HomeMy WebLinkAboutReCoding Ithaca Zoning Review and Approach Report 2017
Recoding Ithici
Zoning Review and Approach Report
February 2017
Town of Ithaca Planning Department
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Recoding Ithici Zoning Review and Approach Report
February 2017
TownoofoIthaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
TownoBoard: Bill Goodman • Town Supervisor | Rod Howe • Deputy Town Supervisor |
Pamela Bleiwas | Rich DePaolo | Tee-Ann Hunter | Pat Leary | Eric Levine
Planningohommittee: Rich DePaolo | Pat Leary | Rod Howe
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
PreparedobyotheoTownoofoIthacaoPlanningoDepartment
Daniel Tasman • Senior Plannero
Contributing: Susan Ritter • Planning Director | Michael Smith • Senior Planner | Chris Balestra • Planner
oBackgroundoandoneedo 1 1.1
oProjectooverviewo 1 1.2
oReportoorganizationo 2 1.3
oUsabilityo 3 2.1
2.1.1 Unified development code 3
2.1.2 Organization 4
2.1.3 Look and feel 5
2.1.4 Language, style, and comprehension 8
2.1.5 Publication form 10
oZoneso 10 2.2
2.2.1 Conventional zones 11
2.2.2 Traditional neighborhood development (TND) transect
zones 14
2.2.3 Institutional zoning 16
2.2.4 Planned development zones 18
2.2.5 Overlay zones 20
2.2.6 Zone names and identification 21
2.2.7 Zoning and plan implementation 22
oNeighborhoododesignoandodevelopmento 23 2.3
2.3.1 Building neighborhoods 24
2.3.2 Conventional development 25
2.3.3 Cluster development 28
2.3.4 Pocket neighborhood 29
2.3.5 Traditional neighborhood development (TND) and the
transect 30
2.3.6 Street layout and design 31
2.3.7 Parks, civic areas, and open space 34
2.3.8 Housing variety and affordability 35
2.3.9 Subdivision review reform 37
oSiteodesignoandodevelopmento 39 2.4
2.4.1 Form-based regulations 39
2.4.2 Conventional development and site planning 41
2.4.3 Architectural design 44
2.4.4 Landscaping 47
2.4.5 Parking 50
2.4.6 Stormwater 52
2.4.7 Other site features 55
2.4.8 Use-specific standards 56
2.4.9 Nonconforming site features 57
oUseso 57 2.5
2.5.1 Use classification 57
2.5.2 Allowed uses 59
2.5.3 Use and context specific standards 63
2.5.4 Performance standards 63
2.5.5 Use review reform 63
oProcessoandoadministrationo 65 2.6
2.6.1 Code administration 65
2.6.2 Development review 66
2.6.3 Discretionary power and predictability 68
2.6.4 Vesting and expiration limits 70
oFormoIthacaoinitiativeo 71 2.7
o
o
o
o
1
.
The Town of Ithaca adopted a new comprehensive plan in
September 2014. The Comprehensive Plan is the key policy
document used to shape future growth and development in the
town. The Plan envisions a community that combines the best of
urban, suburban, and rural life to appeal to a broad range of
lifestyles and lifestages – that as Ithaca grows, it gets better, not
just bigger. The Plan has a holistic approach, recognizing that
both human and natural habitats need diverse, complex, and
healthy environments to sustain their inhabitants.
The new plan, along with a “new normal” that’s changing how
people interact with the places they live, work, and play, makes
this the right time to rethink and retool the Town’s planning
regulations.
New York State Town Law §263 requires a community’s planning
laws to be in line with its comprehensive plan. The
Comprehensive Plan has 70 recommendations that need
regulatory action – writing and adopting new laws – to
implement. The Town can’t carry out the planning practices of
today with a zoning and regulatory structure rooted in the 1950s.
The Town needs a new development code to translate the Plan’s
goals and policies into law. The new code must be easy to use
and understand. Its standards and processes must be sensible,
certain, and fair. It must communicate desired outcomes clearly
and confidently. It must embrace new approaches that embody
the Town’s inclusive and sustainable vision for the future.
.
This analysis and work plan is the first phase of Recoding Ithaca,
a comprehensive update of the Town’s planning laws – the
zoning code, subdivision code, and other related laws in the Town
Code.
This report takes a broad look at the Town’s various planning-
related laws, and identifies ways to:
• Make regulations easier to understand and apply.
• Fix or remove regulations that are ineffective, vague,
complex, or unnecessary.
• Carry out new tools and best planning practices.
• Remove barriers to desirable, high quality development.
• Streamline development review, and ensure predictable, fair
results.
• Align standards with Comprehensive Plan goals and
recommendations.
Ithaca isn’t alone in upgrading a mid-century planning structure
for one that better meets the needs of today. Many cities and
towns across the United States and Canada perform a similar
diagnostic and approach study before embarking on a new code.
(See Chapter 6 for examples of other studies and update
projects.) By reviewing current regulations, and setting out
expectations for new practices, it lays out a smoother, more solid
1955 Town of Ithaca zoning map
Zoning is the bridge between what we have now and what
we would like to have in the future. Therefore, it must not
become just "another regulation" whose main function is to
perpetuate existing conditions. Rather, it must be a
reflection of a comprehensive plan for future growth and
development.
— Ithaca Urban Area: A General Plan, 1959
2
path to a new code. It’s a different approach than how the Town
pursued its last major zoning code update.
This report is general in nature in some areas, and more specific
in others. It can’t address every issue with the Town’s planning
laws, or describe every possible solution. As work progresses on
a new code, other issues will inevitably come up. The scope of
this report shouldn’t limit the scope of change in a new code.
Issues with current laws shouldn’t reflect poorly on those who
wrote them. There hasn’t been a “deep level” update of the
Town’s planning regulations for many years. Older codes will
always have some inconsistency in style and substance, from
changes made by different people.
.
Following this introduction, this report has four main parts.
Chapter 2: Issues and approaches. This chapter identifies key
findings and themes that emerged from review of the Town’s
planning regulations and processes. Each theme has
recommendations on how a new code can better address
different issues.
Chapter 3: Comprehensive Plan recommendations. This chapter
lists relevant Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and how
new planning regulations can carry them out.
Chapter 4: Conceptual code outline. This chapter has a
conceptual outline for a new unified development code (UDC)
with all the Town’s various planning regulations.
Chapter 5: Zoning resources. This chapter has references and
links to modern zoning codes, zoning code rewrite projects, and
other zoning-related resources on the Internet.
Current zoning map, zoning code, and subdivision code.
Generalonoteso
• Ithaca refers to the Town of Ithaca, or the broader Ithaca
community, depending on context.
• Ithaca area refers the urban and suburban area at the south
end of Cayuga Lake, and surrounding exurban and rural areas
closely bound by employment, culture, and identity.
• Town (capital T) refers to Town of Ithaca government.
• town (lowercase t) refers to the geographic area of the town,
outside the Village of Cayuga Heights.
• Comprehensive Plan or Plan (uppercase P) refers to the 2014
Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
• current planning regulations or codes refer to the chapters
and sections of the Town Code regulating development (see
§2.1.1).
• LID: low impact development
• LINU: light imprint new urbanism
• PD: planned development (zone)
• SEQRA: State Environmental Quality Review Act
• SMP: stormwater management practice
• TND: traditional neighborhood development
• UDC: unified development code
This report bases its findings and recommendations on the
vision, goals, and policies of the 2014 Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan findings and goals; day-to-day
experiences working with the Town’s planning regulations; and
proven and emerging best practices in planning, urban design,
and land use regulation.
o
3
This report focuses on six broad themes as the basis for discussing current practices, and recommending new approaches. Each theme
reflects a different aspect of planning regulation.
• Usability (section 2.1)
• Zoneso(section 2.2)
• Neighborhoododesignoandodevelopment (section 2.3)
• Siteodesignoandodevelopment (section 2.4)
• Uses (section 2.5)
• Processoandoadministration (section 2.6)
.
The Town of Ithaca adopted its first zoning code in 1954, and its
first subdivision code a year later. In the following years,
countless amendments, a few major overhauls1, and some new
Town Code chapters addressed new issues as they came up. On
their own, these changes were well intentioned, and sometimes
desperately needed. Together, they add up to a cluttered and
disorganized planning framework. Regulations and processes are
hard to find. The relationship between different rules and
processes affecting a project is often unclear. Wordy, vague, and
inconsistent language can make interpretation difficult.
Planning regulations are more effective if people can easily find
the rules they’re looking for, and understand what they mean.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that, and recommends a new
planning code that is clear, concise, and easy for both staff and
laypeople to use and understand.
. .
The Town’s planning- and development-related laws are in
several separate chapters throughout the Town Code.
• Chapter 100: Adult uses
• Chapter 148: Environmental quality review
• Chapter 161: Freshwater wetlands
• Chapter 173: Outdoor lighting
• Chapter 221: Signs
• Chapter 228: Stormwater management, erosion and
sediment control
• Chapter 234: Subdivision
• Chapter 270: Zoning
1 1960, 1968, 1980, and 2003.
• Chapter 271: Special land use districts (planned
development/PD zones)
The current zoning code also has regulations for mobile home
anchoring, licensing for solar panel installers, covering
abandoned cellar holes, and other subjects that are usually part
of a building or property maintenance code.
What’soinoaoUDh?o
• Zoning and overlay districts.
• Subdivision and neighborhood design standards.
• Use standards.
• Height, setback, bulk, and other site development standards.
• Architectural standards.
• Landscaping and tree protection requirements.
• Sign regulations.
• Parking requirements.
• Natural resource protection.
• Stormwater management.
• Road and sidewalk design standards.
• Review and administration procedures.
• Relevant definitions.
Whatodoesoito(usually)oleaveoout?o
• Project-specific local laws and conditions.
• Resolution language (“WHEREAS” …).
• Building and fire code standards.
• Property maintenance standards.
• Contractor licensing requirements.
• Regulations for uses with floating locations (taxis, street
performers, ride sharing, etc.).
• Traffic laws.
• Engineering and construction standards.
• Fees, application material lists, and forms.
The most damaging phrase in the language is ‘We’ve always
done it this way.’
— Grace Murray Hopper, computer scientist, United States
Navy rear admiral
4
Those using the Town Code every day are familiar with its nooks
and crannies. For everybody else, finding something can be
challenging. There are also some conflicts and redundancy
among some planning-related provisions in the Town Code.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends updating and combining
planning-related laws into a unified development code (UDC). A
UDC would be a single chapter of the Town Code, serving as a
“one stop shop” for all the Town’s planning-related regulations.
A UDC has many advantages over separate codes and chapters.
• It’s efficient, because there is only one code to know.
• It's easier to compare standards and procedures for different
actions.
• It avoids redundant, conflicting, or inconsistent standards or
processes.
• It's easier to see the relationship among different aspects of
land use and development.
• It offers a more holistic and comprehensive approach to
design and review.
A growing number of American communities have UDCs. Closer
to home, the City of Buffalo’s Green Code project will replace its
60-year old zoning code, and other planning-related laws, with a
plain English, form-based UDC based on new urbanism and
smart growth principles. Elsewhere in upstate New York, the
Town of Union (Binghamton area), Town of Louisville (Potsdam
area), Village of Sarnac Lake, and City of Saratoga Springs have
adopted or are drafting UDCs.
A UDC doesn’t have building and fire codes, nuisance laws,
engineering or construction specifications, forms and checklists,
or fee schedules – they remain as separate laws or guides. UDCs
also don’t have project-specific conditions and local laws.
. .
Planning regulations are made up of these distinct parts or
functions.
• Establishment of zoning districts.
• Standards for uses.
• Standards for building and structure bulk (size, height) and
design.
• Standards for site planning and design.
• Standards for lot size and arrangement.
• Criteria and procedures for development review and
approval.
• Rules and procedures for code administration and
enforcement.
• Nonregulatory expressions (titles, preambles, enacting
clauses, purpose statements, resolution language).
The Town’s planning regulations are typical of mid-century codes,
where different issues of land use control were comingled, and
ease of use wasn’t a concern. It’s hard to find information in an
old-school code without a page-by-page hunt, or help from an
expert.
The UDC needs a consistent, intuitive outline that helps all users
– staff and laypeople – easily find the rules that apply to a certain
property or situation. Its organization will follow these principles.o
hhaptersobasedoonotopicsoandocodeofunctionso
Older zoning codes, including the Town’s current zoning code,
usually have separate chapters for each zone, with allowed uses,
building height and setback standards, and other special
provisions. This format makes it easy to see many (but not all) of
the regulations that apply for each zone. However, its
redundancy makes it prone to inconsistency. o
Newer codes increasingly use broad topics of planning – zones,
uses, site development, neighborhood design, and so on – as
their organizing principle. Each chapter has subsections covering
topics that are more specific. For example, a site development
chapter answers questions about “What can I build on my lot?”,
with subsections dealing with building placement, site design,
parking, architecture, landscaping, signs, fences, outdoor lighting,
and dock requirements. This format is more intuitive, because it
helps readers quickly find the topic they’re interested in, and
easily compare rules for different zones or development types. It
also prevents duplication and inconsistency.
The UDC should keep its regulatory and administrative functions
separate. Review processes, approval criteria enforcement,
interpretation, and other non-regulatory functions should be in
their own sections.
Orderobyolandouseoscaleoorotopicoimportanceo
The UDC needs a logical hierarchy. Newer codes usually order
chapters by either scale of land use, drilling down from the
largest scale of planning concern to the smallest, or importance of
topic, with the most commonly used parts towards the front. In
both approaches, administrative functions and definitions appear
at the end.
There are some advantages to ordering by scale of land use over
importance. It reinforces the code’s role as an instruction manual
for building neighborhoods and shaping the town. It also helps
those drafting and using the UDC better see the “big picture” of
relationships between buildings, uses, and the public realm.
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well
enough.
— Albert Einstein
o
5
Aoplaceoforoeverything
Many older codes have general “junk drawer” chapters for rules
that don’t seem to fit elsewhere. In the current zoning code, the
General Provisions and Special Regulations sections (§270-215
through §270-330.1) hold regulations for many important but
unrelated subjects, like stream setbacks, minimum building floor
area, side yards on corner lots, porches and carports, fences,
parking, solar collectors, ham radio antennas, and farmworker
housing. With few cross-references pointing to these rules,
someone reading another part of the code might not know they
exist, or that they’re relevant.
The UDC should place rules where most readers would expect to
find them. For example, stream setback rules should be with
other standards for site design and building setbacks, not in an
unrelated, far-off part of the code.
hross-references
Modern codes try to group all rules for a certain topic or situation
together, but some page flipping is inevitable. When someone is
looking at regulations for a certain topic, they need to know
about other rules that could apply. UDC provisions should cross-
reference other relevant information, inside and outside the code.o
hhapteroandosectionooutlineorelatedotoocodeohierarchyo
The current zoning and subdivision codes use an alphanumeric
outline tied to the Town Code. Chapter numbers have little or no
relation to specific topics. For example, the MDR/Medium
Density Residential zone section isn’t in one chapter, but 11 —
§270-65 through §270.75. This scheme is inconsistent and hard to
follow, especially when a chapter spans two or more pages. It's
also hard to find and cite information under many layers of
chapters, articles, sections, and subsections.o
A hybrid decimal/alphanumeric format (§270, §270-101, §270-
101.1, §270-101.1.1, §270-101.1.1 a) is more intuitive and less
cumbersome than the “congressional” format (§270-1, §270-1 [A],
§270-1 [A] [1], §270-1 [A] [1] [a], §270-1 [A] [1] [a] [i]) of the
current zoning and subdivision codes. A decimal/alphanumeric
format will make it easier for code users to find the information
they need, and better show how different standards at every level
relate to the whole. It’s also consistent with some parts of the
Town Code.
Chapter and section numbering must define a clear hierarchy of
topics and standards, and leave room for amendments.
Subsection levels should be limited, to avoid deep provisions with
awkward cites. Second-level prefixes grouped in hundreds (§270-
100 through -199, §270-200 through -299, etc.), like college class
levels, should define chapters. Numbering should not use Roman
numerals.
. .
Planning deals with relationships between people, buildings, uses,
and land – concrete things that are easy to picture in two or three
dimensions. Like many older codes, the Town’s current planning-
related regulations depend mostly on text to describe them.
For most people, it’s easier to grasp and remember information
presented visually, compared to long blocks of text. User-friendly
codes recognize this. Graphics and tables help present
information more clearly than words alone, and make
complicated concepts easier to understand. They also make a
code more skimmable. Design is also a visual aid, with page
layout, fonts, and other cues to help guide readers to the
information they’re looking for.
The UDC should be a visually appealing document – not just
because it looks good, but because it works better.
Illustrationsoandophotoso
The Town’s current zoning and subdivision codes convey most
regulations through text alone. There are three exceptions:
illustrations showing wind turbines, stream setbacks, and water
rights lines for docks. The water rights graphic is a good example
of how “a picture tells a thousand words”, or for §270-43 K (11)
(A) through (D), 213 words.
Organizationobyoscaleoofolandouseo
1 – Introduction
▼ LARGEST SCALE OF LAND USE: TOWN
2o–oZoneso
3o–oNeighborhoododevelopmentoandodesigno
4o–oSiteodevelopmentoandodesigno
5o–oEnvironmentalocontrolso
6o–oUseso
▲ SMALLEST SCALE OF LAND USE: BUILDING AND USE
7 – Development review
8 – Code administration
9 - Definitionso
Organizationobyoscaleoofoimportanceo
1 – Introduction
▼ MOST REFERENCED TOPIC
2o–oZoneso
3o–oUseso
4o–oSiteodevelopmentoandodesigno
5o–oEnvironmentalocontrolso
6o–oNeighborhoododevelopmentoandodesigno
▲ LEAST REFERENCED TOPIC o
7 – Development review
8 – Code administration
9 - Definitions
6
Tables show uses and bulk requirements for each zone in the Cape Town, South Africa zoning code.
Newer planning-related codes use graphics to explain standards
for site planning, building form, neighborhood design, street and
right-of-way profiles, architectural design, landscaping, parking,
and signs. Illustrations give clarity to common but sometimes
puzzling zoning concepts, like vision clearance and setback
averaging. A growing number of codes also use photos to clarify
definitions, and give examples of desired and undesired features.
The UDC should be generous with graphics that show how
standards are applied. Graphics should have a consistent style
throughout the code. SketchUp is a popular tool for creating
code graphics; the basic version is free, and it has a large library
of downloadable drawings.
Tableso
Tables show information in a matrix, letting readers scan and find
information quickly. They’re helpful for comparing standards, like
uses or setbacks in different zones. They can also show non-
comparative information, like parking requirements, in a way
that’s easier to grasp than lists. Tables also avoid redundancy
and page flipping, and reduce errors and inconsistency.
