HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Appendix D Public and Focus Group Meeting Summaries
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