be protected.
(Issues)
Poor shoulders on Pine Tree Road – no place to bike – potholes are also an issue on Pine Tree Road – would be
willing to give a little front yard for bikes.
Traffic / speed on Pine Tree Road – lots of trucks
Need for traffic light at Honness Lane / Pine Tree Road intersection – vegetation makes it difficult to see – heavy
traffic.
Usable shoulders for bikes along Mitchell Street needed – area between City line and French Lavender has lots of
potholes – bikes have to ride out in traffic lane.
Loose gravel on trail – would prefer pavement – is getting older.
Cycling around East Hill Plaza is difficult; Pine Tree Road Walkway trail ends at Ellis Hollow Road.
No bike racks at East Hill Plaza.
Pine Tree Road / Route 79 – reconfigure traffic light so it is not blinking . Long back-up on Pine Tree at times
and signal would help to get out onto Route 79 – traffic circle?
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐25
Route 366 / Pine Tree Road – very un-pedestrian friendly.
Should not allow smoking by the entrance to the grocery store.
2. What are the conditions and trends that you see in your area? Impact of the city on town residents? Any issues
that pull city and town residents apart?
Continued Cornell University development – open space is valued – unpredictability.
Snyder Hill – traffic too high, traffic calming needed.
Pine Tree Road – speed limit should be reduced, needs enforcement now.
Deer – traffic – infiltration of rentals – in Forest Home.
Continue to improve bus schedule – could help to reduce traffic.
Would like to develop property for retirement, help in future – corner of Slaterville / Honness.
3. (What needs to be improved/preserved to enhance your area of the town? This was incorporated into other
answers)
4. Compact neighborhoods or nodes (development).
Why is more development needed – find tenants for the existing empty spaces in Town and City, not create new
empty spaces.
Cornell University plan of East Hill Village – need to continue to have a grocery store.
What is the development impact on property tax base - if Cornell University is the developer (don’t want to see
any tax exempt type of development).
Like mixed use idea – no need for car – seen good example in Toronto.
East Hill Village – think about what would make it a nice village and not another Collegetown. Collegetown
does not have a comfortable feel – need appropriate regulations.
East Hill Village needs to be very pedestrian friendly – accessibility is important.
Would like some open green space – recreational structure – community (center) space.
Small neighborhood businesses – serve community – shops, restaurants.
What high-rise (density) is needed to be viable – three to five stories (Cornell representative answered).
East Hill Plaza was not implemented the way it was originally presented – resident remembers the original plans
with lots of trees – new plans should have some accountability.
Trash always comes with the rentals.
Worried about Cornell agricultural land – where and how strong is the boundary for development?
Questions why Cornell University would want to develop for housing, and not save it for Cornell University
educational use.
High density requires strong boundaries.
How do we/Cornell University make sure students don’t take over the planned workforce housing.
Would like to see concrete numbers – i.e. what amount of green space is in the Village plan? – very firm
numbers needed before plans get to far along.
Compact / clusters ideas are good, but unsure of how they can be implemented here.
Will five story building hurt the feel of planned open space – tall building next to green area may not feel right.
Support Village dream – Cornell University employee housing is very good, but would like to see trees, safe
places to walk / bike, trash pickup, Cornell University students should not to bring cars.
Concern over zoning appeals – how many are approved? – why do we have regulations if it is so easy to get
variance?
County library should have copies of the Cornell University Master Plan available for the public.
Cornell should subsidize the workforce housing like they do for current student housing.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐26
5. What future involvement would you like to have in planning and developing your neighborhood area? How can
the town communicate better about proposed changes?
Read in the newspaper the notice of this neighborhood meeting.
Like having neighborhood meeting.
Liked that the newspaper gave Town website for more information.
Notice in paper was not enough. Put something in mailboxes, maybe notices in grocery stores, or like the road
sign at the County uses for meetings.
Heard it on the radio – it was announced many times.
Belle Sherman list serve could be used to notify people.
Attendance: 47 residents
D.3.4 Northeast Ithaca
14 June 2010
Northeast Elementary School, 425 Winthrop Drive
1. What do you like about the area where you live? What keeps you there?
Like the corridor of trees along Hanshaw Road.
Area is removed from downtown.
Good places to walk dogs.
Proximity to Sapsucker Woods.
Good bus transportation.
Accessible to employment.
High elevation – see weather as it approaches.
Proximity to elementary school.
Very walkable.
Close to shopping and medical offices.
When asked where people shop, they responded that they go to the Farmers Market, Greenstar, P&C.
2. What do you NOT like about the area where you live?
The condition of Hanshaw Road. It’s been poorly maintained.
Drainage issues, some of the worst soils in the county.
Too many dogs and no signs to encourage/require people to clean up after the dogs.
Too many deer.
Speeding.
Volume of traffic. Drivers use Hanshaw Road as a short-cut to Cornell (GPS units suggest that route).
Drivers use Hanshaw and not Route 13 when it’s snowy.
Big trucks try to drive through Forest Home.
As new buildings are built at Cornell, there is more and more noise in Forest Home.
Are there warnings for the large trucks using the bridges in Forest Home?
A designated truck route in and around Cornell is needed.
On Hanshaw, there are problems with bicycles and runners on the road and shoulder; the new path should help.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐27
Bikes often ride three abreast creating a dangerous situation.
Bikes with kids in bike trailers are a hazard.
The new plan for Hanshaw Road rebuild will remove trees that help with traffic calming; the plan for the road
appears to be overbuilt; the County has not paid attention to the residents. Could the Town officials talk to
TCCOG or the County and better represent the residents’ opinions? No new lighting in the plan and it is very
dark along there in the winter.