The current zoning code has only three tables, for noise limits in
industrial zones and from wind energy generators, and stream
setbacks. The UDC should use tables wherever it can, especially
for the most consulted rules – allowed uses and building types,
and design and dimensional standards. Tables should have a
consistent design theme, using the same fonts and format.
Illustration describing site development standards from the Brattleboro, Vermont land use code.
o
7
Flowchartso
Flowcharts diagram workflow and stages in a process. Newer
planning codes use them to explain multistage processes, like
subdivision and site plan review. They’re also helpful for showing
the design sequence for new form-based development –
allocating transect zones, assigning civic and park areas,
designing the street and path network, and calculating density.
Flowcharts will make multistage design, review, and approval
processes in the UDC easier to grasp.
Documentoformato
Thoughtful graphic design – page layout, design, and formatting
– is a key part of making a code more user-friendly.
Print versions of the current zoning and subdivision codes offer
few navigational cues to its readers. Supplements with irregularly
numbered pages, often blank or nearly empty, make the problem
of losing one’s place in a code even worse. The table of contents
shows chapter numbers, but not similarly formatted page
numbers; for example, Zoning Code §270-71 starts on page
270:54. These issues stem from the limits of codification, which
the next section describes more.
Flowchart in the Buffalo Green Code showing the review process
for minor and major subdivisions.
Left: the current zoning code layout. Right: an example of user-friendly design from Ventura, California - a clear hierarchy of rules,
illustrations, tables, and clean page design.
8
Information in the UDC will be easier to find if it has:
• Simple, uncluttered pages.
• Headers and footers, with chapter and section numbers and
names associated with each page.
• Headings with different font sizes and styles, line spacing,
and other visual cues to the code hierarchy.
• Balance of line height, letter spacing, and font size to make
text more skimmable.
• White space to separate elements, and draw readers’ eyes to
and through the text.
• Consistency. It helps organize content, and gives users a
familiar focus point when they’re scanning.
• Page numbers in the table of contents, with a format that
readers won’t confuse with code sections.
. . , , h
A key part of drafting planning regulations is ensuring the public
– not just planners and lawyers, but also residents, developers,
and officials – can easily understand them.
The Town’s current planning regulations are largely text-based,
with long passages of legal English. Readers often struggle to
find the meaning of its articles and provisions. There’s no
compelling reason to write laws this way. The UDC should be
something that people read and understand, rather than decipher
and interpret. It should use the most direct way to explain its
rules and design concepts.o
honsistentowritingostyleo
Planning regulations are more effective and credible – and much
easier to read – if they use a clear, consistent style and voice.
Consistency also helps prevent different interpretations of similar
rules. Writing should follow these concepts of consistent usage.
• Parallel construction in a hierarchy or list.
• Using terms consistently, and avoiding their synonyms. For
example, using either “street” or “road”, not both.
• Avoiding different terms with different meanings in the same
context. For example, not using “lot”, “parcel”, and “tract”
throughout the code as if they all mean the same thing.
• Describing numerical ranges and limits with consistent
terms.
• Positive or prescriptive wording (“50% or more …”, “Roads
must be paved”) instead of negative wording (“No less than
50% …”, “Roads cannot be unpaved”) where possible.
• Capitalizing only proper nouns inside a sentence.
• Using singular number and present tense where possible.
• Using the indefinite article (“a” or “an”) instead of the
definite article (“the”) for nouns that aren’t particular.
• Using symbols to shorten text where possible.
In later years, different people with different writing styles will
draft amendments to the UDC. An informal “house style” with
preferred usage, conventions, and words and phrases, can help
maintain stylistic consistency with future changes.
PlainoEnglishoo
The Town’s current planning regulations, like those of many
communities, are in formal legal English. Legalese can frustrate
and alienate the public by making even simple ideas difficult to
understand. It can take a lot of effort – and cost – to figure out
“what does this section really mean?”
A growing number of new planning codes use different approach
– plain English. The UDC should be among them. Plain English
codes use clear and concise language, so the widest audience can
understand any of its rules or requirements in a single reading.
Plain English is more efficient than legalese, saves time for
readers, and reduces confusion and uncertainty. Plain English
also brings laws closer to their plain and ordinary meaning than
legalese, making them more defensible in court.
Wordcloud of the 2003 Zoning Code. The size of a word reflects
how often it appears in the Code.
o
9
Plain English planning codes follow these basic principles.
• Short sentences, ideally 20 words or fewer.
• Breaking topics and concepts into separate paragraphs,
sentences, and bulleted lists.
• No jargon or formal terms for the sake of gravitas, or
making something sound more authoritative.
• Shorter, familiar words (“use”, “must”, “before”) instead of
more formal terms (“utilize”, “shall”, “prior to”).
• No legal jargon (“said”, “aforementioned”, “notwithstanding
the forgoing”) or Latin.
• Avoiding extra words, like compound constructions (“in the
event that” meaning “if”), coupled synonyms (“null and
void”), word-numeral doublets (“one hundred (100)”), and
filler terms (“hereby”, “the fact that”).
• No shotgunning (“No structure shall hereinafter be built,
placed, erected, assembled, constructed, extended,
expanded, enlarged, augmented, modified, altered, changed,
transformed, transmogrified …”).
• Active voice (“The Town adopted a new code”) over passive
voice (“A new code was adopted by the Town”).
• Rules before their exceptions or conditions.
• Inclusive terms that don’t unintentionally “other” people or
groups (“place of worship” instead of “church”, “they”
instead of “he” or “she”).
• Short, simple purpose statements, that don’t overexplain
everything.
hlearodefinitionso
Many older codes, including the Town’s various planning-related
codes, have issues with definitions that are inconsistent, vague,
complicated, or missing. This makes it difficult to interpret a
code, or know what rules might apply in a situation.
Some terms have different definitions, depending on where they
appear in the Town Code. For example, the current zoning and
subdivision codes have different definitions for basement,
dwelling unit, lot line, and several other terms. (See the table
below.)
Some uses in the current zoning code have very detailed
definitions, while some others have none. Some definitions have
embedded regulations, like those for garage, family, and parking
space in the current zoning code. It also has definitions for some
common words, like boat and dock.
Clear definitions are an essential part of planning regulations,
helping ensure words and terms mean the same thing to different
people. The UDC should:
Zoningohodeo§270-59o–ocurrentolegaloEnglishotexto Zoningohodeo§270-59o–oplainoEnglishotranslationo
Except as may be specifically otherwise authorized in this chapter, in
Low Density Residential Zones no building shall be erected, altered,
or extended to exceed 38 feet in height from lowest interior grade
nor 36 feet in height from lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower.
No structure other than a building shall be erected, altered, or
extended to exceed 30 feet in height. Accessory buildings shall in no
case exceed 15 feet in height. The foregoing height limitations shall
not apply to buildings and structures used for agricultural purposes
on lands the principal use of which is as a farm and which are located
within a county agricultural district created under the provisions of
Article 25-AA of the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law.
Such agricultural buildings and structures so located may be
constructed without limitations as to heights.
Maximum building or structure height
• Principal buildings: 38’ from lowest interior grade, or 36’ from
lowest exterior grade, whatever is lower
• Accessory buildings: 15’
• Other structures: 30’
Height limits do not apply to agricultural buildings and structures on
farms in County agricultural districts.
Zoningohodeo(2003)odefinitiono Subdivisionohodeo(1955)odefinitiono
Basement: That portion of a building that is partly or completely
below grade and is not considered a “story above grade” as that term
is defined in this section.
Basement: A story partly underground but having at least ½ of its
height above the average level of the adjoining ground. A basement,
or cellar, shall be counted as a story for the purposes of height
regulation.
Dwellingounit: A dwelling, or portion of a dwelling, providing
complete living facilities for one family.
Dwellingounit: A building, or portion of a building, providing
complete living facilities including food preparation and bath.
Lotoline: A property boundary of a lot, except where the property
boundary is the centerline or other portion of a public highway, in
which event the property line is the highway right-of-way line.
Lotoline: The property boundary of a lot.
“I never write ‘metropolis’ for seven cents when I can write
‘city’ and get paid the same.
— Mark Twain
10
• Use short, simple definitions.
• Not define common words (“door”, “roof”) or units (“acre”,
“lumen”), unless they have a different meaning in a certain
context.
• Define specialized terms, like names of architectural
elements.
• Use definitions that are consistent with related state and
federal laws, the US Census Bureau, and industry practice.
• Use graphics and photos to clarify definitions.
• Avoid embedding regulations in definitions, where readers
won’t expect to find them.
• Group regulations and definitions for specific uses together,
to avoid page flipping.
Inlineoguidesoandoexampleso
Many newer codes do more than just regulate. They also have
basic how-to guides, explaining code organization, approach, and
examples of how different standards apply.
Inline examples and guides will ease the transition to a new code,
and help explain new concepts like form-based zoning and
traditional neighborhood development.
. .
The Town’s official codifier, General Code, maintains both the
online and print versions of all planning regulations. (There is a
downloadable plain text version, but no PDF version.) Online and
print capacities of General Code, as with many codifiers, are
geared towards traditional text-based laws. Their current ability
to integrate tables, formatting, illustrations, and other design
elements of modern planning-related codes, is limited.
Limits of a codifier shouldn’t limit the content and form of the
UDC. If the Town has new planning regulations in an appealing,
user-friendly format, it must rethink how they are codified.
Ithaca isn’t alone. Other communities have recognized the limits
of traditional codification in their code update processes. One
solution is having a codifier host the online version of the code,
with a link to a PDF/print version that Town staff maintains. This
may be an option for the UDC, until codifiers’ publishing ability
catches up to today’s design-rich codes. A Town-maintained
print version of the code should have legislative history – local
law numbers and dates – in the same style as the current printed
code.
.
Zoning districts are the foundation for planning regulations.
Zones in the current zoning code are geared to a largely rural and
exurban community. For years, they protected the town’s key
natural resources, preserved a greenbelt of working and natural
lands, and kept roadsides from being overrun by scattershot, low-
quality commercial and industrial development. However, they’re
not enough to help shape an increasingly diverse and complex
built environment of neighborhoods, campuses, and workplaces.
Traditional codifying, with supplements for changes, makes the
print version of the current zoning code difficult to navigate.
The Livermore, California development code has a step-by-step
diagram explaining how to use it.
o
11
The UDC needs a palette of zones that builds on the protection of
existing zoning, accommodates the town’s inevitable growth and
change, helps build great neighborhoods for future generations
of Ithacans, and reinforces a unique sense of place.
. .
Conventional zones guide land use and development with
regulations for minimum lot dimensions and area, minimum
building setbacks, maximum lot coverage, maximum building
height, and specific allowed and banned uses.
There were four basic zones in the Town’s first zoning code –
residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural. Later
amendments added new zones for different types and intensities
of development, and specific projects and uses. Today, there are
16 conventional zoning districts – two rural, six residential, six
commercial, and two industrial. Some zones are use-specific or
obsolete.
The UDC should revisit and describe the general scope of
conventional zones, and how they set the groundwork for
implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
Irrelevantoandoredundantozoneso
Four existing zones have very limited application. Because other
planning tools can better address their intended purpose, the
following zones should not carry over to the UDC.
Lh:oLakefrontohommercial. Only a small area on East Shore
Drive has LC zoning – the Cornell Sailing Center, and land across
the street between the Cornell Lake Source Cooling facility and
the Cayuga Heights wastewater plant. It’s not an ideal location
for the hotels, motels, clubhouses, and mixed use commercial and
residential development the zone now allows. The
NC/Neighborhood Commercial (or future equivalent) zone, with
riparian setback and steep slope development standards, is a
better fit for the area.
VFR:oVehicleoFuelingoandoRepair.ooThe VFR zone serves a single
purpose – control gas stations through procedural difficulty.
Because it’s the only zone that allows gas stations, building one
needs both site plan and rezoning approval. On the surface, this
unorthodox approach works; there are only three gas stations in
the town. However, with no design standards, they look no
different than in communities more permissive zoning –
utilitarian structures, corporate trade dress, large signs, and little
or no landscaping.
Special use review, and strict use-specific spacing, design, site
planning, and performance standards, are more effective tools to
control gas station location and design. Existing gas station sites
should share the same NC or CC (or equivalent) zoning as
neighboring sites. To advance sustainability goals, the UDC
should encourage electric vehicle charging stations at new gas
stations, and make it easy to have charging stations elsewhere.
LHh:oLimitedoHistoricohommercial.ooThe LHC zone, a recent
addition to the current zoning code, incentivizes preservation by
allowing some commercial uses in historic structures. Only the
Hayts Chapel site has LHC zoning.
The now-complicated eligibility and approval process for the LHC
zone may discourage its use, and defeat its purpose. Its site-by-
site application is similar to spot zoning. It has uniform standards
for each LHC area, regardless of its context.
More effective approaches to historic preservation. include
historic overlay zones that allow adaptive reuse, local landmark
designation, a certificate of appropriateness process for changes
to historic structures and sites, and a demolition-by-neglect ban.
Newoh-IV:ohommercialo–oInletoValleyozoneo
The Proposed Development Plan: Bostwich (sic) Elmira Road Areao
study from 1956 identified Elmira Road (NY 13/34/96) from Five
Mile Drive and Seven Mile Drive as an ideal location for light
manufacturing. New municipal utilities and industrial zoning
didn’t lure the factories some were hoping for. Today the area
has just a few small light industrial and semi-industrial uses. o
LI zoning is an obstacle to the Comprehensive Plan’s vision of the
Inlet Valley Gateway – a mix of commercial, hospitality,
agritourism, and low-impact artisanal uses, in a bucolic semi-rural
setting. A new C-IV zone, with special design standards, should
be part of the UDC. Its design standards and permitted uses will
help make the Inlet Valley Gateway a reality.
Updatesotoootheroconventionalozoneso
The UDC coding process will include review of development
standards and permitted uses for all conventional zones.
Regulations should accommodate new development following
Plan recommendations, and best planning and design practice.
They should take inspiration from the things that help define
neighborhood identity and character.
The VFR zone kept the town from being overrun with gas
stations, but it didn’t result in better design.
12
Residential zones should have both minimum and maximum
densities, to avoid underdevelopment, curb urban sprawl, and
ensure wiser and more efficient use of land.
h:ohonservation.ooThe C zone covers about 21% of the town. This
zone will carry out the Natural/Open character district in the
Comprehensive Plan. UDC standards should reflect the Plan‘s
recommended residential density of 1 unit per 15 acres, along
with other conservation and natural resource protection goals.
AG:oAgricultural. The AG zone, which covers about 23% of the
town, is the setting for agricultural and agritourism-related uses.
This zone, along with institutional zoning at the research farms of
Cornell University, will carry out the Rural/Agricultural character
district in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends an overall density of one
unit per 12 acres for agricultural areas. Development standards
should reflect this. Design standards for special agricultural will
help prevent lots that are “too big to mow, but too small to plow”,
and the land fragmentation that often results.
The UDC should allow alternatives to frontage development that
better fit into in a rural setting, like small pocket neighborhoods,
crossroad hamlets, and adaptive reuse of agricultural structures.
LDR:oLowoDensityoResidential.ooThe LDR zone acts as the Town’s
semi-rural or large lot residential district. Minimum lot size is
30,000’² (±0.69 acre, ±1.45 principal units per net acre). LDR
standards create a development pattern that’s not quite rural, yet
not quite suburban. Under today’s regulations, it’s easier to
create frontage and flag lots on LDR sites – difficult to replat or
redevelop, and often not suited for general agricultural or rural
lifestyle uses – than more contextually appropriate alternatives
like cluster development.
UDC development standards should do the opposite, with rules
that favor development that better blends into the landscape.
The UDC should limit or prohibit conventional frontage
subdivision in the LDR (or equivalent) zone, if a site lends itself to
more visually sensitive development.
A sliding density scale for the LDR zone, based on utility
availability and other factors, didn’t make the final cut of the 2003
zoning code rewrite. The new Plan endorses this concept, and it
should be part of the UDC. The zone could also be a setting for
small-scale community or artisanal agriculture.
MDR:oMediumoDensityoResidential.o The MDR zone is the Town’s
most common residential zone. Its minimum lot size is 15,000’²
(±0.34 acre, ±2.9 principal units per net acre); “medium density”
compared to zoning in Rochester’s eastern suburbs, but “large
lot” or “low density” elsewhere in Central and Western New York.
In northeast Ithaca, where MR zoning is dominant, lots are often
much larger – about 0.5 to 1 acre. Larger lot sizes increase per-
residence costs of maintaining roads and infrastructure, and push
a site’s development potential to outlying towns.
The zone’s main purpose is to be a setting for single family
houses on relatively large lots. With the region’s high land and
construction costs, and changing market preferences, it’s
something that fewer people want or can afford. While the Ithaca
area faces a housing shortage, hundreds of platted MDR-like lots
sit empty in surrounding towns. The UDC still needs an
equivalent of the MDR zone, but it doesn’t need to be the default.
Deer Run and Chase Lane is typical of developed MDR-zoned
areas.
Proposal for industrial and residential development in the
Inlet Valley area from 1958.
o
13
HDR:oHighoDensityoResidential.o The name of the HDR/High
Density zone is a misnomer. Its minimum lot size of 9,000’² (±0.2
acre, ±4.8 principal units/net acre) is similar to “medium density”
residential zones in many suburban communities in upstate New
York. The bulk of HDR land is concentrated in the Kendall
Avenue/Pennsylvania Avenue area, where utilitarian purpose-built
student housing is increasingly common.
The HDR (or equivalent) zone must be more than just a legacy
zone for two older subdivisions. It can offer a setting for
development with a “single family suburban” character, but using
land and infrastructure more efficiently than MDR subdivisions, in
places where the Comprehensive Plan and site carrying capacity
support it. Architectural regulations should require high quality
design for all new housing, regardless of its target market.
LR:oLakefrontoResidential.ooThe LR zone addresses the unique
development conditions along Cayuga Lake, and accommodates
lakefront-related accessory structures like piers and docks. The
current lineup of permitted uses is very similar to the MDR zone.
Instead, it should consider what’s feasible on its small lots and
challenging sites.
MR:oMultipleoResidential.o The MR zone allows multi-unit
complexes in a suburban setting. It’s a floating zone; land is
rezoned to MR on a case-by-case basis. Language in the current
zoning code implies multi-unit housing is a kind of “undesirable”
use, from which nearby detached houses must be protected. The
2003 zoning code update dropped maximum density from 17.4 to
12.4 units per acre (1 unit per 2,500’² to 3,500’²), and increased
buffers and building setbacks. These changes made site
development less efficient, and increased per-unit housing costs.
With rising land prices in the Ithaca area, the change could have
made multi-unit development viable only with subsidies. Since
2003, almost all development under MR zoning has been for
subsidized, income-qualified housing. There’s one exception –
the College Circle apartment complex.
Minimum and maximum density in the MR (or equivalent) zone
should align with broader planning goals, and the economic
reality of building market rate housing in Ithaca. The zone should
allow a wide variety of “missing middle” housing types for full-
time residents; not just complexes, but also townhouses, cottage
courts, patio homes, and live-work units. Site planning and
design standards should foster physical and social connections
with surrounding neighborhoods, not separation and isolation.
MHP:oMobileoHomeoPark. MHP is the only zone in the town that
allows manufactured homes. It’s a floating zone that applies to
only one site in the town – the well-maintained College View
Trailer Park on Seven Mile Drive.
Neighborhood design standards should cover mobile home parks,
in anticipation of improvements or redevelopment at College
View. Roof pitch and underframe standards can close a loophole
that now allows on-frame modular or “hudular” houses – double-
wide mobile homes that comply with regular building codes
instead of HUD standards – outside the MHP zone.
Left: purpose-built student housing on an HDR site in the South Hill area. Right: the equivalent of HDR densities in South Euclid, Ohio.
College View Trailer Park is the only MHP zoned area in the
Town.
14
Nh:oNeighborhoodohommercial.ooThe NC zone allows small-scale
commercial and service uses, aimed at nearby residents. There
are only a few NC-zoned areas in the town; some sites along
Elmira Road in the Inlet Valley corridor, around the Danby
Road/King Road intersection, and the Rogan’s Corner site on
Danby Road next to Ithaca College.
If the UDC has an Inlet Valley corridor zone, and the Danby
Road/King Road area undergoes redevelopment as a compact
mixed use neighborhood, Rogan’s Corner will be the last site in
the town with NC zoning. However, a future need for suburban-
oriented commercial areas in other parts of the town will remain.
The town has avoided the kind of incremental, lot-by-lot rezoning
that create commercial strips. Contiguous area, frontage, and
spacing controls for future NC (or equivalent) areas will ensure
the town remains strip-free. The type and scale of allowed uses
should fit the zone’s purpose as a neighborhood commercial
district. Site planning standards should favor parking behind or
alongside building – not in front – and more human-scaled
building disposition. The NC zone could allow gas stations,
subject to strict site planning, design, and performance standards.
hh:ohommunityohommercial.ooThe CC zone allows larger scale
commercial and retail development in a suburban setting. The
Comprehensive Plan and Cornell University master plan target
East Hill Plaza and some surrounding lands – the only part of the
town with CC zoning – for “sprawl repair” and redevelopment as
a mixed use neighborhood. A TND regulating plan (see the next
section) or planned development (PD) zone (if redevelopment
starts before UDC adoption) will likely guide redevelopment. The
Comprehensive Plan doesn’t recommend any new East Hill Plaza-
like commercial areas for the town.
The UDC should have a CC (or equivalent) “legacy zone” or
holding zone for the East Hill Plaza area, while it awaits
redevelopment. Allowed uses should be a good fit for the area;
more retail and service uses by right, and no semi-industrial or
mechanical commercial uses.
OPh:oOfficeoParkohommercial.ooThe OPC zone allowsooffice,
medical, and research uses in a suburban setting. There are two
OPC zoned areas in the town; the Cayuga Medical
Center/Museum of the Earth (CMC/MoE) area on Trumansburg
Road (NY 96), and a largely undeveloped lot on Danby Road (NY
96B) south of the South Hill Business Campus.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends institutional zoning for the
CMC/MoE campus. This would make OPC a single-site zone, like
PD zones and the LC and I zones. Options include keeping OPC
(or an equivalent) as a floating zone, or removing it and
absorbing the Gupta/Axiohm site into the South Hill Business
campus or Chainworks PD.
Industrialodistrictso(LI:oLightoIndustrial,oI:oIndustrial).ooThere are
three LI-zoned areas: the Therm factory site on Hudson Street,
land fronting a short section of Elmira Road (NY 13/34) in the
Inlet Valley area, the Earhardt Propane site on West Danby Road
(NY 34) at the southern town line, and the Cornell University
central heating plant. The only site with I zoning in the town is
the former Emerson Power Transmission facility, which could see
new life under PD zoning as the mixed use Chain Works District.
The LI and I zones should be combined into a single industrial
zone that allows low-intensity industrial, trade, and business park
uses. Design, development, and performance standards in the
UDC should also cover industrial zoning and uses. o
. . h h
The urban-to-rural transect is a geographic cross section of the
human habitat. It identifies a range of built environments, and
varying levels and intensities of urban character. Transect zones
reflect “slices” across the urban-to-rural transect. Different
transect zones work together to shape the new neighborhoods
that the Comprehensive Plan envisions for parts of the town.
Transect-based codes often have a step-by-step sequence for
designing new neighborhoods (see section 2.3.5), and allocating
transect zones in them. Rezoning is done through a regulating
plan, a legally approved plan showing the specific location of
transect zones, thoroughfares, civic space, lots, phases, and other
features. Unlike conventional zones, transect zones aren’t
intended to be used on their own, outside the context of a
regulating plan.
The range of inner ring village, suburban, and urban
environments in upstate New York should form the basis for
defining neighborhood transect zones and their character. Form
Ithaca findings can inform transect zone development standards.
Short front setbacks in a suburban setting, in the Village of East
Aurora.
o
15
NT-3:oNeighborhoodoedge. This would be a location for
detached houses and complementary uses, in a compact village
or pre-war suburban setting. Examples: Bryant Park and Belle
Sherman neighborhoods in Ithaca.
NT-4:oNeighborhoodogeneral. This would be a location for
detached and attached houses and complementary uses, in a
compact, relatively urban setting, a close walk to more intensively
developed neighborhood transect zones. Development may have
a wide range of building types, such as freestanding houses, two-
flats, bungalow courts, and townhouses. Examples: Fall Creek
neighborhood in Ithaca, South Main Street/Pulteney Park Historic
District in Geneva.
NT-5:oNeighborhoodocenter. This would be a location for a mix
of attached and multiunit housing; neighborhood office,
commercial, and service uses; and complementary civic uses, in a
compact, pedestrian-scaled “village center” or “Main Street”
setting. Examples: West State Street in Ithaca, Genesee Street in
downtown Skaneateles.
NT-6:oNeighborhoodocore. This would be a location for higher
density mixed use buildings. It has the highest density and
height, the most variety of uses, and civic buildings of local
importance. Examples: State Street/The Commons in Ithaca, Main
Street in downtown Cortland, Market Street in Corning.
Neighborhood transect zones and overlay zones will carry out the
TND Medium Density and TND High Density character districts
(see Comprehensive Plan §3.2.3 and §3.4.1). The Plan eyes
primarily residential neighborhoods with a mix of lower intensity
“Main Street” commercial and civic uses for TND Medium Density
areas. It targets TND High Density districts, with locations next to
Tompkins County’s two largest employers (Cornell University and
Ithaca College) and next to the city line.
If TND is optional in areas where the Plan envisions it, developers
could follow a more familiar path of least resistance, and continue
the pattern of conventional subdivisions and complexes. This
would undermine many key goals and recommendations of the
Plan. The UDC can avoid this with overlay zones that define areas
where future development must take the form of TND, not
conventional or cluster development. This report describes how a
TND overlay zone could work in section 2.2.5.
Equivalents of NT-3, NT-4, and NT-5 transect zone streetscapes in
Serenbe, a “new utopian community” in Chattahoochee Hills,
Georgia. (top/middle photos = JR. P., bottom - David Burn)
16
. .
The Town of Ithaca is home to Ithaca College (IC), Cornell
University (CU), Cayuga Medical Center and the Museum of the
Earth. These institutions, with evolving missions and ever-
changing needs for its buildings and properties, occupy
thousands of acres, and employ thousands of area residents.
However, the current zoning code has no dedicated institutional
or campus zone. It treats large institutions as an afterthought,
with certain institutional uses allowed to various degrees in some
zones.
The current “wait and see” approach for institutional uses
presents several problems.
• LDR and MDR zones, overlaying the most developed parts of
IC and the CU East Campus area, are meant for lower
density residential areas – not large colleges and universities
and their varied activities, environments, and impacts.
• The current development process treats a unified campus as
discrete parcels and uses.
• Most new buildings at CU and IC need height variances as
part of the review process. This puts site planning decisions
in the hands of the Zoning Board of Appeals – a quasi-
judicial body.
• With the undefined "Institution of higher learning" use
allowed in many residential zones, some neighborhoods are
vulnerable to “campus creep” – institutional uses spreading
beyond campus boundaries. The C/Conservation zone also
allows some intensive college/university-related uses.
• For IC and CU, underlying residential zoning complicates
implementation of their campus master plans. From the
Town’s side, there’s no legal mechanism binding either to
their master plans.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends institutional zoning for the
CU, IC, and CMC/MoE areas. The most common approaches – an
institutional zone with conventional bulk and use standards, and
PD-like zoning based on a campus master plan – may not be the
best fit for Ithaca. The one-size-fits-all approach of a single
institutional district is unwieldy, given the broad range of
conditions at CU and IC. PD-like zones based on approved
master plans would be cumbersome to create and administer,
and make it hard to vary from an approved plan without
amendments.
Transect-based zoning for large institutional campuses would
overcome the shortcomings of other approaches. The
institutional transect should look like this.
IT-1:oInstitutionalo-oNaturalo/oGreen.ooThis zone would be a
location for natural areas and preserves, and complementary
education and research facilities and activities; with very limited
building and road/parking coverage. (Examples: Cornell
hON
Conservation
AG
Agriculture
NT-3
Neighborhood
edge
NT-4
Neighborhood
general
NT-5
Neighborhood
center
NT-6
Neighborhood
core
TNDotargetoareao homprehensiveoPlanoo
characterodistricto
Areao
(acres)o
Densityo
rangeo
Densityo
averageo Transectozoneomixo
WestoHill
City line/Conifer Drive/Overlook area
TND Medium Density ±457 ac 2-14 units/ac 5-8 units/ac NT-3, NT-4, NT-5
Southwest
Seven Mile Drive area
TND Medium Density ±49 ac 2-14 units/ac 5-8 units/ac NT-3, NT-4, NT-5
SouthoHill
Danby Road/King Road area
TND Medium Density,
TND High Density
±195 ac 2-30 units/ac 6-12 units/ac NT-3, NT-4, NT-5, NT-6
EastoHill
East Hill Plaza/Mitchell Street area
TND High Density ±163 ac 6-60 units/ac 8-16 units/ac NT-4, NT-5, NT-6
o
17
University - McGowan Woods, Mundy Wildflower Garden, Cornell
Plantations.)
IT-2:oInstitutionalo-oAgricultural. This would be a location for
agricultural activity, related education and research facilities, and
complementary uses; with limited building and road/parking
coverage, and minimal intrusion by unrelated uses. (Examples:
Cornell University - Cornell Orchards, Dilmun Hill Student Organic
Farm, Game Farm Road complex, Greenhouse and Plant Research
Center.)
IT-3:oInstitutionalo-oOpen.ooThis would be a locationofor
expansive, maintained open areas outside of built-up areas of
institutional grounds. This includes greens, lawns, gardens,
athletic fields, informal recreation areas, and directly related
structures and parking areas with limited coverage. (Examples:
Cornell University - Game Farm Road athletic fields, Robert Trent
Jones Golf Course, Oxley Equestrian Center; Ithaca College - Allen
Field, Upper Terrace Fields, open lawn areas; CMC area -
perimeter lawn areas.)
IT-4:oInstitutionalo-oSupport.ooThis would be a location for
facilities and activities supporting, but not directly undertaking,
the mission of the larger institution. (Examples: Cornell
University - Humphreys Service Building, Graphic Arts Services,
Palm Road complex; Ithaca College - Physical Plant/Farm Road
area.)
hurrentozoningoonoinstitutionalogroundso
hornelloUniversity
•ohh - East Hill Plaza, East Hill Office Building, Institute for
Social and Economic Research.
•oHDR - Maplewood Park Apartments.
•oLh - Cornell Sailing Center. (Not contiguous to the main
campus.)
•oLDR - most of the campus north of Dryden Road (NY 366)
and south of Ellis Hollow Creek, including the Vet and Ag
quads, Cornell Plantations, Robert Trent Jones Golf Course,
Baker Institute for Animal Health, and countryside campus.
•oLI - Central Heating Plant.
•oMR - Hasbrouck Apartments. (The MR zone does not allow
an institution of higher learning.)
•oP9 (PD) - lands between Dryden Road and Ellis Hollow
Creek; Cornell Orchards, service complex.
• Land that state agencies own (Board of Regents, Dormitory
Authority, etc.) has zoning, but is exempt from zoning
compliance.
Ithacaohollegeo
•oh - South Hill Natural Area.
•oMDR - most of the campus outside of conservation areas.
•oMR - College Circle apartments. (The MR zone does not
allow institution of higher learning.)
hayugaoMedicalohentero/oMuseumoofotheoEartho
•oh - natural/slope area east of hospital.
•oLDR - Museum of the Earth grounds
•oOPh - hospital building, parking, surrounding area.
•oP3 (PD) - Biggs Complex.
•oP4 (PD) - (former) Finger Lakes School of Massage grounds.
Zonesothatonowoallowoinstitutionalouseso
ho/ Conservation
(§270-12) special permit: "… hospital" and "any institution of
higher learning including dormitory accommodations."
Ao/ Agricultural
(§270-26 B) by right: "Veterinary offices or hospitals"
(§270-26 F) by right: "… any institution of higher learning
relating to agricultural pursuits"
(§270-26 M) by right: "Research facilities principally dedicated
to research in agriculture or animal husbandry"
LDRo/ Low Density Residential
(§270-26 B) special permit: "… any institution of higher
learning including dormitory accommodations..
MDRo/ Medium Density Residential
(§270-67 C) special permit: "… any institution of higher
learning including dormitory accommodations."
HDRo/ High Density Residential
(§270-78 C) special permit: "… any institution of higher
learning including dormitory accommodations."
OPho/ Office Park Commercial
(§270-131 F) special permit: "Research and development
facility which contains laboratories or other areas that are not
offices."
(§270-131 H) special permit: "Hospital, medical or dental
clinic that involves overnight occupancy."
Lho/ Lakefront Commercial
(§270-141 F) special permit: "Institution of higher learning
facilities principally dedicated to water-related research,
education, and recreational activates, excluding dormitory
accommodations.”
LIo/ Light Industrial
(§270-144 E) by right: "Research and development facilities
utilizing office spaces, indoor scientific laboratories, and other
similar indoor spaces."
18
IT-5:oInstitutionaloo-ohampusoEdge.ooThis would be a location for
less intensively developed areas of institutional grounds. This
includes buildings and facilities used to carry out the mission of
the larger institution, incidental uses, and landscaped open areas;
with moderate building, road and parking coverage. (Examples:
Cornell University - Guterman Bioclimatic Laboratory, Hasbrouck
Apartments, Wilson Synchrotron; Ithaca College - Terrace Dorms,
Garden Apartments, College Circle Apartments, perimeter parking
lots; CMC area - Museum of the Earth, Cayuga Professional
Center.)
IT-6:oInstitutionaloo-ohampusohore.ooThis would be a location for
more intensively developed areas of institutional grounds. This
includes larger buildings and facilities used to carry out the
mission of the larger institution, incidental uses, and formally
sited and landscaped open areas; with significant building and
road coverage, and limited surface parking. (Examples: Cornell
University - Ag Quad, Vet Quad, Cornell University Hospital for
Animals, Ithaca College - Academic Quad, East/West Towers,
CMC/West Hill - Cayuga Medical Center building and nearby
grounds.)
As with TND transect zones, institutional transect zones should
not be freestanding zones outside the context of a larger
contiguous campus area. Overlay zones should define campus
areas that can have institutional transect zones. (Section 2.2.5
explains how overlay zones work.)
The Town can map institutional transect zones as a part of UDC
zone mapping, following the Comprehensive Plan and the
underlying land use pattern. As an alternative, the Town could
endorse an official campus or facility plan (for example, the
Cornell Master Plan for the Ithaca Campus), and use it as an
informal regulating plan to guide future transect zone location.
. .
Planned development zoning (PD or PDZ) – commonly known as
planned unit development (PUD) elsewhere – is a tool many
communities use to promote innovative projects that aren’t
possible under normal single-use zoning. EcoVillage at Ithaca
and Belle Sherman Cottages are two examples of how PD zoning
can foster broader housing choices, more compact development,
and protection of working and natural lands. However, it’s seen
more use as a way to “roll your own zone” for small, specialized
projects or uses that didn’t fit elsewhere. The process can
mandate a very specific outcome, but doesn’t require it to be an
improvement over what conventional zoning would create.
The PD process shouldn’t be an end run around the UDC to do
something different, but instead, a way to create something
better. To live up to its potential, the UDC needs a PD process
that ensures outcomes with high quality design and real public
benefits, in exchange for the concessions and flexibility it offers.
PDs,ocurrentozoning,oandotheoUDh
The Town’s planned development zones pose many challenges
for Planning and Code Enforcement staff, and other stakeholders.
The Town now adopts new PD zones as local laws, in a Town
Code chapter (§271) separate from the current zoning code
(§270). A typical PD zone law has, in no set order, a long
preamble of “whereas” and purpose statements, an enacting
clause, a metes-and-bounds legal description, and development
and use standards. PD laws have a myriad of standards and
processes; some unique to that zone, others redundant with or
differing from current zoning code. The lack of consistency, and
clutter of nonregulatory statements and legal English, makes
them hard to decode.
Each PD zone local law controls development in a different, yet
very specific way. Some allow very specific uses, often with
unusual conditions. PD zones don’t easily accommodate
redevelopment, or uses that could be a good fit but missing from
their permitted use lists.
Both the East Campus of Cornell University (top) and Seven Mile
Drive area (bottom) have LDR/Low Density Residential zoning.
(Top photo: Mark Anbinder.)
o
19
Because PD zone local laws are like mini-codes of their own, it’s
unclear what aspects of “regular” zoning apply in their
boundaries. Many PD laws refer to old zone names and long-
repealed codes, which Zoning Code §270-7 implies are still “in full
force and effect.”
There’s two conflicting regulations for creating PD zones –
Zoning Code §270-172 through -178, and the never-repealed
Special Land Use District (SLUD) regulations in Town Code §271-1
and -2. Neither are clear about what they expect from a project,
except "standards shall be as set forth in the legislation rezoning
the area to a Planned Development Zone" (Zoning Code §270-
177). Otherwise, there’s no concern about the outcome.
Applicants and the Town negotiate every aspect of a PD zone,
leading to uncertainty and high soft costs.
Zoning regulations with a broader and more logical hierarchy of
uses and development forms should lessen the need for PD
zones. The UDC shouldn’t do away with PDs, though. A
community as complex and creative as Ithaca needs some
flexibility for “outside the box” projects.