Driving awareness is needed with cyclists.
Do not want to see a bike lane with a fast speed limit.
When the speed limit is 30 MPH, bikers should be mixed with cars.
The proposed path is too wide and too close to the road.
Other “linear neighborhoods” (such as Coddington Road) are abused by the County.
They are in the town but the County is doing the road work. Don’t impose a solution just because there is money
to do the work.
Think 10-20 years into the future.
Infrastructure lacks needed, regular maintenance – faded stop signs, poor road conditions; municipalities need to
be taking care of small, important details.
3. What are the conditions and trends that you see in your area?
Proposed development could additionally stress infrastructure.
New houses in Forest Home are all McMansions and that is not necessarily what buyers want, but they do want
to live close to Cornell and that is the housing type that is available.
New housing should have a smaller square footage.
It would be nice to see more sustainable housing development.
Could government entities use property taxes to encourage solar energy or other renewable energy?
There is good bus transportation, but they drive too fast. Some intersections in NE neighborhood are tough for
buses to make the 90 degree turn. It would be better if there was a shoulder that buses could be driven on for the
turns. Or use smaller buses.
It is frustrating because not everyone works at Cornell but the buses are large to accommodate the riders on
campus.
The Town and County think about everything in terms of Cornell; this is a trend that should end.
Lots of residents DO work at Cornell.
Cornell owns a lot of land and they could build a driveway and not use Town and County Roads.
People will move away from busy areas, away from the urban core and that will expand sprawl into rural areas.
4. Impact of the city on town residents? Any issues that pull city and town residents apart?
Glad they’re the City and we aren’t.
Let the City have the development.
Seniors should be in the City so that they can get out and walk; don’t ghetto-ize the senior community.
We talk about affordable housing, but we want affordable living – living in a place where one can walk to work
and shopping.
Don’t separate age groups; neighborhoods should be mixed.
The original Chase Farms proposal included different components than what was finally built – the town should
be able to step in and make them stick to the original plan.
Why does Briarwood II have to be built?
The Town gets bullied by developers.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐28
Need to think about the Town’s interaction with not only the City but also the other municipalities that it borders;
there is not much integration.
Herb and Carolyn are at loggerheads over who gets more development.
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment make decisions on parcels that they don’t even know. When
decisions are made, board members should be visiting site.
5. What needs to be improved/preserved to enhance your area of the town? (i.e. sidewalks, parks, open space,
natural areas, historic buildings, commercial services, agriculture, transportation, etc.)?
A strong emphasis needs to be placed on protecting water quality.
Reduce traffic speeds.
Encourage sustainability.
Protect small farms.
Some community supported agriculture (CSA) pickups used to be at the Farmers Market, and then people would
buy food from other vendors as well. Some no longer doing that and farmers are missing out on some sales. The
Farmers Market is more of a tourist destination and that makes it difficult to go and buy produce. Why not sell
produce at other locations?
Rural residents don’t want to come to Ithaca.
Tree pruning for utility protection is poorly executed and they are killing trees. Need to be better arborists.
The Northeast area is completely built-out except for Briarwood II and Cornell’s property, but these areas border
Sapsucker Woods, which needs to be protected. The roads are not built for more traffic (from these new
developments). The area is not legally a wetland but it is very wet. More encroachment would destroy
Sapsucker Woods.
The park off of Tareyton Road is used a lot.
Protecting historic structures is also very important.
Hollis asked about Community Corners – it is not very vertical, should there be more two, three or more storied
buildings?
It depends on what goes into the plaza.
Cayuga Heights is trying to attract an ice cream/coffee shop for families.
It should be a more social experience.
It would be better if more people could walk to it.
The Cayuga Heights Planning Board is studying Community Corners in great detail. They will be holding a
focus group and welcome any input from Northeast Ithaca residents.
6. The committee has discussed encouraging compact neighborhoods or nodes.
Possible node sites in the town: the intersection of King and Danby Roads for a South Hill node; near the hospital for
a West Hill node; and East Hill Plaza area for an East Hill node. What are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? What
suggestions do you have for development in this area?
In the West Hill area, traffic is a huge issue.
The spaces in between are just as important to protect. Create de novo nodes.
There should be buffers between nodes and other existing development.
Hollis asked if we are short on housing. The County projected that 4,000 more units are needed in the county.
Someone asked if that was still a valid number given Cornell’s financial situation.
Building and development will happen even if we don’t plan for it.
There are empty places all over downtown.
How can places be revitalized?
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan D‐29
Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org)
The housing costs in surrounding areas are much lower but people commute to Ithaca to work and shop.
7. What future involvement would you like to have in planning and developing your neighborhood area? How can
the town communicate better about proposed changes?
Residents want to be involved with what happens with developments.
Drainage problems are also a result of downstream conditions – there are trees and debris in the streams backing
up water. It’s not just the culverts in the Northeast Ithaca neighborhoods; the water is not running off.
Building code is not stringent enough; housing should be more energy efficient, and the old housing stock should
be retrofitted.
The Briarwood subdivision is a contentious issue – as it has been for many decades. It would be beneficial if
developers brought proposals to residents’ attention earlier in the process. Residents often hear about proposals
only after they go to the Town Planning Board.
Residents should be part of the process when Cornell thinks about developing its property west of Sapsucker
Woods.