The UDC should limit new PD zones to large, complex, or multi-
phased projects; projects and sites with unique design challenges;
and development concepts that conventional or transect zones
don’t address. A large minimum site size will help prevent use of
PD zoning for spot zoning.
PD zone standards should focus on outcome; that a project is an
example of outstanding planning and design, not just something
that zoning normally doesn’t allow. They should have specific
approval criteria, and define special amenities or features desired
in exchange for the flexibility the process offers. These are some
amenities and benefits that the UDC should consider in PD zone
review.
• Material and design upgrades.
• Amenities like parks, playgrounds, community gardens, and
public art.
• Preservation of historical buildings and features, natural
areas, and working farmland.
• Green stormwater infrastructure, such as permeable parking
lots/paving, additional tree preservation requirements,
bioswales, and rainwater harvesting.
• Middle market, workforce, and income-qualified housing.
• Car share and bike share facilities.
The UDC also should limit standards subject to negotiation or
waiver for a PD zone. This can help inject more certainty into the
process, and make it less time-consuming. Along with approval
criteria, this can also prevent the PD process from being a
loophole to lower code standards or protections, or substitute for
the variance process.
PDozoneomasteroplansoandoconcurrentoprocesses
PD zone approval can involve up to three concurrent processes –
rezoning, subdivision, and site plan approval. Current regulations
are unclear about the processes for different sizes or scopes of
PD. A site plan may be appropriate for a single site-specific
project, but it’s not a good tool for guiding development of a
larger mixed use project. Requiring full subdivision approval for a
large multi-phase project may prematurely “carve in stone” plans
for projects that may take years or decades to build out, and
complicate even minor changes.
The UDC should clarify the PD zone approval process. It should
be clear about when a PD proposal needs concurrent site plan or
subdivision approval. It should only require a site plan for site-
specific projects, just like in a conventional zone. Site-specific
projects should be subject to site planning and design standards
in the UDC, or special standards for the PD zone.
For larger or multi-phased projects, the UDC process can use
preliminary and final master plan review, a common practice in
zoning codes throughout the country. A preliminary master plan
shows the basic concept and character of a PD zone. It also binds
the applicant to aspects like uses, the general lot and land use
pattern, and road and trail locations. A final master plan finalizes
and implements the preliminary plan. Preliminarty and final
master plans usually don’t have detailed engineering drawings.
Some communities make the final master plan and preliminary
subdivision process concurrent; final subdivision comes with each
phase.
A PD law can work like a plug-in module that modifies certain
UDC standards; rather than a mini-code that replaces it. PD local
laws should use a standard format, brief nonregulatory
expressions, and maps and tax parcel numbers to pinpoint their
site. PD language should be in plain English, avoid redundancy,
and not mention specific owners or occupants. Uses should be
from the UDC’s standard lineup of use groups and types (see
Wholesale processing and distribution of seitan (a baked
vegetarian wheat-based product), tofu, and soy milk, subject
to the conditions that such uses, in the aggregate shall not:
(1) Occupy more than 2,400 square feet of interior building
space; and (2) Engender more than six vehicle trips (for this
purpose a "vehicle trip" shall mean a round trip onto and off
the premises) per week in connection with deliveries related
to such uses, including all vehicle trips related to the delivery
to the premises of raw materials used in such processing and
all vehicle trips related to the delivery of the finished product
to locations off of the premises; and (3) Involve more than
four employees in the conduct of such uses.
– regulations for a very specific permitted use in the
P4/Statler West PD zone
20
§2.5.1- Use classification). The right modular approach could
reduce or eliminate the need for wordy local laws.
LegacyoPDso
A deep cleaning of legacy PD zone laws is outside the scope of
Recoding Ithaca. Still, the UDC must be clear about the
relationship between “regular zoning” and PD zone local laws.
The UDC should treat PD zone laws as exceptions to the code,
and not something separate. UDC standards and zones will
supersede any references to old codes or zones, and also apply
when a PD zone local law is silent or less protective about a
certain topic. UDC review and administration processes will also
apply to PD zones, and supersede redundant or conflicting
processes.
Development standards for new and updated zones should
consider the stable, built-out character of PD zones. After the
Town adopts the UDC, it should consider repealing some
redundant PD zones. The following PD zones are potential
candidates for a return to conventional or transect zoning, or
simpler PD overlay if the option exists.
PD-2:oSapsuckeroWoods.o This zone allows multifamily houses
along a short stretch of Sapsucker Woods Road. The law names
specific people, going against the idea that zoning regulates uses,
not users.
PD-3:oBiggsohomplex,oPD-4:oStatleroWest.ooThe Biggs Complex
(PD-3), north of the Cayuga Medical Center, is the former home
of the Tompkins County Health Department. The PD-4 zone
allows reuse of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF)
building for offices, a catering and banquet facility, and
processing and distribution of very specific vegetarian foods. The
Finger Lakes School of Massage, the most recent occupant, is
relocating to downtown Ithaca. Zoning on these sites should
consider them among a larger Cayuga Medical Center/Museum
of the Earth campus.
PD-5:ohhamberoofohommerce.ooThis zone allows offices and a
visitor center for the Ithaca Convention and Visitors Bureau and
Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce. The site could be
absorbed into the surrounding MDR (or future equivalent) area, if
that zone allows civic uses like low-impact cultural facilities.
PD-7:oIthacare,oPD-10:oSterlingoHouse.ooThe PD-7 zone covers
the Longview retirement community on Danby Road (NY 96B).
The PD-10 zone allows Sterling House (assisted living) and Claire
Bridge (Alzheimer’s/dementia care), both on Trumansburg Road
(NY 96). Conventional zoning codes often allow care facilities in
lower density suburban residential zones, following standards for
location (usually an arterial or collector road), site planning, and
minimum lot size.
PD-8:oEcoVillage.ooEcoVillage looks and functions much like a
cluster subdivision. PD zone regulations permit some low-impact
commercial and artisanal uses that conventional residential zones
don’t otherwise allow. An alternative to PD zoning is to treat
EcoVillage as a cluster subdivision under LDR (or future
equivalent) zoning, with a PD overlay (see section 2.2.5) that
allows “nonstandard” features like common houses and limited
commercial activity.
PD-9:ohornelloPrecincto7.ooThis zone covers an area south of
Dryden Road (NY 366), east of Pine Tree Road, and north of
Cascadilla Creek. It includes the Cornell Plantations, McGowan
Woods, Palm Road service complex, and Game Farm Road
research complex. This site can be part of an institutional
regulating plan for the Cornell University campus.
. .
An overlay is a zone that “overlays” or sits on top of other zones.
The underlying zoning stays the same, but the overlay has special
regulations, restrictions, or incentives that take priority.
Many communities use overlay zones in tandem with
conventional zones to guide development or achieve certain
planning goals in special areas. This concept isn’t alien to the
Town. Conditional zoning, cluster subdivision conditions, and
development rights easements are similar in that they keep the
underlying zoning, and add new rules and restrictions.
The UDC can use overlays to define locations where it allows or
prohibits certain patterns or types of development, and advance
area-specific Plan goals.
Traditionaloneighborhoododevelopmentooverlayso(OV-TND)o
The Comprehensive Plan targets certain parts of the town for
mixed use traditional neighborhood development. Continuing
conventional suburban development in these areas would
undermine many of the Plan’s key goals. An overlay can be an
effective tool to ensure this doesn’t happen, and require future
development in line with the Plan’s vision.
A TND overlay would work by having thresholds for planning
actions – for example, a rezoning request, subdivision into two or
more lots, or a multifamily or non-residential project – that
trigger a required regulating plan, transect zoning, and
development following TND design principles (see section 2.3 and
2.3.4). Until then, underlying zoning would stay the same, and
allow the same permitted uses, structures, and actions as outside
the overlay – all except non-TND subdivision or rezoning.
One approach for a TND overlay is to consider the character
district in the Comprehensive Plan future land use map.
o
21
OV-TND-1:oTraditionaloneighborhoodooverlayo1.ooThis overlay
will carry out the TND Medium Density character district area in
the Comprehensive Plan. Development would include NT-3, NT-4
and NT-5 transect zones.
OV-TND-2:oTraditionaloneighborhoodooverlayo2.ooThis overlay
will carry out the TND High Density character district area in the
Comprehensive Plan. Development would include NT-4, NT-5
and NT-6 transect zones.o
Another approach is to look at each “hill” separately. With this
option, one overlay would apply to the South Hill new
neighborhood area, instead of two.
OV-TND-WH:oTraditionaloneighborhoodooverlayo–oWestoHill.oo
This overlay will carry out the TND Medium Density character
district area in the Comprehensive Plan for the West Hill and Inlet
Valley areas, Development would include NT-3, NT-4 and NT-5
transect zones.
OV-TND-SH:oTraditionaloneighborhoodooverlayo–oSouthoHill.oo
This overlay will carry out the TND Medium Density and TND
High Density character district area in the Comprehensive Plan for
the South Hill area. Development would include NT-3, NT-4, NT-
5, and NT-6 transect zones.o
OV-TND-EH:oTraditionaloneighborhoodooverlayo–oEastoHill.ooThis
overlay will carry out the TND High Density character district area
in the Comprehensive Plan for the East Hill area. Development
would include NT-4, NT-5 and NT-6 transect zones.
Institutionalooverlayso(OV-I)o
As section 2.2.3 describes, institutional transect zones should only
be part of a larger institutional site – the campus and adjoining
lands of Cornell University, Ithaca College, and the Cayuga
Medical Center/Museum of the Earth area. An institutional
overlay should define these areas, to prevent “campus creep” and
“campus leapfrogging” into surrounding neighborhoods.
Historicooverlayso(OV-H)o
Historic overlays could provide a way to identify, preserve, and
protect structures, sites, neighborhoods, or landscapes that are
key parts of the town’s cultural, social, economic, and
architectural heritage. As an alternative to the LHC/Limited
Historic Commercial zone, a historic overlay zone could keep the
underlying zoning, but incentivize preservation and enable
adaptive reuse by adding to its list of allowed uses, depending on
its setting.
Plannedodevelopmento(OV-PD)
Many codes offer a PD overlay, which keeps the underlying
zoning, but changes some standards or allows some new uses, in
return for concessions like increased open space or affordable
housing.
. .6
Zoneonamesoo
Zone names now use a character-precedes-category scheme;
character or intensity is identified first, followed by use category.
Examples include LR/Lakefront Residential, MDR/Medium Density
Residential, and NC/Neighborhood Commercial. This naming
convention is less common than the category-precedes-character
scheme, where residential zone names might all have a prefix of
R, commercial C or B (business), and industrial I.
Current residential zone names reflect the current zoning code’s
exurban focus. For example, the MDR/Medium Density
Residential district has a minimum lot size of 15,000’², or 2.9 units
per net acre2. This density is on the low side for a typical Upstate
New York village or suburb, and is much lower than the Plan
recommendation for the TND Medium Density character district
(5-8 units/acre gross).
Zone names should follow the more common category-precedes-
character scheme. This makes recognition at a glance easier,
better harmonizes with other codes (and unofficial national
standards), and recognizes the UDC’s new start. Zone names
should be descriptive, yet objective. They should avoid the word
“density” – its meaning is subjective. Zone names should also
avoid confusion with pre-2003 zone names (R-30, R-15, etc.), still
seen in older resolutions, local laws, and PD regulations.
2 2.9 units per net acre, not considering allowed accessory units.
Accessory units must be 50% of the size of the main unit or smaller.
The current zoning code considers the development pattern in
the Glenside Road area as “high density residential.”
22
Zoningomapocolorso
The current zoning map uses colors that distinguish between
different zones, but not categories and intensities of zones.
Various shades of blue, yellow, pink, and red represent residential
zones; shades of purple and red commercial zones, and yellow
and brown industrial zones. When a zoning map uses similar
colors across different zone categories, with no consistency, it
becomes more difficult to get a sense of the zoning pattern in an
area. o
The zoning map should use a more logical color scheme to show
zone categories and intensity. Most zoning maps in North
America use a variant of the following color scheme, an unofficial
standard since the 1950s3. A category of zones shares a similar
color or hue.
• Agricultural, rural, and natural zones: green
• Residential zones: yellowothroughoorange
• Commercial zones: red
• Industrial zones: gray
• Institutional zones: blue
• Mixed use zones: purple
• Transect zones: lilac
. .
The folloring table shows how UDC zones can implement the
future land use plan. To make the link between zoning and the
Plan clear, zone descriptions in the UDC should note how they
relate to the future land use/character district map.
3 Jeer, S., Bain, B. 1997. Traditional Color Coding for Land Uses.
Chicago IL: American Planning Association.
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/gis/manual/style/ColorConventions.pdf
Transect-Based Regulating Plans. Center for Applied Transect Studies.
<transect.org/regulating_img.html>
o
23
h h .
Subdivision is the process of dividing a lot into two or more lots.
The concept is simple, but the result can have a long lasting
impact on the town, and lock in land ownership and development
patterns for decades.
Subdivision and land development in the town often happens in a
piecemeal fashion, with little consideration about how a project
relates to what’s existing or planned around it. The Town’s
subdivision code dates back to 1955. It offers very little guidance
Proposedozoneo-oUDho 2014ohomprehensiveoPlanofutureolandouseo
designation/characterodistricto hurrentozoneo
honventionaloruralozoneso
hON: Conservation Natural/Open h: Conservation
AG: Agricultural Rural/Agricultural AG: Agricultural
honventionaloresidentialozoneso
R-R: Residential - rural Semi-Rural Neighborhood LDR: Low Density Residential
R-S1: Residential - suburban 1 Established Neighborhood MDR: Medium Density Residential
R-S2: Residential - suburban 2 Established Neighborhoodo HDR: High Density Residentialo
R-L: Residential - lakeside Established Neighborhood LR: Lakefront Residential
R-MH: Residential - mobile home parko Established Neighborhood MHP: Mobile Home Parko
R-M: Residential - multiple Established Neighborhood MR: Multiple Residence
honventionalonon-residentialozoneso
h-IV: Commercial - Inlet Valleyo Inlet Valley Gateway (n/a)
h-N: Commercial - neighborhood (various) Nh: Neighborhood Commercial (and
adjacent VFR areas)
h-h: Commercial - community (various) hh: Community Commercial (and adjacent
VFR areas)
O-R: Office / Research Enterprise OPh: Office Park / Commercial
IND: Industrial Enterprise LI: Light Industrial
I: Industrialo
Overlayozoneso
OV-TND-EH: TND overlay - East Hill TND High Density (n/a)
OV-TND-SH: TND overlay - South Hill TND High Density, TND Medium Density (n/a)
OV-TND-WH: TND overlay - West Hillo TND Medium Density (n/a)
OV-I: Institutional overlay Campus, Natural/Open, Rural/Agricultural (n/a)
OV-H: Historic overlay (various) (n/a)
OV-PD: Planned development overlay (various) (n/a)
Neighborhoodotransectozoneso(form-based)o
NT-3: Neighborhood - edge TND Medium Density (n/a)
NT-4: Neighborhood - general TND Medium Density, TND High Density (n/a)
NT-5: Neighborhood - center TND Medium Density, TND High Density (n/a)
NT-6: Neighborhood - core TND High Density (n/a)
Institutionalotransectozoneso
IT-1: Institutional - natural/green Natural/Open (n/a)
IT-2: Institutional - agricultural Rural/Agricultural (n/a)
IT-3: Institutional - open Natural/Open, Campus (n/a)
IT-4: Institutional - support Campus (n/a)
IT-5: Institutional – campus edge Campus (n/a)
IT-6: Institutional - campus core Campus (n/a)
Otherozoneso
PD: Planned development (various) PD: Planned Development Zone
24
for design, even compared to other model codes of the era.
Fragmented land ownership, limited resources of local builders
and developers, and policies that discourage infrastructure
phasing don’t help. The current subdivision code has some
flexibility for innovative projects, but it doesn’t define or
incentivize quality design, and its discretionary standards offer no
guarantee of outcome.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends a different “long game”
approach for subdivision and land development. It proposes
regulations that consider how individual properties and projects
fit into a larger whole – their current and future surroundings.
The Town can implement the Comprehensive Plan’s vision with a
UDC that helps build and shape neighborhoods, not just regulate
subdivisions.
. . h h
Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the town. Lots are the
building blocks of neighborhoods.
Planning regulations now offer two options for creating new lots
– conventional subdivision, and a cluster subdivision option in the
AG, LDR, MDR, HDR, and MR zones. These tracks are set up with
simple lot splits, residential subdivisions and complexes, and “pod
in a park” clusters in mind – not the more complex, complete
neighborhoods the Comprehensive Plan envisions.
The UDC should build on this approach, and define several
distinct development patterns or types, keyed to the zones where
they fit best. Each development type would have custom and
shared standards for lot size and arrangement, housing density,
road layout, civic/park/open space design, and other features.
Development types should include:
• Conventional
• Cluster
• Pocket neighborhood
• Traditional neighborhood
• Institutional
• Mobile home park
Stapleton, a traditional neighborhood development in Denver,
Colorado.
“The term ‘subdivision’ is so ensconced in our language we
rarely stop to think how appropriate it is: subdivision
emphasizes the fragmentation of land, rather than the
creation of a proper neighborhood of homes and
relationships.
— Randall Arendt
A comparison of four development forms – unbuilt proposals for
a condominium complex, cluster subdivision, and traditional
neighborhood development at a South Hill site (Chase Pond); and
the conventional subdivision that was later built.
o
25
The table above shows zones where certain development types fit
the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use goals.
Subdivision and neighborhood design standards should be
together in one section of the UDC, separate from details about
the review and approval process.
. .
Conventional development comprises the lots and roads that
result from the Town’s default number-lot subdivision process,
under conventional zoning standards. It also includes lots
recorded before the Town had zoning and subdivision
regulations.
The current subdivision code focuses more on the process of
dividing land, than how to knit the resulting lots into something
greater than their sum. The UDC should ensure that “default”
conventional development uses land efficiently, fits into its
setting, and weaves into a larger community fabric. Standards
should clearly broadcast their intentions, ensure predictable
outcomes, and focus on quality design over the minutiae of
process.o
Lotopatterns,osizes,oandoefficientolandouse
Throughout the town, fragmented land ownership and inefficient
lot patterns close off large areas of otherwise buildable land to
infill development. Current planning standards only perpetuate
this, because they don’t address lot shape, efficient land use,
future development potential, and minimum densities.
New York State Town Law §278-1 states that a key goal of
subdivision control is “to provide for future growth and
development.” UDC standards should result in efficient land use,
and well-proportioned lots that relate to roads and the public
realm. Standards should prevent uses and lot patterns that waste
land, and accelerate urban sprawl,.