Attendance: 47 residents
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐1
APPENDIX E
POPULATION AND
HOUSING PROJECTIONS
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐3
POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS
Using Census population data to project population in 2020 and 2030, including the Village of Cayuga
Heights:
2000 total population (Census) 18,710 persons [Pt1]
2010 total population (Census) 19,930 persons [Pt2]
2000-2010 rate of change: [Pt2] or 19,930
––––––––––––– = .065 or 6.5% in 10 years
[Pt1] or 18,710
First 10-year period: 2010-2020
Pt2 = 19,930 persons
Pt3 = ?
Rate of change = .065
.065 = Pt3 -1
–––––
19,930 persons
1.065 (19,930) = Pt3
Pt3 = 21,225 persons (projected total population in 2020)
Second 10-year period: 2020-2030:
Pt3 = 21,225
Pt4 = ?
Rate of change = .065
.065 = Pt4 -1
–––––
21,225 persons
1.065 (21,225) = Pt4
Pt4 = 22,605 persons (projected total population in 2030)
Total potential population increase by 2030 (next 20 years) = 22,605 – 19,930 = 2,675 persons
Summary:
2000 total population (Census) = 18,710
2010 total population (Census) = 19,930
2020 total population (projected) = 21,225
2030 total population (projected) = 22,605
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐4
Using Census population data to project population in 2020 and 2030 ‐ not including Village of Cayuga
Heights:
2000 total population (Census) : 14,925 persons [Pt1]
2010 total population (Census): 16,201 persons [Pt2]
2000-2010 rate of change: [Pt2] or 16,201
––––––––––––– = .085 or 8.5% in 10 years
[Pt1] or 14,925
First 10-year period: 2010-2020:
Pt2 = 16,201 persons
Pt3 = ?
Rate of change = .085
.085 = Pt3 -1
–––––
16,201 persons
1.085 (16,201) = Pt3
Pt3 = 17,586 persons (projected Total population in 2020)
Second 10-year period: 2020-2030:
Pt3 = 17,586
Pt4 = ?
Rate of change = .085
.085 = Pt4 -1
–––––
17,586 persons
1.085(17,586) = Pt4
Pt4 = 19,081 persons (projected total population in 2030)
Total potential population increase by 2030 (next 20 years) = 19,081 – 16,201 = 2,880 persons
Summary:
2000 total population (Census) = 14,925
2010 total population (Census) = 16,201
2020 total population (projected) = 17,586
2030 total population (projected) = 19,081
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐5
Using housing unit data from building permit records to project number of new housing units in 2020 and
2030, Town of Ithaca only:
Number of new housing units in 2000 (building permit records) = 539 [Pt1]
Number of new housing units, 1-2000 to 12-2009 = 669 [Pt2]
2000-2010 rate of change: [Pt2] or 669
––––––––––––– = .24 or 24% in 10 years
[Pt1] or 539
First 10 year period: 2010-2020:
Pt2 = 669
Pt3 = ?
Rate of change = .24 or 24%
.24 = Pt3 -1
–––––
669
1.24(669) = Pt3
Pt3 = 830 - projected number of new housing units 2010-2020
Second 10 year period: 2020-2030:
Pt3 = 830
Pt4 = ?
Rate of change = .24
.24 = Pt4 -1
–––––
830
1.24(830) = Pt4
Pt4 = 1,029- projected number of new housing units 2020-2030
Total potential new housing units by 2030 (next 20 years) = 1,029 + 830 = 1,859 units*
Summary:
2000 new housing units (building permits) = 539
2010 new housing units (building permits) = 669
2020 new housing units (projected) = 830
2030 new housing units (projected) = 1,029
* note: using Census information instead of building permit information yields 1,534 total new units by 2030.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan E‐6
Using housing unit method to determine total Town population in 2010, not Including Village of Cayuga
Heights:
New housing units that received building permits between January 2000 and January 1, 2010 = 669 (assumption that
those units were built)
Housing units in the Town in 2010 (Census) 5,863
New housing units between 1-2000 and 12-2009 +669
–––––
6,532
Occupied units rate (2010 Census) = .93
Housing units 6,532
Occupancy rate ×0.93
–––––
Households 6,075
Average household size (2010 Census) = 2.15
Households (2010) 6,075
Average household size (2010) ×2.15
–––––
People in households in the Town (2010) 13,061
Group quarters = 4,911 total population in group quarters as of January 1, 2010
[includes 4,729 in college/university student housing]
People in households in the Town (2010) 13,061
People in group quarters (2010) +4,911
–––––
Total population of the Town (2010) 17,972
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐1
APPENDIX F
GLOSSARY
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐3
GLOSSARY
F.1 Words and terms
Accessory unit/accessory elder cottage: apartment or small cottage sharing ownership and utility connections with a larger
principal dwelling.
Affordable housing: unless otherwise specified, housing that has a sale price or rental amount that is within the means
of a household that may occupy middle-, moderate-, or low-income housing. Housing is considered “affordable”
when the tenant or homeowner pays no more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs.
Agritourism: activities conducted on a farm for the direct enjoyment and/or education of the public, which primarily
promotes the sale, marketing, production, harvesting, or use of the farm’s products and which enhance the public’s
understanding and awareness of farming and farm life.
Agriculture, small scale: for the Town of Ithaca, and based on the range of farm sizes existing in the Town, a small-
scale farm would generally equate to 50 acres in size or less (per Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland
Protection Plan (2011)).
Agriculture, medium scale: for the Town of Ithaca, and based on the range of farm sizes existing in the Town, a
medium-scale size farm would generally fall between 150-200 acres in size (no existing farms between 50-150 acres in
size) (per Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan (2011)).