Current minimum lot size requirements are a product of the
current zoning code’s exurban and rural roots, a time when land
was cheap, and policies favored low density suburban living as
the ideal. The minimum lot size for the town’s LDR residential
zone is 15,000’²; on the higher side for “standard” single family
residential zones in other upstate suburbs. Under the
conventional development track, there’s no relief mechanism to
consider natural features, constrained sites, housing variety or
bonuses, or other attributes, except for the variance process.
Developmentotypeo▶o
honventionalo
developmento
hlustero
developmento
Pocketo
neighborhoodo
developmento
Traditionalo
neighborhoodo
developmento
Institutionalo
developmento
Mobileohomeo
parkoZoneo(currentoo
andoproposed)o▼o
C (hON)
AG, LDR (R-R)
MDR (R-S1), HDR (R-S2),
MR (R-M)
LR (R-L)
MHP (R-MH)
C-IV, NC (h-N), CC (h-h)
OPC (O-R), I (IN-L)
TNDooverlays: all zones
Institutionalooverlay: all zones
Development is not the problem. It is really the solution.
The real problem is the pattern of development. The key is
putting quality development in the right place. Land use
regulations can direct development to certain areas and
protect open lands. But regulation, by itself, can’t remedy
the problems associated with current land use patterns. Only
new development and a strong comprehensive plan can do
this.
— Ed McMahon, Scenic America Bowling alley lots in Northeast Ithaca use land inefficiently, and
prevent infill in a prime location near Cornell University.
26
To use land more efficiently and prevent underdevelopment,
residential zones should have minimum and maximum densities
and lot sizes. Lot size and density ranges should also reflect
current conditions and planning goals.
Development under a 12,000’² or 10,000’² minimum lot size in the
MDR zone, with the same 100’ minimum width but a lot depth
shorter than 150’, would have a similar look and feel as with
today’s 15,000’² minimum, and make little impact on developed
areas where lot sizes and shapes don’t favor splitting.
Minimum lot depth standards, like in the current zoning code, can
hinder infill development. A width-to-depth ratio range of 1:3 to
3:1, along with minimum frontage or width standards, offers
more flexibility for shallow lots or infill, and prevents new
“bowling alley” or “spaghetti” lots.
One way to ensure that a close-in, lower density subdivision can
be built out to suburban or urban densities in the future is a
buildout plan. It shows provisions for future lots, setbacks, roads,
and utility areas over the entire site, along with restricted building
areas. Buildout plan lots aren’t recorded, but their lot pattern
must be feasible under the UDC and other standards – not just
conceptual. The UDC should require binding buildout plans when
someone wants to plat new lots that are much larger than the
minimum lot size, or build at a much lower density than what
current or anticipated zoning allows.
Lot size averaging allows lot sizes and building setback sin a
subdivision to vary from code minimums and maximums, if the
average falls in an acceptable range. This flexibility is useful for
developing housing on unusually shaped parcels, mixing housing
types and price ranges throughout a subdivision, or achieving a
certain density while keeping a large “parent lot” for the original
owner. Lot size averaging should not be a substitute for cluster
or conservation subdivision.
Frontageolotso
Much of the town's subdivision activity involves creating frontage
lots along outlying arterial and collector streets, usually with no
tandem development behind. Over time, they intrude on views of
once-rural landscapes, isolate working and open lands, and turn
busy county and state roads into high speed versions of
neighborhood streets. The Town, county, or state indirectly
subsidize frontage subdivision, because a subdivider can use an
existing public road for access, instead of building a new road.
Formal review of all subdivisions, including lot splits, helped to
moderate frontage subdivision in the town. However, current
subdivision regulations still perpetuate it, by treating splits along
hity/town/villageo
Defaultooroo
mostocommono
residentialozoneo
Minimumoo
lotosize*o
Minimumo
frontageoorowidtho
Minimumoloto
deptho
Netodensityo
(principalounits)o
Ithacao(town)o MDRo 15,000’²o 60’oatostreet,o100’o
atosetbackolineo 150’o ±2.9ounits/acreo
hayugaoHeights (village) R ⟨18,750’²⟩ ** ⟨125’ width⟩ ⟨150’⟩ ±2.3 units/acre
Dryden (town) NR 10,000’² 150’ n/a ±4.4 units/acre
Lansingo(village) MDR 20,000’² 100’ n/a ±2.2 units/acre
Trumansburg (village) R-1 15,000’² 100’ n/a ±2.9 units/acre
Horseheads (town) (Elmira area) RES-A 15,000’² 100’ n/a ±2.9 units/acre
Union (Binghamton area) SSF 9,000’² 60’ n/a ±4.8 units/acre
Vestal (Binghamton area) RA-1, RA-2 9,000’² 75’ n/a ±4.8 units/acre
hamillus (Syracuse area) R-3 10,000’² 80’ n/a ±3.8 units/acre
hlay (Syracuse area) R-10 10,000’² 75’ n/a ±3.8 units/acre
DeWitt (Syracuse area) R-2 9,600’² 80’ n/a ±4.5 units/acre
Henrietta (Rochester area) R-1-15 15,000’² 80’ n/a ±2.9 units/acre
Penfield (Rochester area) R-1-20 20,000’² 100’ n/a ±2.2 units/acre
Webster (Rochester area) R-3 22,000’² 100’ n/a ±1.9 units/acre
Amherst (Buffalo area) R-2 11,500’² 80’ n/a ±3.8 units/acre
hheektowaga (Buffalo area) R 7,200’² 60’ n/a ±6.0 units/acre
Lancaster (town) (Buffalo area) R-1 9,375’² 75’ n/a ±4.6 units/acre
WestoSeneca (Buffalo area) R-75 10,000’² 75’ n/a ±3.8 units/acre
* - minimum lot size where water and sewer service are available.
** - no specific minimum lot size; implied by minimum average width and depth.
No great town can long exist without great suburbs.
— Frederick Law Olmsted
o
27
busy roads no differently than those along local streets, and
setting no time limits between successive resubdivision.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends further restricting
residential frontage subdivision. The UDC should keep formal
review for lot splits along collector and arterial roads. A long
interval (10 to 20 years or more) between successive resubdivision
can prevent their use as a loophole around a more formal review
process. Agricultural lot splits should require a buildout plan to
prevent successive frontage lots over time, and ensure parent lots
are large enough to support a viable agricultural operation. The
UDC can also use the following approaches to control frontage
subdivision.
• Level the playing field between standards for conventional
and cluster development.
• Favor cluster development in CON and AG zones
• Require a buildout plan for conventional development in AG,
LDR (R-R), and MDR (R-S1) zones.
• Remove loopholes that allow cluster subdivisions in the form
of frontage lots.
• Require shared access for lots split from a parent lot along
collector and arterial roads.
• Limit the number or frontage length of new lots fronting on
the same road as a parent lot.
• Apply context-sensitive road design standards to very small
subdivisions.
• Incentivize new subdivision roads and infrastructure over
building on existing arterial and collector roads through
reimbursement agreements. They allows the first developer
that builds roads or infrastructure in an area to recover
disproportionate expenses from latecomer developers who
benefit from the improvements.
Flagolotso
In the past, the Zoning Board approved many variance requests
for flag lots – lots with a flag-like shape, with a long, narrow
access strip or “pole” to a public road. Because current
regulations technically don’t allow them, there’s no guidance
about where they are and aren’t appropriate. Fag lots can be
useful in some cases, but they are also a way for a subdivider to
avoid the expense of a new common road to access interior lots.
They increase hazards from turning vehicles, because their access
strips decrease driveway spacing. Houses on flag lots often face
the back end of the street-facing house, separating their residents
from the public realm and the larger neighborhood.
The UDC should still allow flag lots, but only when it’s the most
practical option for subdivision, not the cheapest. A flag lot may
be appropriate when it allows infill on a deep “bowling alley” lot,
access to a lot on a busy street from a nearby local road, or
physical constraints prevent other configurations. UDC standards
for flag lots should include the following:
• The access strip (pole) area doesn’t count when measuring
lot area.
Frontage lots eat away at rural landscapes, and turn collector and
arterial roads into high speed versions of neighborhood streets.
Examples of stacked flag lots (far left) and alternatives (from least to most preferable) in the Town of Pittsford zoning code. This also shows
how shallow lots and short setbacks can be appropriate for infill.
28
• Minimum access strip width, and maximum length/depth.
• No stacking flag lots behind other flag lots.
• No more than two adjacent access strips.
• The parent and flag lot should share the driveway.
• Houses should face the access drive, not the back of the
parent lot.
• No use of flag lots solely to lower or eliminate the cost of
building roads, increase building sites with access to a
collector or arterial road, or split ownership of an accessory
residence from a principal residence.
2.3.3 Cluster development
Cluster development, such as Ecovillage at Ithaca, concentrates
housing on a larger site, in groups or “clusters” of smaller lots
and multiunit buildings, and preserves remaining land as
parkland or common space. In practice, the cluster subdivision
option sees more use as a way to allow attached housing or more
flexible subdivision design, with open space being a side benefit
rather than a main goal; examples include Deer Run and
Commonland.
Cluster development doesn’t always work as it should. There may
be no coordination of architecture and other details. Open space
can takes the form of buffer strips, common yards, or out-of-the-
way remnant sites with little conservation or recreation value.
Standards don’t require coordination with broader greenway
planning and open space protection goals. Some cluster projects
look and feel like conventional development. A stopgap
amendment in 2013 partly addressed some of these issues, by
allowing more flexibility for building location and spacing.
Clustering standards should be more flexible and objective, and
clearly inform and guide site planning. Standards should also
consider context, placing a higher priority on conservation in
more rural and exurban areas, and compact, efficient land use in
suburban and urban settings. The process should lift potential
barriers that keep cluster subdivisions from being used for
smaller subdivisions and lot splits. They should also call for more
common open space than the current minimum of 10%.
Under state law, cluster standards in a subdivision code must be
density neutral. They can’t allow more principal housing units on
a site than what’s possible with conventional development.
However, state law allows density bonuses in zoning and unified
development codes. The UDC should incentivize cluster
development with density bonuses for open space, affordable
middle market and income-qualified housing, and other desired
amenities.
honservationosubdivisiono
Conservation development aims to protect large blocks of
working and natural lands, and environmentally sensitive features
such as wetlands, floodplains, waterways, and steep slopes. Like
a cluster development, standards allow smaller lots, to provide
more flexibility to fit the project to the landscape. However,
conservation development differs from regular cluster
development in several ways.
• High standards for what qualifies as open space, and its
amount and siting. Current clustering standards require
only 10% of a parcel to be set aside as open space.
Conservation standards designate much higher percentages,
based on zoning and buildable land area. Conservation area
location takes priority over house siting.
• More influence over design. This includes detailed design
and site planning standards, density bonuses for conserved
land area or public access, and disincentives for land
consuming layouts.
Conceptual backlot development on bowling alley lots. (Woking
Borough, UK)
o
29
• Value of open space. Conservation area and open space
siting serves a purpose; it’s not just there for its own sake. It
aims to create an interconnected open space network;
maintain viable farmland; and buffer development from
state parks, preserves, and other sensitive areas offsite.
The LDR (future R-R) zones are ideal locations for conservation
development, along with MDR (future R-S1) areas with
environmental constraints. Minimum open space requirements
should range from 90% in the CON zone, to 70% in the R-R zone,
and 50% in the R-S1 zone. Their pod-like design helps them lay
light on the landscape in outlying areas, but it isn’t the best fit in
areas favoring more compact and interconnected neighborhoods.
Growing Greener by Randall Arendt has model development
standards that can inform UDC cluster standards.
2.3.4 Pocket neighborhood
A pocket neighborhood or cottage court is a compact grouping of
small houses around a common courtyard or garden area.
Multiple clusters and common areas, connected by walkways, can
form a larger community. Site planning emphasizes social ties,
household identity, efficient land use, and integration into a
larger surrounding neighborhood, over buffering and preserving
open space.
Planning standards for pocket neighborhood design often reflect
these time-proven design concepts.
• Clusters of about 4 to 12 houses. Smaller clusters lack the
diversity of a larger group; larger clusters aren’t as
neighborly.
• Shared common space. It’s the heart of a pocket
neighborhood, and what gives it vitality.
• Outdoor rooms. Site planning strengthens the ‘outdoor
room” character of the shared commons. House facades
and porches – not rear or side building walls – face common
spaces, and provide eyes on the street. Siting mailboxes,
parking areas, and common buildings where residents have
to pass through common spaces encourages sociability.
• Corral the car, but not too much. Parking is inconspicuous
and located throughout a site, not front and center in large
parking lots or garages. Spaces and small bays are often off
internal streets or rear alleys.
• Connected and contributing. Site planning weaves a pocket
neighborhood and its shared open spaces into the fabric of
the surrounding streetscape; not set it apart as a compound.
Neighboring lots aren’t subject to “utility side” views of
parking or service areas
• Layers of public, semi-private, and personal space. Multiple
layers of personal space (front porch, fenced yards, clear
transitions between spaces serving different functions)
Let us ask the land where are the best sites. Let us establish
criteria for many different types of excellence responding to a
wide range of choice.
— Ian McHarg
Danielson Grove pocket neighborhood in Kirkland, Washington.
(Ross Chapin)
honservationosubdivisionodesignosequenceo
1: Analyze the site.
2: Evaluate site content.
3: Designate potential conservation areas.
4: Calculate minimum and maximum housing density.
5: Locate development areas and explore alternatives.
6: Locate house sites.
7: Lay out streets, trails, and other infrastructure.
8: Design and program open space.
9: Lay out lot lines.
10: Establish ownership and maintenance of open space.
30
achieve a balance between privacy and community. Site
planning avoids buffer strips and other “no-mans-land”
areas that seem neither common nor private.
• Places for planting. Common gardens foster connections
with neighbors, and private garden areas let residents add
their personal touch to community character.
• Slightly snug. With smaller cottage-like houses, porches,
gardens and shared common buildings are used more,
fostering connection among neighbors.
Pocket neighborhoods allow more housing options, but in a way
that affirms the character of residential neighborhoods. A cozy
“neighborhood in a neighborhood” design makes them a better
fit for urban and suburban settings, like the MDR, HDR, and MR
zones (future R-S1, R-S2, and R-G) and TND transect zones, than
conservation subdivisions. Small “pocket hamlets” can also be an
alternative to frontage subdivision in outlying areas.
Housing density in pocket neighborhoods should be based on the
number of principal and accessory units possible under
conventional development. For example, if a site yields 10 lots
under a conventional subdivision, with a buildout of 10 principal
and 10 accessory housing units, a pocket neighborhood should
yield 20 principal units, with no accessory units. House sizes
should be smaller (1,000’² to 1,500’²), to ensure pocket
neighborhoods help satisfy Comprehensive Plan goals for
housing variety and affordability, and don’t serve as a loophole
allowing large houses at higher densities.
2.3.5 Traditional neighborhood
development T and the transect
Traditional neighborhood development (TND) is a planning
principle that reinterprets and applies the basic development
pattern and design elements of pre-1950 villages and
neighborhoods to new development projects and neighborhoods.
A TND-based neighborhood is compact, built on a foundation of
pedestrian-friendly, human-scale streets, blocks, and public
spaces; offers a wide range of housing types and densities, and
provides parks, gathering places, and storefront and civic uses
close to where most people live. The Comprehensive Plan, its
GEIS documents, and the various reports of the Form Ithaca
initiative, describe TND and its benefits in more detail.
Left: Traditional neighborhood development (TND). Right: Conventional suburban development (CSD).
Traditionaloneighborhoododevelopmentodesignosequenceoo
1: Analyze the site.
2: Define community units (areas centered on a pedestrian
shed, a 5- to 10-minute walk to a central location).
3: Lay out streets, alleys, and greenswards, following street
and greenway design and connectivity standards.
4: Lay out transect zones in each community unit, following
zone allocation and location standards.
5: Assign parkland, open space, and civic use sites in each
community unit, following civic space allocation and location
standards.
6: Calculate minimum and maximum housing density.
7: Lay out lot lines following lot size and shape standards,
assign mandatory storefront frontage areas (in higher
transect zones), and assign building types (optional), in a way
that meets density goals at buildout.
Conceptual regulating plan in the Onondaga County TND code.
o
31
TND projects are planned through a design process, rather than a
mechanical exercise in geometry. This, and many other aspects
that set it apart from conventional and cluster development – its
street pattern, mix of zones, variety of housing and uses, types of
civic and open space, focus on walkability, density ranges, and the
way they work together – call for special design standards in the
UDC. As Section 2.2.2 describes, the SmartCode has a step-by-
step sequence for designing new neighborhoods, which can be
adapted for the UDC. Neighborhood design standards can draw
on the SmartCode, and other form-based codes in upstate New
York like the Buffalo Green Code, Saratoga Springs Zoning Code,
and Onondaga County TND Code.
Even with TND-oriented zoning, there will still be some barriers to
building a larger complete neighborhood – a fragmented land
ownership pattern, limited resources of small local developers,
and a moderate growth rate. A regulating plan, guided by the
outcome of a charrette, can help overcome them.
A regulating plan that divides a larger new neighborhood area
into more manageable phases can ensure owners of smaller
parcels, and local builders and developers, have a part in building
the town’s new neighborhoods. A regulating plan also makes it
easier to manage impacts as a whole, compared to having many
incremental, separate development decisions.
Charrettes are one way to create a regulating plan. A charrette is
a collaborative process where designers, planners, stakeholders,
and decision makers collaborate on a plan. They often include
multiple sessions where people divide into sub-groups, work on a
solution or design for an aspect of the project, and present its
work to the full group as material for further dialogue. Designers
help fine tune those ideas into a viable plan.
Zoning overlays (see section 2.2.5) should define areas where
future growth must take the form of TND.
2.3.6 Street layout and design
Streets are the building blocks for all American communities.
Behind state parks, they make up the largest amount of public
space in the Town of Ithaca, and they play a major role in
defining its character. Streets were historically the true
“commons”; active spaces used for commerce, gathering,
socializing, recreation, dining, celebration, protest, and travel.
Most streets in the town were designed and built for one main
purpose – to move vehicles around as quickly and efficiently as
possible. Current design standards reflect a rural and exurban
outlook, with ditches and swales for drainage, soft shoulders, no
tree lawns or street trees, and until very recently, no sidewalks.
The Town is slowly retrofitting some streets with walkways, but
for now, its off-road trail network is more extensive.
Left: In the Town of Ithaca, residential streets usually have a rural design, with soft shoulders, ditches, and no sidewalks.
Right: In suburban Buffalo, streets with curbs, tree lawns, and sidewalks are more common, even in lower density neighborhoods.
The Louisiana Land Use Toolkit includes street profiles for rural (left) and suburban (right) contexts.