Artisanal/cottage industry: small-scale production of goods in a home workshop or storefront, using hand or small
table-mounted tools.
Best practices: solutions and strategies found to be successful in other settings for the resolution of problems identified
in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Bicycle facilities: general term for all improvements and provisions that promote and facilitate bicycling, such as bicycle
travel lanes (shared lanes, shoulders, sidewalks, bike lanes or multi-use paths), maps, signs, and bicycle parking
facilities. Commuter bicycle facilities would include workplace showers and changing rooms for those who cycle to
work.
Biological corridor: a linear patch of habitat that facilitates the movement of species between fragmented habitats.
Bioretention pond/area: shallow stormwater basin or landscaped depression which utilizes engineered soils and
vegetation to capture and treat runoff that is returned to the stormwater drain system.
Build-to line: specifies where a building must be located relative to lot lines. A feature of form-based codes.
Bungalow courts: group of small houses closely arranged around a central, linear courtyard or other kind of manicured
open space.
Community units: clustered land development or traditional neighborhood development; a feature of the SmartCode.
Complete Streets: roads that are designed to accommodate all users, including motor vehicles, public transportation
vehicles and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐4
Comprehensive plan: official document that guides the long-range physical development of the Town.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO): agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined
situations. These operations congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations
on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animal rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in
pastures, fields, or on rangeland. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines Large CAFOs, Medium
CAFOs, and Small CAFOs according to the number of animals that the facility confines.
Conservation easement: voluntary legal agreement entered into between a landowner and a qualified conservation
organization or a government entity. The easement permanently limits a property's uses in order to protect the land's
natural resource values.
Context sensitive solutions: approach to urban design that emphasizes collaborative planning with stakeholders to
develop solutions that are in keeping with the scale, massing, use, and location of existing conditions.
Critical Environmental Area (CEA): areas of land in New York State which have been designated by a local or state
agency because they have one or more of the following characteristics: is a benefit or threat to human health; an
exceptional or unique natural setting; exceptional or unique social, historic, archaeological, recreational or
educational values; or an inherent ecological, geological or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely
affected by any physical disturbance.
Curb return radius: curved edge of the curb at thoroughfare intersections, measured at the edge of the travel lines.
Curbs at intersections should not intrude into the intersection beyond the specified maximum curb radius.
Dendritic street network: treelike or branching street layout with many cul-de-sacs, loops, and dead ends. Typical of
suburban development.
Density: gross density refers to the number of families, persons or housing units allocated per gross unit measure of
land. Net density is the maximum density permitted to be developed per unit of land after deducting any required
open space, easements and publicly dedicated rights-of-way.
Development: physical extension and/or construction of human-focused land uses; the act of bringing about growth.
Development, brownfield: redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized industrial and commercial sites, where ground
contamination is frequently present.
Development, cluster: residential development designed to preserve open space by grouping the homes on a portion of a
property only, leaving the remainder as open space.
Development, frontage: creating development lots by splitting parcels fronting the road from a larger parcel. Also called
strip development or ribbon development.
Development, greenfield: development on land that has previously never been built on.
Development, grayfield: older, economically obsolete development. The term is commonly applied to malls that are
past their prime and experiencing declining levels of occupancy.
Development, infill: development of vacant or underutilized properties within a predominantly built-up neighborhood
or commercial area.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐5
Development, light imprint: development strategy that emphasizes sustainability and increased environmental and
infrastructural efficiency, while reducing construction expenses; with an emphasis on stormwater and drainage
management techniques that provide an alternative to more costly and intrusive conventional methods.
Development, mixed use: development projects that provide for more than one use or purpose within a shared building
or development area. Mixed-use development may allow the integration of commercial, retail, office, medium to
high-density housing, and in some cases light industrial uses. These uses can be integrated either horizontally or
vertically in a single building or structure.
Development, ribbon: see development, frontage.
Development, strip: see development, frontage.
Elder housing: housing and directly related services that accommodate the physical, medical, social and financial needs
of aging residents. This includes aging-in-place programs, accessory units, age-qualified apartments, independent
living facilities (congregate housing), assisted living facilities, nursing homes and hospice facilities.
Estate community: residential development with large lots up to a size that can accommodate limited rural lifestyle
activities such as horse rearing or small hobby farms.
Force main : pipeline to transfer wastewater from a lower to higher elevation. Prevents excessive excavation depths and
expensive sewer pipeline construction costs.
Form-based code: land use regulations that placing an emphasis on guiding the form that development takes, more so
than focusing on land use as with traditional zoning.
Habitat: area or environment where an organism, ecological community, or biological populations normally lives or
occurs.
Heat island impacts: built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas due to more impermeable and heat-trapping
surface materials. Heat islands affect communities by increasing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,
and decreasing water and air quality.
Home occupation: occupation carried out in a home by its resident; provided that the use is limited and secondary to
the use of the home for residential purposes, and does not affect the residential character of the home or
neighborhood.
Household: includes all the persons who are current residents of a housing unit. The occupants may be a single family,
one person living alone, two or more families living together, or a group of related or unrelated persons who share
living arrangements.
Housing, affordable: see affordable housing.
Housing, low income: housing that is occupied, reserved, or marketed for households with less than 50% of the region’s
median household income. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Housing, median income: housing that is occupied, reserved, or marketed for households with 80% to 120% of the
region’s median household income. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Housing unit: house, apartment, mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐6
Human scale: building or streetscape is considered to have good human scale if there is an expression of human
activity/use that indicates the buildings’ size. For example, traditionally sized windows, doors, and balconies are
elements that correspond to the size of the human body, so their presence indicates a building’s overall size. In the
streetscape, this means making signs the right size and height to be easily read by pedestrians and bicyclists (instead
of just motorists), and reducing building setbacks.