32
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes street form and layout is a
crucial part of neighborhood design and placemaking. compact,
walkable neighborhoods the Plan envisions can’t be built on a
framework of vehicle-centric streets. The Plan takes a more
holistic and comprehensive approach towards street layout and
design, integrating it into a broader context of land use,
development form, placemaking, sustainability, and quality of life.
The 2007 Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan also raised many of
the same issues about street layout and design as the
Comprehensive Plan. Most are still relevant. The UDC gives the
Town a way to implement those aspects of the Transportation
Plan.
UDC standards should aim to build roads that serve all potential
users, and that are also great places in their own right – not just
conduits to get from Point A to Point B.
hontextosensitiveodesign
The Town of Ithaca Highway Specifications Guide, separate from
the Town Code, is based around uniform, largely rural- and
exurban-oriented road design standards, regardless of context. It
lacks street profiles – the form and combination of components
that make up a road – that fit and work better for denser
suburban or urban settings.
One result of this “one size fits all” approach is that streets are
often out of place for their surroundings – overbuilt or underbuilt,
or too “rural” for their suburban neighborhoods. For example,
many low-traffic residential streets in Northeast Ithaca have wide
lanes, center double-yellow line markings, soft shoulders, deep
ditches, and no sidewalks, making them look and feel more like
rural collector or arterial roads.
Both the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan of 2007 and the
Comprehensive Plan recommend context sensitive street design
over the current one-size-fits-all approach. Context sensitive
design considers a street’s function; its users; its surroundings;
how it supports current and future land uses, and its impact on
aesthetic, historic, cultural and environmental resources. The
UDC should embrace this approach, with street design standards
that match these elements to function, context, and zone.
• Right-of-way width.
• Pavement type, width, and geometry.
• Pavement edging.
• On-street parking presence and form.
• Bike lane presence and width.
Street assemblies from the Charleston, South Carolina street design standards.
o
33
• Sidewalk width and details.
• Tree lawns, rain gardens, and street trees.
• Bus stops.
• Street lighting.
Design standards must have street profiles or assemblies that fit
suburban, urban, and mixed use settings; not just exurban and
rural. Redevelopment projects should include street
improvements that bring them closer to UDC standards. Over
time, this can address the lack of sidewalks in some areas.
Conceptual street assemblies in the Form Ithaca transportation
study are a good starting point for drafting UDC standards.
The Plan recommends road diets as a way to “rightsize” roads
overdesigned for much higher speeds and/or traffic volumes than
necessary. These are some easy, inexpensive ways to put existing
Town roads on a diet, and make them feel narrower.
• No lane dividing striping, especially for residential streets.
• Edge lines that squeeze or meander the travel area, and
define an informal walkway on either side.
• Street trees close to the pavement edge.
• Contrasting shoulder color or material.
hompleteostreets
Streets are the Town’s largest public investment, but their auto-
oriented focus leaves out a broader public of users – pedestrians,
cyclists, motorists, transit users, and fronting property owners.
Current street design standards emphasize movement of vehicle
traffic above other considerations. 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 it exists. Single use streets limit
transportation choices by making walking, bicycling, and using
public transportation inconvenient and even unsafe.
The Comprehensive Plan endorses complete streets, a design
philosophy that enables safe access for all users, including
drivers, cyclists, pedestrians of all ages and abilities, and public
transit users. The Town also adopted a complete streets law in
2015. The UDC should implement Plan recommendations and
the new law.
UDC street design standards should follow complete streets
practices, appropriate to the setting, for new streets and
improvement projects. Off-street recreational trails should
supplement roadside sidewalks, not substitute for them.
Streetopatternoandoconnectivity
The street pattern in the town is typical of an upstate New York
suburb – a foundation of state and county roads, network of well-
connected streets in some areas, and disorienting loops and long
cul-de-sacs in others. Lack of connectivity separates and isolates
subdivisions and complexes from the larger neighborhood or
community.
The Comprehensive Plan advocates physically and socially
interconnected neighborhoods. Improving connectivity and
limiting cul-de-sacs improves the walking environment, provides
more ways for people to navigate their surroundings, shortens
response times for first responders, and makes public
transportation and other routed services more efficient. UDC
standards should favor a more regular and interconnected street
pattern, over one with winding loops and cul-de-sacs. Some
codes use a connectivity index, a measure of street network and
connection density. They are calculated as the number of road
segments between intersections, divided by the number of
intersections and dead ends.
Current street length requirements have emergency access in
mind more than connectivity. They set a maximum block length
of 1,500’, and cul-de-sac length of 1,000’. The UDC should follow
more recent practice, and limit block lengths to 600’ to 1,000’ in
urban and suburban settings. Permanent cul-de-sacs should be
an option of last resort, and no longer than 500’ in urban and
suburban settings. Pedestrian greenways should up blocks
longer than a than a certain length, and pass through the ends of
cul-de-sacs.
Current subdivision regulations ban alleys in residential
development “unless the subdivider produces evidence
satisfactory to the Planning Board of the need therefor.” The
UDC should do the opposite, and allow alleys in TND
neighborhoods and denser conventional zones.
Any town that doesn’t have sidewalks doesn’t love its children.
— Margaret Mead
Streets in the Belle Sherman Cottages development provide safe
access for all users – drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
34
Current subdivision regulations require stub streets for future
access to adjacent undeveloped land. However, they don’t
require future development to connect to pre-existing stubs. The
UDC should have more specific stub road standards. It should
require stubs to adjacent properties where the shared boundary is
longer than a certain length, and connection to stub roads
touching the site. It should also ban “spite strips” that
intentionally block access, and undedicated road provisions. The
UDC should require a durable “future through road” or ”future
development” sign at the end of a stubout, as a constant
reminder to neighbors that the stub will someday extend and
connect into a future development. Future intent signs are useful
for road and path reservations, undeveloped parks, and other
provisions. o
Privateoroads
One of the newest roads in the town is Walnut Street, in the Belle
Sherman Cottages development. It’s also one of the town’s most
“urban” roads, with curbs, on-street parking, tree lawns, and tight
corners. Even though it has a higher level of improvements than
most Town roads, the Town made the developer build it as a
private road, largely because it was narrower – and thus harder
to plow – than a more typical rural-style road.
Development proposals with private roads are increasingly
common. In part, it’s because there are limited “official” options
in the Town’s current design standards, and there’s not much
flexibility for something different. In other cases, it’s to reduce
development costs, sometimes under the pretext of being
“greener” than paved roads. More commonly, the Town is
hesitant to assume maintenance costs for a new road – even if
the road will serve a higher density development, and have lower
per-household maintenance costs, than a Town-owned road in a
low density area.
With no guidance for private roads, the result can be roads built
to much lower standards than what the Town would otherwise
allow.
Flexible context-sensitive road design standards can reduce
dependence on private roads, especially for projects in a more
suburban or rural setting. To prevent “downgrades”, the UDC
should have criteria for when private roads are an option (for
example, small non-through streets that serve very few
residences), and be specific about how their design can vary from
pubic roads. Private roads should not be a device for using
inadequate or out-of-context design or materials, or limiting
access. Limited resources of small developers should not justify
lower standards for their projects.
2.3.7 Parks, civic areas, and open space
Parks and open space play a vital role in defining Ithaca’s culture
and character. It’s critical that they accommodate diverse uses
and users, and foster the connections that are so integral to
Ithaca’s sense of place. The UDC must have public space
dedication and design standards that provide a range of context-
appropriate park and open space types in all new development.o
Parkoandoopenospaceolocationoandodesign
One Comprehensive Plan recommendation is that new parks and
common open space are “amassed into meaningful, quality
spaces … contiguous to the maximum extent practicable, and
located where they are visually and functionally part of the public
realm.”
Current planning regulations set out minimal standards for
location, quality, configuration, or programming of parks or
A collector in a typical hierarchical network (top) channels traffic
to the arterial street system. A system of parallel connectors
(bottom) has multiple direct routes between origins and
destinations. (Kimley-Horn and Associates)
o
35
protected open space. Some of these areas take the form of
disconnected parcels, buffers, and land hidden between
backyards – isolated, unusable, or of little conservation value.
Neighborhood parks and open space should serve a useful
purpose – a focal or gathering point of the community, a place
where someone can hike or garden, or a preserve protecting
natural features and wildlife habitat. Design standards need to
consider function, size and shape, accessibility, interconnectivity,
perimeter frontage, and distribution. Parks, riparian corridors,
and open space should be part of the public realm, fronting on
roads that open up to the surrounding neighborhood, instead of
hiding behind rear yards. New development should work existing
or undeveloped parks into the project, expanding or linking them
into a larger integrated open space network. Isolated patches of
green space, and corridors or buffer strips where ownership feels
private or ambiguous, must not substitute for parks and open
space that look and feel like safe, welcoming, and truly public
spaces.
The UDC should tailor type, location, and function of new parks
and open space areas to the development pattern. The
SmartCode template spells out different types and configurations
of civic space, with standards for location, size, and accessibility.
For example, it may require a 1/4 acre community garden within
500’ of all residences, and a 5 acre common green within 750’.
2.3.8 Housing variety and affordability
Housing affordability is one of the area’s most pressing civil
priorities. Zoning regulations in the town and nearby
communities make single family houses on large lots the default
form of housing. Expensive land, high construction costs, small
builders and developers with limited resources, and zoning that
goes against current market conditions and preferences, are just
a few of the many things that undermine market rate housing
with middle income, full-time residents in mind.
The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for a wider range
of housing types at all price points – not just large, expensive
homes, student-oriented apartments and duplexes, or subsidized,
income-qualified units. The UDC can’t address all the factors
behind high housing costs in the Ithaca area. However, it can
help by making a better match between the types and settings of
housing it allows, the kinds of places where people want to live,
and what residents can afford.
Missingomiddleohousingoo
Current zoning is set up with a limited range of housing in mind
– single family houses, duplexes, and apartment complexes. It’s
possible to build other types of housing through the more
Examples of missing middle housing. (Opticos Design)
This park in Denver fronts on streets, and is part of the public
realm.
Artist's conceptions' and persuasive renderings can put
pictures of life into proposed neighborhood parks or park
malls, and verbal rationalizations can conjure up users who
ought to appreciate them, but in real life only diverse
surroundings have the practical power of inducing a natural,
continuing flow of life and use.
— Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities
36
complicated planned development zone and cluster subdivision
processes. The Town’s zoning has long been ahead of the curve
in allowing accessory units.
The Comprehensive Plan aims to fill the “missing middle”
between those housing types. Missing middle housing types
include smaller bungalows and patio homes, two-flats, fourplexes,
pocket neighborhoods, live-work units, and townhouses in a
neighborhood setting. They achieve medium-density yields, and
provide high quality, marketable options that meet the changing
wants and needs of year-round residents. They’re also a key part
of building a diverse, resilient neighborhood where residents can
age in place. The UDC should foster missing middle housing,
especially in targeted TND areas, cluster subdivisions, HDR (R-S2)
and MR (R-G) zones, and existing neighborhoods near busier
roads and employment centers.
Lotosizeoandolandoareao
Current zoning sets relatively large minimum lot size or land area
requirements for each housing unit. The more land a house or
apartment needs, the higher the “hard costs” of land acquisition,
site work, construction, and road and utility improvements for
each unit. Low maximum densities with high land costs also
make it difficult, if not impossible, to build middle market housing
at a reasonable profit. The result – a developer can only make
the numbers work if they build at the high end of the market, or
get subsidies.
UDC coding should revisit minimum lot sizes and maximum
housing densities in conventional zones, to ensure middle market
housing is feasible without subsidies or tax breaks. As this report
recommended earlier, the Town should also consider wider use of
the HDR (future R-S2) zone, reconsider the current role of the
MDR (future R-S1) zone as the “default” suburban residential
zone, and make compact TND mandatory in targeted areas under
the Comprehensive Plan.o
Inclusionaryozoningo
The Comprehensive Plan recommends inclusionary zoning –
voluntary “carrots” of incentives and bonuses, and mandatory
“sticks” of required affordable units or setasides – as part of the
Town’s planning toolbox. o
Density bonuses, which raise the normal density ceiling of a site if
development includes affordable housing, are a popular “carrot”
approach. For example, regulations may award one bonus
housing unit for every two affordable units in a development. If
the normal maximum density for a zone allows 20 units on a
certain site, but a proposal includes 10 affordable units, zoning
awards two bonus units, and allows 25 units.
Inclusionary zoning is most often associated with regulations that
require a minimum percentage or number of affordable housing
units in a new development. For example, regulations may
require one affordable housing unit – usually income–qualified or
with deed restrictions that limit resale price – for every five
market rate units in a development. If a proposal includes 20
units, at least three must be affordable, and no more than 17 can
be market rate.
Because mandatory affordable housing can cut profits and
increase costs, developers often subsidize affordable units by
increasing the price of market rate units. If unchecked, this can
perpetuate the “barbell effect” in the region’s real estate market,
where middle market housing is ignored. If the UDC has
inclusionary zoning, there needs to be the right balance of
“carrot” and “stick” approaches to offset the financial mandate,
and ensure it doesn’t put up any barriers to middle market
housing.
Inclusionary zoning regulations, whether they use a voluntary,
mandatory, or mixed approach, usually address these variables.
• Level of density bonus. A bonus needs to be high enough to
make a mixed-market project more profitable than with
higher-end units alone, but with limits so they don’t favor
all-affordable over mixed-market projects.
• Percentage or number of housing units that must be
affordable.
• Minimum development size that triggers a requirement to
provide some inclusionary housing. Some communities use
cash-in-lieu-of fees, with proceeds going into a housing
fund, to prevent small, incremental projects from being a
loophole around inclusive housing requirements,
• Types of housing that are exempt from inclusionary housing.
Some examples are group housing, residential care facilities,
and extended stay lodging.
• Income level or price defined as "affordable," and buyer
qualification methods. Some regulations target income-
qualified or workforce housing, while others qualify market
rate, middle-end housing, based on what a middle-income
household in the county can reasonably afford.
• Appearance and location of inclusionary housing units.
Regulations often require qualifying units to be
indistinguishable from market-rate units, or use the same
materials and design details.
• Longevity of price restrictions attached to qualifying housing
units, and allowable appreciation, if applicable.
Income-qualifiedoandosubsidizedohousingo
The Town of Ithaca has a long history of welcoming subsidized
and income-qualified housing. However, that housing often takes
the form of physically and socially isolated complexes, with no
market rate units among them. In part, this is an unintended
result of state and federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) programs. In the Ithaca area, underlying economics
o
37
make 100% income-qualified LIHTC projects more feasible than
those with a mix of market rate and subsidized units.
The Town has little power to change state and federal affordable
housing programs, or factors making mixed-income LIHTC
projects unfeasible. UDC design and siting standards should
require better integration of all multifamily housing – regardless
of funding source – into the surrounding neighborhood fabric.
Manufacturedoandotinyohouseso
Manufactured houses, often called mobile homes, look more
house-like than the trailers of years past. However, the bulk still
have a distinctively impermanent look – low roof pitch, skirting,
odd window spacing, and lack of eaves or window trim – that
sharply contrasts with surrounding site-built and off-frame
modular houses. They’re also depreciating assets that don’t
create equity for their owners. The Comprehensive Plan doesn’t
recommend any new mobile home parks in the town. This report
doesn’t recommend allowing manufactured/mobile homes, or
similar “hudular” or “sectional ranch” houses (double-wide mobile
homes with a metal subframe, that follow local building codes
instead of HUD requirements, and which some lenders treat the
same as mobile homes), outside the MHP zone.
There is growing interest in tiny houses – very small site-built and
manufactured houses, often with whimsical or modern design. If
the UDC allows tiny houses, it should consider them an “Ithaca-
style” option in certain settings, like rural areas or bungalow
court-like groups. The UDC could define and allow certain types
of tiny houses for accessory units – at least those secured to a
permanent foundation, with fixed utilities, and without wheels or
hitches. It could also allow a tiny house on skids as a temporary
elder cottage, or for short-term residence where the occupants’
permanent house is under construction. Regulations also need to
consider state building code requirements for habitable building
area.
Tiny houses still have a limited niche. The UDC and Town policy
should not treat a tiny house as an affordable substitute for a
conventional house, townhouse, or apartment.
2.3.9 Subdivision revie reform
The current subdivision code intermingles the subdivision review
process with design standards and regulations. As section 2.1.2
of this report recommends, subdivision review procedures should
be in a larger development review chapter, separate from design
and development standards. Subdivision approval procedures
should be objective, consistent with state law, and avoid
uncertainty.
The UDC must fill in the voids of subdivision regulations –
different levels of land division, lot line adjustment, phasing, and
assurance of infrastructure improvement.
Vesting standards – the timeframe that a subdivision approval is
valid, and the conditions to make it permanent – now vary wildly
from common practice. They lock in preliminary and final plat
approvals for much longer timeframes than state law (and most
communities in New York) require, and keep moribund proposals
“active” for years. This can also cause problems if there is a rush
of preliminary subdivision applications, following current
regulations, before the Town adopts new planning regulations.
This report discusses vesting more in section 2.6.4.
Subdivisionoandolotolineoadjustmentoreviewoprocesso
The only process to divide land in the town is the formal number-
lot subdivision. All subdivisions, whether they’re conventional or
cluster, or create 50 new lots or one, require formal preliminary
and final plat approval by the Planning Board. The current
subdivision code lacks formal, separate major subdivision and
minor subdivision processes. Instead, there are two unofficial
levels of review; a combined preliminary/final plat for smaller
subdivisions, and separate preliminary and final plats for larger
projects. Staff discretion determines what projects see combined
or separate review.
Subdivision regulations are also silent on lot line adjustment, lot
consolidation, or subdivision and road vacation. The Town
Engineer reviews and approves some lot line adjustments that
staff considers “minor.” The Planning Board reviews others as a
two-lot subdivision and lot consolidation – instead of moving the
lot line, it splits one lot into two, and merges the new lot into the
neighboring lot. As with subdivision, staff discretion determines
the process.
Instead of one-size-fits-all number-lot subdivisions, the UDC
should have three levels of subdivision review and approval.
Tiny house. (Benjamin Chun)
38
• Administrative review: staff review and approval.
• Minor subdivision review: one-step (combined
preliminary/final plat) Planning Board review and approval
• Major review: two-step (separate preliminary plat and final
plat) Planning Board review and approval
The level of review should correspond with impacts or policy
implications. There must be clear criteria for what actions need
what types of approval. Criteria for review level should consider:
• Number of lots.
• Lot configuration.
• Lot location, zone, and frontage type.
• Need for new roads or infrastructure.
• Time between other subdivision requests on the same site or
lot.
• Buildout plan and existing neighborhood infill.
• Buildable lot versus utility lot.
• Decreased development potential in suburban and TND
areas.
Criteria for lot line adjustment should consider:
• Lot area or percentage affected.
• Lot configuration.
• Decreased development potential in suburban and TND
areas, or agricultural production area.
• Right-of-way, or civic or open space involved.
Review processes should also address vacating subdivisions and
rights-of-way.
Phasingoandoperformanceoguaranteeso
Current subdivision regulations allow subdivision phasing plans,
showing groups of lots to be approved as separate final
subdivisions over time. However, unofficial Town policy
discourages utility and infrastructure phasing. The outcome
favors small, scattered projects over larger projects. With the
town’s moderate growth rate, and small builders and developers
with limited resources, this policy makes it impractical to plan for
or build all the infrastructure for a larger subdivision or new
neighborhood at one time. Small builders have more exposure to
financial risk that could leave subdivisions abandoned after
recording.
Utility and infrastructure phasing makes it more feasible to build
a centrally planned new neighborhood, because capital
investment is also phased, and the time to recoup an initial
investment is much shorter. Developers have less exposure to
financial risk, because their money is invested for a small number
of lots or units for more immediate sale; not infrastructure that
will sit dormant for many years.
Current regulations allow platting and recording subdivisions with
no guarantee of future improvements. For final subdivisions, the
Planning Board now imposes a standard condition that the Town
won’t issue building permits on any lots until roads and utilities
are in place. Because any recorded tax parcel can feasibly be
bought and sold, the Town is exposed to the many problems of a
“paper subdivision” with unfinished or defective improvements.
Most communities require a developer to build infrastructure
upfront, or obtain a performance guarantee – financial assurance
to cover the cost of building roads, infrastructure, and other
improvements – before recording a subdivision. With a
performance guarantee, when improvements aren’t complete by
a certain time, or they are substandard, the community enforces
the guarantee, and uses the funds to finish or fix the
infrastructure. If the developer finishes all improvements
properly and on time, the community releases its interest and
returns the bond.
Performance guarantees have more benefits and fewer
shortcomings than building permit holds. Their use follows state
law, ensures timely completion of improvements, discourages
“dollar and a dream” projects with little or no financial backing,
avoids the future burdens of paper subdivisions, and addresses
the perceived risk of subdivision phasing.
A clear phasing process, set timeframes for vesting (see section
2.6.4), and performance guarantees, are critical for building the
interconnected, mixed use neighborhoods the Plan envisions. It
also ensures local builders and developers can take part. Without
phasing and performance guarantees, the current pattern of
scattered small subdivisions, along with the risk of paper
subdivisions, will continue.
Subdivisionoimprovementsoandoperformanceoguaranteeso–o
howoitoworkso
1: The Planning Board approves the preliminary subdivision.
2: The applicant requests final subdivision approval for a) the
entire project, or b) a smaller phase.
3: The Planning Board approves the final subdivision, with a
condition that it will record the plat when a) the applicant
improves the lots and builds all the needed infrastructure, or
b) gets a performance guarantee.
4a: If the applicant makes all the improvements, the Town
signs and records the subdivision.
4b: If the applicant gets a performance guarantee, the Town
signs and records the final subdivision. If they do not make
improvements in a certain time, the Town executes the
guarantee, and uses the funds to build the improvements.
o
39
Site design and development 2.4
There is growing concern about how development affects not just
traffic, water pressure, or the environment, but also character.
There is no consensus about what defines character. However,
character isn’t static – it evolves and develops over time,
reflecting the spectrum of social values in and around the
community.
People want to live and work in communities that are appealing
and attractive; that look and feel like someplace, not anyplace.
It’s one of the many reasons why Ithaca is growing. Under
today’s planning regulations, new development shapes the
character of the town. The UDC should do the opposite, and
shape new development by building on the more endearing
aspects of Ithaca’s character. It should let Ithaca evolve and
grow, while still “keeping it Ithaca.”
2.4.1 orm-based regulations
The idea of form-based zoning is getting a lot of attention in
Ithaca, along with many other communities. The Comprehensive
Plan recommends form-based regulations, and describes its
advantages over conventional zoning. How do form-based
regulations work, though? How are they different than the way
we do things now?
All zoning regulations have the intent of protecting the health,
safety, appearance, and general welfare of a community.
Conventional and form-based zoning use different approaches to
accomplish it.
honventionalobulk,olot,oandobuildingotypeoregulations
Conventional (or Euclidean) zoning, like what the Town has now,
focuses on individual lots, and the location, intensity, and impacts
of uses on them. It accommodates different uses by separating
and buffering them from each other, and limiting them to certain
areas or zones. It arose to address the uncertainty of unregulated
development in the early 20th century, and the impact of noxious
uses and overcrowded housing on public safety and quality of life.
Conventional zoning works well at keeping incompatible uses
apart. However, its physical outcome can be unpredictable, and
use land inefficiently. One reason is because dimensional
requirements usually have either minimums or maximums,
instead of an acceptable range. For example, the MDR-Medium
Density Residential zone has a minimum lot size of 15,000’², but
no maximum. This allows development at a much lower density
than what the Comprehensive Plan envisions, or what the site can
carry. The result can be higher per-lot road and utility line costs,
lower public transit viability, expanded urban sprawl, and lower
potential tax revenue per acre.
Bulkoattributeo honventionalozoningo Form-basedozoningo
Buildingotypeo n/a Range of specific building types allowed in the zone. Setbacks and
lot coverage requirements may be different for some building types.
Buildingofrontosetbacko Minimum setback from front property line;
no maximum.
Build-to area: minimum/maximum front setback range.
Buildingosideosetbacko Minimum setback from side property line;
no maximum.
Minimum setback from side property line; influenced by frontage
buildout requirement.
Buildingorearosetbacko Minimum setback from rear property line;
no maximum.
Minimum setback from rear property line, exception for attached
alley-loaded garages.
Buildingofrontageoo n/a Minimum/maximum width of the build-to area that must be
occupied by the building façade.
Buildingoheighto Maximum height in feet; no minimum. Minimum/maximum stories above ground
Buildingoorientationo n/a Requirement that façades must face a street, courtyard, or other
public space. May require certain façade features (front porch,
storefront, etc.) depending on zone and street type.
Lotosizeo Minimum lot size. Minimum/maximum lot size.
Lotowidtho Minimum lot width; no maximum. Minimum/maximum lot width at build-to area. Maximum may be
higher for civic uses.
Lotodeptho Minimum lot depth; no maximum. Minimum/maximum lot depth, maximum ratio of width to depth.
Maximum may be higher for civic uses.
Housingodensityo Maximum housing units or lots per acre; no
minimum.
Minimum/maximum of potential principal housing units per acre.
Must develop or subdivide to at least the minimum density.
40
In form-based regulations, standards for building placement and
height, and lot size and dimensions, have both minimums and
maximums. For example, instead of a minimum front yard
setback, form-based regulations have a build-to area, with
minimum and maximum setbacks. In more urban zones, form-
based regulations may also have built frontage or street wall
standards, requiring façades to stretch across a minimum width
of the build-to area. This helps create “outdoor rooms” that
attract more activity than more broken-up streetscapes.
Fixed ranges offer more predictability about how development
looks, feels, and fits in with its surroundings. A fixed range of
residential lot sizes and densities ensures more efficient use of
land and utilities; and that development can reach a critical mass
that will support nearby public transportation and main street
retail. The table on the last page describes how form-based
regulations deal with bulk, compared to conventional zoning.
Many form-based codes have a list of allowed building types for
each zone. Bulk standards may vary for different building types
in some codes; for example, setbacks for a house with a small
storefront might differ from a single family house, even in the
same zone. Some codes require regulating plans to assign
certain building types for each lot.
Some form-based codes also regulate frontage types. A public
frontage is the treatment of land between a front lot line and
street. A private frontage is the area between a front lot line and
façade. The SmartCode template describes several private
frontage types, such as common yard, porch and fence, and
shopfront.
Form-based regulations can be clearer than conventional zoning
regulations. However, they can have a steep learning curve,
because their approach is different from the basic minimums,
maximums, and exceptions of conventional zoning.
A hybrid approach balances conventional and form-based zoning
models. It uses form-based standards in new mixed use
neighborhoods, and conventional standards in areas keeping a
vehicle-oriented suburban or rural character. Hybrid codes are a
practical way to implement form-based regulations, yet avoid
creating nonconformities in areas unlikely to change. The UDC
should use form-based standards for TND transect zones, and
pocket neighborhood development. Standards should be simple,
with base bulk and lot requirements and allowed building types
for each zone, and exceptions only for certain building types
(civic, single story shopfront, and shopfront, and mixed use; see
below). Building height should be based on stories above grade.
Building types in TND areas should reflect Upstate New York’s
traditional villages and pre-1940 suburban neighborhoods. These
are examples of building types that can be part of TND-based
new neighborhoods.
• Detached house: house in individual lot with yards on all
sides. May include two-flats and side-by-side duplexes, if
the zone allows double unit housing.
• Duplex house: Building with two principal housing units,
located on separate floors (two-flat) or side-by-side (semi-
detached).
• Cottage court: five to ten detached houses arranged around
a common courtyard.
• Attached house: three to six dwelling units, with each unit
sharing one or two common side walls (townhouse), or
freestanding but designed to touch a similar building on one
or two side walls (rowhouse).
• Mullti-unit house: building in the form of a detached house
with one entrance visible from the street, and three or four
principal housing units.
• Apartment building: building with three or more units.
• Open market structure: unenclosed permanent structure that
accommodates a public marketplace.
• Mixed use storefront building: building that accommodates
ground floor commercial uses with a storefront, and
residential, commercial, and/or office uses on upper floors.
Permitted building types in the Malta, New York downtown form-
based code.
The opposite of bad development is good development, not
no development.
– Padriac Steinschneider (architect)
o
41
• Commercial storefront building: one story building that
accommodates commercial uses, with a storefront.o
• Commercial building: building that accommodates,
commercial, office, or employment uses.
• Civic building: building designed to stand apart from its
surroundings, which accommodates civic, institutional, or
public uses (community center, school, place of worship,
etc.).
The UDC should require mandatory storefront frontage areas in
neighborhood regulating plans.
The UDC can use some elements of form-based regulations in
conventional zones. Zones in areas targeted for conventional
suburban development – the equivalent of MDR, HDR, and MR
zones in Established Neighborhood areas – should have both
minimum and maximum residential lot sizes and/or densities.
This lessens possible sprawl from underdevelopment. Building
height standards should regulate stories, not feet above a
basement floor or lowest grade.
2.4.2 Conventional development and site
planning
Basic bulk (setbacks and building height), buffer, and riparian
(stream setback) standards now govern site planning. The intent
of bulk standards is to reduce potential conflicts between
neighboring uses. Beyond that, the outcome is less predictable.
The current zoning code has some approval criteria for projects
needing formal site plan review, but they’re open-ended about
what might be “adequate” or “compatible”, and have few ties to
prescriptive standards.
Even with a new focus on form-based zoning and TND, it’s
important that UDC standards pay equal attention to areas that
will retain a rural or suburban character, and the zoning that goes
along with it. UDC drafting should rationalize bulk and site
planning standards across the various conventional zones.
Standards should promote more efficient land use, promote
higher quality development that respects and reinforces the
town’s sense of place, and discourage less attractive and less
enduring alternatives.
Buildingoheight
The current zoning code has an unusual method of determining
maximum building height. It considers height from the lowest
interior grade (usually 38’), lowest exterior grade (usually 36’),
and total building height (usually 30’). Under this unusual
approach, the presence or lack of a basement in a building can
affect its permitted maximum height.
Most zoning codes use one of three ways to set maximum
building height.
• Average height: average grade (average of the lowest and
highest points where a building touches the ground), to the
top of the roof. For buildings with peaked roofs, the “top” is
the average of the eave and ridge heights.
• Parallel plane: vertical height from the ground to a projected
plane above the same point.
• Stories: number of stories on the front façade, as seen from
the street. The area under a peaked or mansard roof is a
half story. Basements count as a story unless most of it is
above grade at the front.
The UDC should regulate height by stories in residential zones
and TND areas, and by average height or parallel plane in other
zones. The parallel plane method is well suited to very steep
sites, like those found in the LR/Lakefront Residential (R-L) zone.
Height limits also need to address exceptions for building types
and features that might break the height plane, like agricultural
and civic buildings, chimneys, turrets, and steeples.
Setbacks
Setbacks create separation from lot lines, and define a building
envelope where structures and site features can go on a site.
UDC standards should consider current setback requirements,
how they align to the existing built environment, broader
planning goals and public benefits, and the underlying realities of
building and development.
In some zones, setback requirements are underlain with
confusing provisos, exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions.
These tangled standards can create unintended results. For
example, in the MDR zone, the minimum side yard setback for a
house is 15’, but only 10’ for a side with an attached garage –
even if second floor living space extends over it. The result is a
setback bonus for snout houses with visually dominant garages,
and a penalty for houses with no attached garage.
The UDC should untangle and simplify principal building, garage,
and accessory structure setback and coverage requirements.
There should be special standards for sites with steep slopes up
or down from the street, to avoid setback variances. Lakefront
and stream setback requirements would be included among other
setback and site planning standards.
In some zones, the current zoning code set higher setback
requirements than in the previous code. The change left many
existing buildings with nonconforming setbacks, and shrank
building envelopes on many lots. The numerous variance
requests for building setback and height are an indicator that
there’s room for adjusting current setback requirements.
42
UDC setback standards should consider the more permissive
previous setback requirements from previous codes, and the
nature of approved variances. This can reduce nonconformities,
and better accommodate the reasonable needs of homeowners.
A side benefit is fewer variance requests. There should also be
exceptions for certain building features, like bay windows,
covered and uncovered porches and decks, and eaves.
Siteoplanningoinogeneralo
Site planning standards do more than just regulate building
setbacks and height. They should guide compositional elements
on a site – buildings, paving, planting, and landform. They
address aspects of design like context, scale, circulation,
connectivity, and outdoor space. They also provide fair, objective
standards for decision-making.
Site planning standards usually addresses:
• 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.
Keepingoitocomplicatedo
These are setback requirements for the MDR/Medium Density Residential zone (minimum lot size: 15,000’²) in the current zoning code.
This translation into plain English doesn’t make them less complex.
Principalobuildingosetbackso
• Frontosetbacks:
◦ Default: average of the front setbacks of both neighboring houses as a minimum ( (neighbor A + neighbor B) ÷ 2).
◦ If the setback average of both neighboring houses is less than 25': 25' minimum.
◦ If the setback average of both neighboring houses is more than 50': 50' minimum.
◦ If the house has an attached one story garage: 25' minimum to the front of the garage.
◦ The Zoning Code is unclear about front setbacks when there are there are no neighboring houses to form a basis for an average
The first houses on a block could set the “base” minimum that other houses (without attached garages) must follow.
• Sideosetback:
◦ Default: 15' minimum.
◦ For a house with an attached one story garage: 10' minimum to the side of the garage, if that side lot line isn't a street line.
• Rearosetback: 30' minimum.
• Stream/riparian setbacks (Zoning Code §270-219.5) and permitted yard projections into setback limits (§270-224) also apply. There’s no
cross-reference to these standards.
• Front, side, and rear yard setbacks on "publicly owned properties or properties of universities, colleges, cemeteries, or other private
institutions” on 6+ acre sites traversed by interior roads or driveways apply "only along the exterior public street frontages and
boundaries with adjacent properties."
Accessoryobuildingosetbackso
• Siting: Rear yard only, except for a detached accessory unit/elder cottage (not in any required front yard), garages, woodsheds. o
• Frontosetback:
◦ For a detached garage: 25' minimum.
◦ For a detached one story garage for 1-2 cars on a lot with a 8°+ average slope from the street: 5' minimum from the street line, with
Zoning Board approval (variance process required, even with no variance from zoning standards).
◦ Other accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard.
• Sideosetback:
◦ Default: 3'.
◦ For a detached garage or accessory unit/elder cottage: 15' minimum.
◦ For a detached one-story garage: 10' minimum on one side, if that side lot line isn't a street line.
◦ For a detached one-story garage in the rear yard: 5' minimum on one side, if that side lot line isn't a street line.
◦ A detached one-story garage serving two lots can be built over a side lot line, with a party wall agreement.
◦ For a detached one-story garage for 1-2 cars on a lot with a 8°+ average slope from the street: 0' minimum, with Zoning Board
approval.
• Rearosetback:
◦ Default: 3' minimum.
◦ For a corner lot: ≥5' minimum.
◦ For a detached one-story garage: ≥5' minimum.
◦ For a detached two-story garage: ≥30' minimum.
o
43
• 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.
Residentialositeoplanningo
Residential site planning standards consider the relation of
buildings and projects to each other, to build neighborhoods that
are more cohesive. Because neighborhood and subdivision
design standards cover lot, street, and open space arrangement,
standards for detached houses are usually simple.
• Building siting and orientation: in neighborhood settings,
require façades to face the street. Ban accessory houses in
front of the façade.
• Parking: limit parking coverage in front of the façade.
Multifamily and cluster site planning standards guide design to
make a project feel and function as part of a larger
neighborhood, rather than an isolated complex. Site planning
standards should address:
• Building siting and orientation: require façades to face a
perimeter street, internal drive, or courtyard open to either.
Ban frontage on a parking lot, or turning the back end to a
street.
• Building massing: limit building footprint, so their scale isn’t
imposing. For residential care facilities, require splitting
larger buildings into smaller wings with connecting
breezeways.
• Building setbacks: discourage deep setbacks that disconnect
a project from the rest of the neighborhood.
• Common and open space: require a certain percentage of
the site to be functional common or open space, amassed
into compact, physically and visually accessible areas – not
scattered strips or no-man’s lands.
• Circulation and connectivity: require stubouts for connecting
to future development, and integrating internal drives into
the larger neighborhood street network. Require sidewalks
along all street frontages, walkways linking to the
development, and internal walkways connecting to all
building entrances. Prohibit gates and perimeter walls.
• Parking: require parking courts, and rows of head-in spaces
from internal drives, to be small and scattered, to create a
more walkable neighborhood feel. Require orientation or
location of parking courts at the rear or side of buildings.
Allow on-street parallel parking.
hommercialoandoindustrialositeoplanningo
The town doesn’t have much commercial zoned land, but what’s
there is quite visible, along Danby Road (NY 96B) and Elmira
Road (NY 13/34). Current zoning regulations offer few
protections or design standards for retail and commercial and
office development. The outcome can lack the basic features that
make a community attractive and reinforce its sense of place.
With only basic setback, lot coverage, and parking area
requirements to guide site planning, the Town depends on
negotiation or developer willingness to achieve quality
development. To address this, the UDC needs site planning
standards that apply to all new commercial development outside
of TNDs. Standards should address:
Rural commercial site planning standards in the Brattleboro, Vermont land use code.