Hydrophytic: plants growing in water or very moist soil deficient in oxygen at least part of the time.
Industry cluster: groups of inter-related businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a geographic concentration
that drive wealth creation in a region, primarily through the creation of and export of goods and services. Industry
clusters represent the entire value chain of an industry, from suppliers to end products and include both high and low-
value added employment.
Infrastructure: basic facilities and equipment necessary for the effective functioning of the Town, such as the means of
providing water service, sewage disposal, electric and gas connections, and the street network.
Infrastructure, green: strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, working landscapes, and other open
spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions.
Institutional zoning: special zoning designation for institutional uses that provide a public service, such as public and
private schools and universities, hospitals, libraries, non-profit cultural organizations, and government structures.
Interconnectivity: quality and quantity of connections in the roadway network, which influences the accessibility of
potential destinations in a community.
Ithaca metro area: Tompkins County comprises the entire Ithaca metropolitan area.
Lacustrine: of or relating to a lake.
Land use: description and classification of how land is occupied or utilized, e.g., residential, office, parks, industrial,
commercial, etc.
Light industry: research and development, and the manufacturing, processing, assembly, and/or treatment of finished
products, predominantly from previously prepared or refined materials. Typical industrial externalities (noise, dust,
smoke, vibrations) are at a minimum.
Lot split: division of a single lot of into two lots.
Median: income level which splits the Town’s income distribution into two equally-sized groups: one having income
above that amount and the other having income below that amount. Median income can refer to a household or a
family.
Median income range: 80% to 120% of the Town’s median household income, which was $55,934 as of the 2010
Census.
Mesh-based network: wireless network comprising a relatively large number of small, often unobtrusive nodes,
compared to a cellular network with a relatively small number of large, often visually obtrusive facilities.
Microcell: small wireless facility with a much smaller cell or coverage area than a conventional wireless facility.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐7
Multimodal transportation system: transportation system that uses a variety of modes to transport people and goods.
Components of the system may include vehicular roadways, transit (bus, rail), bikeways, pedestrian paths (sidewalks,
trails), freight railways, and airplanes.
Open space: land and water areas retained for active or passive recreation or for resource protection in an essentially
undeveloped state.
Organic arrangement: arrangement that appears natural, with no regular or repeating pattern.
Organically evolved settlement: aettlement that was not intentionally created by a developer or other party, but which
emerged and grew naturally; e.g. a hamlet that grew around a waterfall which provided power to flour mills.
Outfall location: point source where water from a municipal stormwater sewer system discharges to waters of the
United States (streams, lakes, wetlands).
Overlay zoning district: zoning district that extends on top of more than one base zoning district and is intended to
protect certain critical features and resources. Where the standards of the overlay and base zoning district are
different, the more restrictive standards usually apply.
Palustrine: of, or relating to, or living in, a marsh or swamp; marshy.
Picocell: very small wireless facility that serves a limited area, such as an apartment or office building.
Pod: cluster or part of a development, usually with a single use, that has extremely limited physical and social
connections to the larger surrounding neighborhood or area.
Purchase of development rights (PDR): A voluntary program typically used by governmental jurisdictions to maintain
land in agricultural or conservation uses by compensating private landowners for the value of the development rights
on the property. PDRs allow properties to remain in private ownership without being developed in the future.
Rain garden: planted depression that allows stormwater runoff from impervious areas to be absorbed. Rain gardens
are a simplified version of bioretention, but unlike true bioretention areas these are designed as a passive filter system
without an underdrain connected to the storm drain system.
Retail frontage, mandatory: Street section along which buildings must have first floor retail/commercial storefronts that
face the sidewalk and street.
Retail frontage, recommended: Street section where first floor retail/commercial storefronts that face the sidewalk and
street are recommended.
Riparian area: area adjacent to a stream that typically contains tress, shrubs, and other ground covers.
Rowhouses: series of residences attached in a row, which share some structural parts at a common property line but
are owned individually.
Sidewalk: improved pedestrian surface located between the lateral lines of the roadway and the adjacent property
lines. See trail for contrast.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐8
Site planning: considering and elucidating all uses and structures proposed for a parcel of land as required by
regulations.
SmartCode: model form-based and transect-based development code based on a nesting relationship of the town or
city, neighborhood, transect zone, and building lot.
Smart Growth: see appendix A.1
Snout house: house with a protruding garage that takes up most of the street frontage, squeezing out front yards and
making it difficult to find the front door.
Solarthermal system: technology for harnessing solar energy for heat; different from photovoltaic cells, which convert
solar energy directly into electricity.
Sprawl: process by which the spread of development outpaces population growth. It is typified by a population
widely dispersed in low-density development, separate land uses, a network of roads with poor access, and a lack of
defined activity centers.
Stormwater: water from rain or melting snow that doesn’t soak into the ground but runs off into water ways. It flows
from rooftops, over paved areas and bare soil, and through sloped lawns while picking up a variety of materials on its
way. See Wastewater for contrast.
Stub road: road that ends at the boundary line of a parcel, placed to provide access to the neighboring parcel, and
provide future connection with or integration into the street network of the neighboring parcel if it is developed.
Subdivision: division of land into two or more lots for the purpose of sale, transfer of ownership, or building
development.
Suburban: low- to medium-intensity development patterns that surround the urban areas of a city. Often residential in
character, with single-family detached houses as the primary use of land. The automobile historically determines the
form of the suburbs.
Surficial geology: rocks and unconsolidated material that lie above the bedrock. Refer to pg B-52 for more information.
Swale: open channel or depression designed to detain and/or retain stormwater and promote filtration through
vegetation and soil media.
Traditional neighborhood development (TND): development based on traditional North American town planning
principles, which include a range of housing types, a network of interconnected streets and blocks, human-scale
public spaces, and amenities such as stores, schools, and places of worship within walking distance of residences.
Trail: publicly owned and maintained multiuse pathway system, often independent and separated from roadways.
See sidewalk for contrast.
Transect: cross-section of the environment showing a range of different habitats.
Transect-based code: development code based on the ecological concept of a transect, which establishes zones
distinguished by its density and shared character, rather than common uses.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐9
Transit oriented development (TOD): development of moderate- to high-density mixed land use, clustered around a
transit facility, which seeks to encourage the use of public transit.
Unique Natural Area (UNA): designation established by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
that recognizing lands within the county that contain outstanding environmental qualities and considered deserving
of special attention for preservation in their natural state. It is not a regulatory designation and does not provide legal
protection for an area.
Universal design: design ideology meant to produce buildings, products and environments that are inherently accessible
to both people without disabilities and people with disabilities.
Viewshed: area within a view from a defined observation point.
Walkable: development patterns and roadway systems that are conducive to walking by providing safe and efficient
accommodations for pedestrians. Also known as pedestrian-oriented or pedestrian-friendly.
Wastewater: water carrying wastes from homes, businesses, and industries, or excess irrigation water that is runoff to
adjacent land. Also called greywater or sewage. See stormwater for contrast.
Wetlands : land area that is sufficiently saturated by surface water or groundwater as to be able to support vegetation or
aquatic life requiring saturated soil conditions for at least part of the year.
Zoning: regulatory mechanism through which the Town regulates the location, size, and use of properties and
buildings. Zoning regulations are intended to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and
to lessen congestion, prevent overcrowding, and facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage,
parks, and other public services.
F.2 Acronyms
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AFPP Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan
AG Agricultural (zoning)
APA American Planning Association
B20 Biodiesel fuel
C Conservation (zoning)
CC Community Commercial (zoning)
CEA Critical Environmental Area
CHFD Cayuga Heights Fire Department
CIP Capital improvement plan
CLD Clustered land development
CLG Certified Local Government
CMC Cayuga Medical Center
CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CSA Community Supported Agricultural operations
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐10
CSS Context sensitive solutions
CWA Clean Water Act
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DOT Department of Transportation
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FRoG EcoVillage First Neighborhood
GHG Greenhouse gas
HDR High Density Residential (zoning)
I Industrial (zoning)
ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
ICSD Ithaca City School District
IFD Ithaca Fire Department
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IPM Integrated Pest Management
ITCTC Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council
LC Lakefront commercial (zoning)
LDR Low density residential (zoning)
LED Light Emitting Diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (rating system)
LI Light industrial (zoning)
LOS Level of service
LR Lake Residential (zoning)
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan (2004)
MDR Medium density residential (zoning)
MGD Million gallons per day
MHP Mobile home park (zoning)
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MR Multiple residential (zoning)
MSL Mean sea level
NC Neighborhood Commercial (zoning)
NCR National Cash Register
NESTS Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (1999)
NRCS National Resource Conservation Service
NRPA National Recreation and Park Association
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations
NYS New York State
OPC Office Park Commercial (zoning)
OPRHP (New York State) Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan F‐11
P Planned development zones (zoning)
PCI Pavement Condition Index
PDR Purchase of Development Rights
PDZ Planned development zoning
PND Pocket neighborhood parks
PRI Paleontological Research Institution
PUD Planned unit development
PV Photovoltaic
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SD Special District (zoning)
SEQR State Environmental Quality Review
SHPO New York State Historic Preservation Office
SoNG Ecovillage Second Neighborhood
SOV Single-occupancy vehicle
SPHINX State Preservation Historical Information Network Exchange
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis
t-GEIS Cornell University transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement
TCAD Tompkins County Area Development
TCAT Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit
TCCCE Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County
TCPL Tompkins County Public Library
TCSWMD Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division
TIMS Transportation impact mitigation strategies
TIP Transportation Improvement Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TND Traditional neighborhood development
TST BOCES Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Board of Cooperative Educational Services
UNA Unique Natural Area
UPWP Unified Planning Work Program
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VFR Vehicle Fuel and Repair (zoning)
VOC Vehicle Over Capacity ratio
WFP Water Filtration Plant
WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
WTP Water Treatment Plant
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐1
APPENDIX G
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
About. Paleontological Research Institution and the Museum of the Earth. <http://www.museumofthe earth.org/
about.php>. Accessed 22 August 2011.
About ITCTC. Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council. <http://www.tompkins-co.org/itctc/about.html>.
Accessed 27 July 2011.
About Us. Bolton Point Water System. Undated. <http://www.boltonpoint.org/aboutus.html>. Accessed 1 August
2011.
About Us. Cayuga Heights Fire Department. <http://www.chfd.net/about.php> Accessed 8 August 2011.
Airport Facts. Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. <http://www.ithaca-airport.com/facts/>. Accessed 1 September
2004.
Allan H. Treman State Marine Park. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 2011.
<http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/35/details.aspx>. Accessed 15 August 2011.
American Community Survey 2005-2009. United States Census Bureau. 2009.
American Community Survey 2006-2008. United States Census Bureau. 2008.
Building Utility Use and Costs History. Cornell University Facilities Services Energy and Sustainability.
<http://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/em/bldgenergy/history.cfm>. Accessed 12 August 2011.
Cayuga Medical Center Main Campus. Sustainable Sites Initiative. <http://www.sustainablesites.org/ cases/
show.php?id=18>. Accessed 23 August 2011.
Chapter 6: Traffic and Transportation. Master Plan Update. Sterling, George, Planning Board Chairman. Town of
Peterborough, New Hampshire: Office of Community Development, November 2003.
City of Ithaca Water Supply Project CEQRO/SEQRA Draft Scoping Document. City of Ithaca. 22 June 2007.
Common Data Set 2010-11. Cornell University Division of Planning and Budget. <http://dpb.cornell.
edu/documents/1000464.pdf>.
Community Profile: Employment. Tompkins County Area Development. <http://www.tcad.
org/businessInfo/factsandfigures.php#employ>. Accessed 1 August 2011.
Cornell University Enrollments by College, Ithaca Campus, Fall 2010. Cornell University Office of Institutional Research
and Planning. <http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000172.pdf> Accessed 4 August 2011.
County Housing Sales. Chart. Tompkins County Assessment Department. <http://www.tompkinsco. org/
assessment/yrsales.pdf>.
Countywide Inter-municipal Water and Sewer Feasibility Study for Tompkins County. T.G. Miller, P.C., Stearns & Wheler,
and John M. Andersson, P.E. 31 March 2010.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐4
Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Braun, E. Lucy. 1950.
Employment. Therm Incorporated. < http://www.therm.com/employment-opportunity.php>. Accessed 9 August
2011.
Enhancing Pedestrian Access in Tompkins County: A Guidebook on Sidewalk Improvements. Varricchione, Brian J.
Professional presentation. May 2003.
Facts: Human Resources. Cornell University Division of Planning and Budget. <http://dpb.cornell.edu/ F_Human_
Resources.htm>. Accessed 10 August 2011.
Final Report for the Intensive Level Survey. Cornell University Historic Preservation Planning Workshop. September
2005.
Finger Lakes Geology: Introduction. Paleontological Research Institution. <http://www.priweb.org/ ed/finger_lakes/
nystate_geo1.html>. Accessed 22 August 2011.
Frequently Asked Questions. Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit. Undated. <http://www.tcatbus. com/faq.shtml>.
Accessed 15 September 2005.
Gadabout Gets Seniors Out and About. Szudzik, Christine. The Front Page. Undated. Ithaca College Student
Journalism Publication.
Glossary of Transportation Terms. Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). Undated.
<http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/GlossaryOfTransportation Terms.pdf>. Accessed 13
September 2005.
Hydric Soils – Introduction. Natural Resources Conservation Service. < http://soils.usda.gov/use/ hydric/intro.html
>. Accessed 19 August 2011.
Impacts on Community Character of Horizontal Drilling and High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing. New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. 16 September 2009.
Index of Economic Activity in Tompkins County. Ithaca College Department of Economics.
<http://www.ithaca.edu/economics/tcdex.htm>. Accessed 4 August 2011.
Ithaca College Facts in Brief 2010-11. Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research.
<http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/facts/Ithaca_College_Facts_in_Brief_2010-11.pdf> Accessed 1 August 2011.
Ithaca College Office of Residential Life representative. Telephone interview. 16 June 2011.
Ithaca College Responses to Common Data Set, 2010-11. Ithaca College Office of Institutional Research. <
http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/docs/commondataset/cds1011/cds1011I.pdf. >
The Ithaca Intercity Bus Schedule. Mengel, Dwight and Sara Rakaczky. Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Ithaca
Downtown Transportation Center Working Paper #1. <http://www.co.tompkins.
ny.us/transit/Intercitybusschedule8-2-2001dem.htm>. Accessed 1 September 2004.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐5
Lab No. 3: Population Projections and Scale. Miyares, Ines M. Hunter College Department of Geography.
<http://geo.hunter.cuny.edu>
Nature Explorer: A Gateway to New York’s Biodiversity. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. <
http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/app/ >. Accessed 11 August 2011.
News Details: Partners Break Ground for Recycling and Solid Waste Center Upgrade. Tompkins County. 3 June 2011.
<http://www.tompkins-co.org/detail.aspx?ContentID=1705>. Accessed 21 July 2011
New York Gap Analysis Project: Final Report, January 24, 2001, Charles Smith, Stephen D Charles R. Smith, Stephen
D. DeGloria, Milo E. Richmond, New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New York State College
of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Dept. of Natural Resources, New York Gap Analysis Project, Geological Survey
(U.S.). Biological Resources Division.
Oswego River Finger Lakes Basin Waterbody Inventory and Priority Waterbodies List. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. February 2008. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/ docs/water_pdf/pwlorfl07.pdf>.
Our History. Bolton Point Water System. Undated. <http://www.boltonpoint.org/PopUps/ ourhistory.html>.
Accessed 1 August 2011.
Overview: History, Mission, Core Values. Cayuga Medical Center. <http://www.cayugamed.org/ content.cfm?
page=mission>. Accessed 23 August 2011.
Overview of Millenium Project. Tompkins County Office of the Aging. <http://www.tompkins-co.org/cofa/intro.pdf>
Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan: Executive Summary. Town of Ithaca Planning Department, Ithaca, N.Y: Town
of Ithaca, December 1997.
Profile and History. Tompkins County Public Library. 27 July 2010. <http://www.tcpl.org/libinfo/ about-
history.php>. Accessed 8 August 2011.
Protected Native Plants. New York State Environmental Conservation Law. 6 NYCRR 193.3.
Public Fishing Rights Maps: Cayuga Lake Inlet. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/r7cayinlpfr.pdf>. Accessed 9 August 2011.
Recycling and Solid Waste. Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Division. 2006.
<http://www.recycletompkins.org>. Accessed 21 July 2011.
Inland Waterway Navigation Value to the Nation. Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Rock
Island, Illinois: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. <www.mvr.usace.army.mil/
Brochures/InlandWaterwayNavigation.asp>. Accessed 15 September 2004.
Rudy, Tony, AAE. Ithaca-Tompkins Regional Airport. Telephone interview by Nicole Tedesco. Ithaca, New York.
5 September 2006.
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers et al. Supreme Ct. of the US. 9 Jan 2001.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐6
Some Rare Myxomycetes of Central New York, with Notes on the Germination of Enteridium Rozeanum. Durand, E.J.
Botanical Gazette. March 1894.
South Hill Swamp, Its Unique Natural Characteristics and Need for Protection. Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. 18
March 1999.
Steps to a Healthier You. United States Department of Agriculture. Undated. <http://www.mypyramid. gov/ >.
Accessed 28 June 2006.
Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and New York State Department of State. September 2004.
Tompkins County Assessment Department representative. Telephone interview. 2010.
The Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy. Tompkins County Area Development. September 2006. <
http://www.tcad.org/files/uploads/20090602_2006%20TCAD%20ED%20 Strategy.pdf>.
Tompkins County Freight Transportation Study, Final Report. Sear-Brown. Rochester, N.Y. Ithaca-Tompkins County
Transportation Council, April 2002.
The Tompkins County Labor Market Region Study. Chmura Economic & Analytics for Tompkins County Area
Development. 21 April 2008. <http://www.chmuraecon.com/file_dl.aspx?name=~/
pdfs/TCAD_Full_Report_April_21.pdf&id=c6c8284a-1ebc-41e6-b98a-444b6623d515.>
Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. September 2001.
<http://www.tompkins-co.org/planning/nri/inventory.pdf >.
Tompkins County Sheriff’s Office 2009 Annual Report. Tompkins County Sheriff’s Department. 2009.
<http://web.tompkins-co.org/sheriff/admin/files/2009%20Annual%20Report.pdf >.
Tompkins County Sheriff’s Department representatives. Multiple telephone interviews. August 2011.
Transportation Improvement Program Guidebook – Fall 2006. Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council, the New
York State Department of Transportation, and the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council. September 2006.
Water Distribution and Delivery. Cornell University Facilities Services Energy and Sustainability.
<http://energyandsustainability.fs.cornell.edu/util/water/drinking/ distribution.cfm>. Accessed 12 August 2011.
Water Treatment Plant. City of Ithaca. Undated. <http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/departments/ dpw/water/wtp.cfm>.
Accessed 15 August 2011.
Web Soil Survey: A New Horizon in the Use of Site-Specific Soil Data. Barbee, G.C. and Morris, D.K. Journal of
Extension. August 2009. Vol. 47: No. 4.
Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers.
2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program. Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). May
2010.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan G‐7
2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Update. Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC). 15 Dec 2009.
21st Century Households and the New Housing Paradigm. Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan H‐1
APPENDIX H
AGRICULTURE PLAN
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan H‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan H‐3
AGRICULTURE PLAN
Suwinski Farm
The Town of Ithaca recognizes that agriculture is an integral part of the Town’s economy and environment, provides locally grown
food and other agricultural products, and enhances the quality of life for Town residents. The Town proactively promotes a diversity
of farm types, seeks the long-term preservation of the Town’s agricultural land resources, supports the economic viability of the
farming community and the profitability of each farm, values the local public agricultural research and educational resources, and
encourages the general public to understand and support local agriculture.
Above is the vision statement that was developed for the Town of Ithaca’s Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan.
This plan outlines specific goals, recommendations and implementation steps that will help achieve this vision. The
plan also includes background information on agriculture in the Town along with existing agricultural resources,
maps, and other pertinent information. The plan was adopted by the Town of Ithaca Town Board and the Tompkins
County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board in November 2011.
A copy of the plan is available online at http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/a-f-protection-plan. Paper copies can be
obtained from the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan I‐1
APPENDIX I
SCENIC RESOURCES
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan I‐2
Town of Ithaca 2014 Comprehensive Plan I‐3
SCENIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
View from Hanshaw Road
In a 2009 survey conducted for the Comprehensive Plan update, 91% of the 356 respondents reported scenic views
were “important” or “very important.”
Scenic resources are defined as public or publicly accessible areas, features, and sites that are recognized, visited, and
enjoyed by the public for their visual qualities.
The Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis Report was initiated to:
Foster community awareness and pride in the Town’s scenic environment.
Establish the significance of local scenic resources.
Document the views of each scenic resource and the extent, character, and area of each.
Provide detailed information to decision makers about how to protect scenic resources, specifically through the
updated Comprehensive Plan, possible regulations, and the SEQR process.
Provide a basis for incorporating scenic resource protection into the Comprehensive Plan.
The Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis Report includes a collection of photographs, descriptions, and maps that
provide details of all significant scenic resources in the Town, and show what is visible from identified vantage points.
The completed Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis Report was accepted by the Ithaca Town Board in May 2014. It
is available online at http://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/scenic, or in print from the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850.