44
• Building siting and orientation: orient main building and
storefront entries to perimeter streets, internal drives, or
public spaces open to either. Require as much building
width as possible at the front of a lot, to maximize front
facade exposure. Prohibit street-facing rear or side walls
with no main building entry or storefronts, and street-facing
garage doors.
• Building massing: limit building footprint. Break up long
walls along streets and in other visible areas.
• Building setbacks: require building mass to be as close to
the street as possible, to define the street edge; and as near
an intersection as possible, to anchor the lot.
• Common and open space: require open space to be as
contiguous, and physically and visually accessible, as
possible.
• Circulation and connectivity: locate sidewalks along all street
frontages, walkways linking them to main building entries,
and internal walkways connecting to all building entrances.
Build stubout provisions to neighboring sites.
• Parking: locate and orient parking lots towards the rear or
side of buildings. Require off-street parking to be behind
the front building façade.
• Service areas: hide loading docks, service and utility areas,
and dumpsters from the street and neighboring properties.
2.4.3 Architectural design
The Town has no architectural design standards, and only limited
power to control what new buildings look like. Planning staff, the
Planning Board, and applicants often negotiate the architectural
design of proposed buildings.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends adopting architectural
standards. Many communities use architectural standards as a
tool to ensure buildings have a human scale, reinforce community
identity, and create a built environment with a timeless appeal.
Prescriptiveovsoqualitativeostandardso
There are two basic approaches to architectural standards.
Qualitative standards depend more on abstract concepts like
compatibility and appropriateness. They often mandate certain
architectural styles; Craftsman, Queen Anne, Greek Revival, and
so on. Prescriptive or quantitative standards use specific
requirements to produce quality structures, regardless of
architectural style. Prescriptive standards usually address
• Building materials, color and texture.
• Building proportions.
• Openings in the façade: doors, windows, and garage doors,
and their location, amount, size, proportions, and trim.
Successful communities have high expectations. They know
that community identity is more important than corporate
design policy.
— Ed McMahon, Scenic America
Snout houses with protruding garages, on-frame modular houses that look identical to double-wide mobile homes, utilitarian apartment
buildings, and street-facing blank walls show the need for residential architectural standards.
o
45
• Roof type and slope.
• Wall projections and recesses.
• Architectural details.
Under qualitative standards, review and decision making can be
subjective and arbitrary. They are also vulnerable to legal
challenges for being vague4.
Architectural standards should be prescriptive, with clear
standards that aren’t subject to different interpretations, and few
or no discretionary requirements. Town staff can interpret
prescriptive architectural standards, as they do with other
dimensional requirements in a code. This will make architectural
review fast and predictable. Prescriptive standards are also
legally defensible, and ensure creative freedom in design.
Reasonable architectural standards should apply to new
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings; and major
expansion of nonresidential buildings. Architectural standards
should be more flexible for civic and institutional buildings; and
exempt agricultural buildings. Standards should consider the
high cost of construction in the Ithaca area, and their possible
impact on housing affordability. However, high construction
costs should not justify low-quality materials, utilitarian design, or
odd proportions.
Housesoandoresidentialobuildingso
Since the 1950s, modern materials and construction techniques
changed how homes are built, and how they look. “Snout
houses” with visually predominant garage doors, and “vinyl
boxes” with few architectural details, have spurred many
communities to adopt residential architectural standards.
Because a home can be an expression of the owner’s personal
tastes and individuality, architectural standards for residential
4 Regan, Kenneth. 1990. You Can’t Build That Here: The Constitutionality
of Aesthetic Zoning and Architectural Review. New York, Fordham Law
Review 53 1013-1031.
buildings cover some different aspects of design than standards
for non-residential buildings.
Residential architectural standards in the UDC should address:
• Four-sided design: require all elevations to have the same
materials and design details as the front. Set a minimum
window and door opening area, and trim level, for all walls.
• Front-loading garages: limit width along and protrusion
from the front façade, to prevent snout houses.
• Roofs: on buildings with pitched roofs, require a dominant
slope of at least 4:12 (a common standard in areas with
heavy snowfall and rainfall), and eaves at least 1’.
• Diversity and harmony: for detached houses, require a
different model across the street and on neighboring lots.
• Multifamily buildings: require architecturally integral
screening of mechanical equipment and trash enclosures.
Avoid large forms and masses.
Vinyl siding is common in the Ithaca area, especially on newer
site-built and modular houses. Concerns about its durability,
environmental impacts, and synthetic appearance make its use
controversial. Many communities ban vinyl siding in historic
districts, and a growing number prohibit it for all new
construction. Some allow new vinyl siding only if it’s a higher
grade (.046” or .050” “thick residential” or “architectural” grade),
or it replaces existing vinyl, aluminum, or asphalt siding.
The idea of a total ban on vinyl siding needs to be weighed
against the slightly higher cost of other siding options. (The
installed cost of vinyl siding is about 10% to 30% less than fiber
cement siding.) Alternatives to a ban include wall articulation and
trim requirements to prevent a flat “plastic box” look for new
houses, limiting vinyl siding to higher grades, and mandatory
recycling after removal.
Examples of undesirable non-residential architecture: basic metal building, windowless shed, corporate trade dress.
46
Mixedouseoandononresidentialobuildings
Commercial and industrial buildings in the town tend to be
utilitarian, or follow a standard corporate template. Fortunately,
they’re contained to the town’s limited commercial and industrial
zoned areas. Proliferation of “trade dress” architecture and
featureless metal buildings in surrounding areas offers a warning
– design with just branding or low cost in mind can bring long-
term harm to the town’s sensitive visual environment.
Mixed use, commercial, and industrial buildings in the town
should age gracefully and keep their functionality into the distant
future. Architectural standards will help ensure new buildings are
human-scaled, and contribute to Ithaca’s desired character and
sense of place.
Architectural standards for mixed use and commercial buildings
should address:
• Four-sided design: require all outside walls to have the same
materials and design details as the façade.
• Exterior walls: require a recognizable base and top on
facades and walls. Require division of walls to human scale
proportions with projections and recesses, material changes,
and similar design details.
• Building entrances: require a sheltering element to define a
main building entrance.
• Wall openings: require a high window-to-wall ratio on
façade and side walls.
• Roofs: require roof forms to correspond to building
elements, tenant spaces, and functions. Limit roofline plane.
Require a slope of at least 4:12, and an overhang of at least
1’, for pitched roofs.
• Materials: allow material or color changes only at a change
of plane or reveal line. Ban plywood siding, unfinished
block, and pre-engineered metal buildings.
• Screening: require integral screening of mechanical and
utility equipment; and trash, loading and storage areas.
Standards for industrial buildings should address the following:
• Four-sided design: require all outside walls to have the same
materials and design details as on the façade.
Examples of desirable industrial and commercial architecture in a suburban setting.
o
47
• Exterior walls: require projections, recesses, and/or material
changes to avoid long blank walls.
• Building entrances: require entrances to be clearly defined,
recessed, or framed by a sheltering element. Require garage
doors to face away from streets.
• Materials: allow material and color changes only at a change
of plane or reveal line. Prohibit plywood siding. If the UDC
allows pre-engineered metal buildings, require finished and
articulated outside walls, and other details to prevent a
utilitarian pole barn or shed-like appearance.
• Screening: require screening of mechanical and utility
equipment, dumpster areas, and loading and storage areas.
• Visibility: higher standards for buildings that are visible from
the street or neighboring non-industrial sites.
Regulating building color can be a touchy issue. In a walkable
urban setting, bright or strong colors can be a whimsical and
welcome addition to the streetscape. In a suburban setting,
people might see the same colors as garish, especially if they
relate to corporate branding.
In conventional commercial and industrial zones, standards
should have more control over color, with bright colors limited to
accents or a small percentage of a surface area. Some codes
define color ranges with the Munsell color system, because it’s
based on how people see colors – dark to light (value), and
muted to vivid (chroma).
Zone-specificostandardso
As with site design standards, architectural standards must
consider setting and context. Some codes have less restrictive
standards in TND or form-based areas, only regulating features
critical to building a human scaled, pedestrian-friendly
environment, and easing the public’s acceptance of mixed uses.
In the Inlet Valley area, architectural standards should reinforce a
more rural character, by requiring pitched roofs, large eaves and
overhangs, granular natural materials (board-and-batten siding,
brick, stone), and a high window-to-wall ratio.
2.4.4 Landscaping
A deep connection to the natural landscape is a cornerstone of
Ithaca’s community identity. However, the lack of meaningful
landscaping standards doesn’t reflect it.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends broader-ranging, more
specific landscaping standards. Landscaping requirements help
to integrate the built and natural environments, retain natural
processes that could potentially be lost during development, and
reinforce the town’s identity as an environmentally aware
community.
Siteolandscapingo
The current zoning code has only very basic landscaping
requirements. There are no set standards for required landscape
areas, maintenance, or type, amount, or placement of plants.
Many requirements are open-ended and subjective, calling for
“adequate” or “suitably planted” areas with no specific details.
Some requirements are applied at the Planning Board’s
discretion. Planning staff, developers, and the Planning Board
often negotiate landscaping on a case-by-case basis.
The UDC would be incomplete without clearly defined
landscaping standards. Prescriptive standards let Town staff
review landscaping plans, reducing the uncertainty of case-by-
case negotiation and discretionary review.
Landscaping standards should address:
• Planting density: minimum number of tall/canopy trees,
short/decorative trees and shrubs on a lot or site, based on
lot or site area. Require groundcover or mulch, to prevent
blowing dust.
• Location: clear vision area protection, and plant distribution
throughout a site.
• Species: acceptable tall/canopy tree, short/decorative tree,
and shrub species, along with banned nuisance tree and
shrub species. Encourage native and adapted species, and
prohibit invasive species.
• Quality: minimum size for required planting materials (trees:
diameter at breast height, shrubs: gallons). Require
landscape plants to be defect-free, and of normal health,
height, leaf density and spread for the species.
• Maintenance: require landscape plants and areas to be free
from disease, pests, weeds and litter. Require immediate
Design details such as, pitched roofs, dark earth tone colors, and
individual windows help reinforce rural character.
Bringing nature back into the city is a way to deal with urban
sprawl. If cities feel a little more natural, people like to live
there rather than moving out and dividing up another piece
of land that shouldn't be touched.
— Stone Gossard, lead guitarist for Pearl jam
48
replacement of sick or dead plants. Prohibit parking,
storage, or displays in designated landscape areas.
• Function: require landscaping that works as part of a site’s
stormwater management system.
• Performance guarantee: require landscaping to be complete,
or secured with a letter of credit, escrow, or performance
bond, before issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Requirements for surface parking lots should also address:
• Area: minimum landscaping or green area inside a parking
lot, based on parking lot area (ideally 10% - 20% of the lot
area). Require landscape buffers and snow push zones
around the parking lot, with depth based on context and
nearby features (buildings, streets and sidewalks, etc.).
• Location: require landscape islands with canopy trees at each
end of a parking row. Require landscape islands to break up
long parking rows (ideally every 10 spaces or fewer). As an
alternative, require landscape strips between parking rows,
with regularly spaced canopy trees.
• Screening: require an opaque screen (wall or shrubbery
hedge, ideally ≥3’ tall) along a parking lot edge where it
faces a street, sidewalk, park, or residential area, to soften
visual impact.
Snow removal does not justify having little or no interior
landscaping in a parking lot. Rain gardens and push zones, with
flush or rollover curbs and hardy salt-resistant plants, can store
and filter snow.
Landscaping standards should promote local food production,
and celebrate Ithacans’ love of gardening. The UDC should allow
naturalistic and cottage gardens, food gardens, raised beds, and
xeriscape anywhere, including front yards, as long as they are well
tended.
Bufferingoandoscreening
Buffer requirements as general conditions for uses and buildings
in a zone, and for specific uses, are located throughout the
current zoning and subdivision codes. They are typical of older
codes, which consider more intensive uses as potential nuisances
that must be screened from less intensive uses.
Buffer requirements are silent on amount, placement, and type of
plants or other features. Requirements are often subjective, or
applied at the Planning Board’s discretion.
Buffers are useful for screening and separating noxious uses, and
their impacts, from residential and natural areas. However,
current buffer regulations group multi-family housing with
commercial and industrial uses, as a possible nuisance to lower
density residential areas. They intend to provide green areas in
new development, but the result is often fragmented strips, with
little environmental or recreational value. They can also make it
difficult to create more interconnected and walkable
neighborhoods.
Buffering requirements that protect natural assets, and insulate
neighborhoods from industrial and vehicle-oriented uses, should
be part of the UDC. Buffering and screening requirements for
parking and service areas, and mechanical and utility equipment,
should be thorough. A set of four or more standard buffer types
with specific bufferyard area, planting, and fencing requirements
– a feature in many newer codes – clarifies requirements and
reduces redundancy.
The UDC should use context-based site planning, not buffers and
separation, to achieve compatibility between different levels of
residential density. In mixed use TND areas, different kinds and
levels of land use should be close to one another. Buffer
requirements in TND areas should focus on parking and service
area screening, utility and equipment screening, and natural
resource protection.
Streetotrees
The current zoning and subdivision codes are silent on street
trees. Streets built under the Town’s exurban-oriented design
Many newer zoning codes, like the Buffalo Green Code, define standard buffer types.
o
49
standards, with soft shoulders and roadside ditches, can’t easily
accommodate street trees.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends street tree planting, citing
the many benefits they bring: a more walkable streetscape,
psychological traffic calming, stormwater control, and heat island
reduction.
Updated street design standards should require tree lawn or tree
well areas for street trees on new and rebuilt roads (see section
2.3.5). Minimum street tree spacing should be close enough to
provide a full canopy at maturity.
Having a wide variety of street tree species and cultivars creates
visual interest and a diverse wildlife habitat, and makes an urban
forest more resilient to disease and storm damage. Street tree
species should have these traits.
• Native or adapted to upstate New York. Not invasive or
exotic, or a species with an uncertain future (for example,
ash).
• Mature height of 35’-40’ or taller, with a crown that can
grow to shade a sidewalk and street. Shorter trees may be
appropriate for narrower median strips, or denser areas
where taller buildings will front the sidewalk.
• Downward-oriented, well behaved root system.
• Salt tolerant.
• Not brittle or prone to dropping heavy fruit.
Treeopreservation,oremoval,oandoreplacement
The current zoning code frames tree preservation regulations in a
rural context of forest management and timber harvesting. These
regulations apply only in the C-Conservation zone. Stream
setback areas, stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs),
and negotiated site plan conditions address tree clearing to some
extent in other zones.
Ithaca’s broad range of natural and human habitats complicate
the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation of tree preservation,
clearing, and replanting standards. In rural areas, woodlots are a
fuel source to some residents, and an income stream to owners of
otherwise vacant property. In areas targeted for TND, stressing
tree preservation over other aspects of good design could
undermine the Plan’s vision of building more compact and
walkable neighborhoods.
Rural and settled areas each need different approaches to tree
preservation. In more densely settled areas, regulations should
balance tree preservation with the need to create walkable
communities. In rural areas, regulations should focus on natural
resource stewardship.
Tree preservation requirements for suburban and urban areas
should address:
• Protected class trees: usually defined as healthy native and
adapted deciduous trees with a diameter at breast height
The New Albany, Ohio urban center code considers street trees in their street design standards.
50
(DBH) above a certain size, and trees required by
landscaping standards.
• Removal: require replacement of or compensation5 for
removed protected class trees, based on number and DBH.
Allow removal of nuisance and exotic trees, dead and
diseased trees, trees in fire barrier areas, and trees under a
certain diameter anytime. Don’t allow tree removal beyond
a point where a site won’t meet minimum landscaping
standards.
• Land development: require a tree inventory, and protection
and replacement plan, for development of forested land.
Require a protection zone around trees and stands during
construction.
2.4.5 Parking
Ithaca is a suburban community where most residents depend on
their cars for everyday transportation. Thus, parking plays a
central role in shaping the built environment. However, current
zoning regulations for docks and solar panels are longer and
more detailed than for parking. Current parking regulations don’t
go far beyond the basics of minimum spaces. They require large
areas for parking lots that seldom fill up, but have few standards
to guide their design or appearance.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the effects of parking on
neighborhood character, water quality, and the urban
microclimate, and recommends reducing its physical and
environmental footprint. The UDC should reflect these goals, and
require parking to fit in with its surroundings, lay light on the
landscape, and use land more efficiently. Off-street parking
should not drive site planning.
Numberoofospaceso
It’s a challenge to find the right balance between requiring too
few parking spaces, and too many. Many communities, including
the Town, err on the high side.
The biggest problems of inadequate parking are finding empty
spaces, and spillover onto nearby lots or streets – both
bothersome, but usually short-term. More long-term harm
comes from standards based on “easy parking” or “10 year
parking events.” The resulting expanses of seldom-used
pavement carry a high cost – increased stormwater runoff and
heat island effects, higher land acquisition and building costs, and
decreased yield and potential property tax base.
5 Recompense: dollar amount assigned to give value to a natural
resource.
Parking requirements must consider both the reality of Ithaca’s
suburban environment, and what’s reasonable to meet normal,
everyday parking needs – not worst-case scenarios or sporadic
special events. This will help moderate long-term effects of
parking on the built and natural environment, unlock parking lots
for redevelopment that doesn’t expand the area’s urban footprint,
and allow more efficient land and infrastructure use.
Parking requirements should also provide maximum
requirements – especially in TND areas – to prevent overbuilding.
Two approaches are a parking cap (many codes use twice the
minimum requirements), and stable pervious surfaces or
discretionary review above a certain ratio.
A parking schedule based on broad use categories, tied to an
allowed use table (see section 2.5.1), will make it easier for
buildings to accommodate different uses, and keep the UDC
consistent. Requirements based on fixed traits like floor area or
housing units, instead of variable traits like tables or employees,
make administration and enforcement easier. The parking
schedule should also include bicycle spaces, and terms for shared
parking between uses with different peak hours.
Parking should play a smaller role in TND areas, where
overparking can harm its walkable appeal, and reduce
development potential. The UDC can use a two-tiered approach,
with reduced minimum and maximum parking requirements in
TND areas. It should also allow credit for nearby on-street and
shared parking spaces.
The UDC should not allow park-and-ride lots in TNDs, where
most residents are close to a bus stop. Park-and-ride is a low
value use – daily parking for commuters from outlying areas – in
The more parking space, the less sense of place.
— Jane Holtz Kay, Boston Globe design critic
The parking lot at East Hill Plaza is seldom over half full.
o
51
what should otherwise be a high-value, well-developed, and
walkable neighborhood core.
Parkingodesignoandolocation
The current zoning code has very few standards for parking
design – parking space and aisle dimensions, entrances,
circulation, landscaping, and location. Developers, Planning staff,
and the Planning Board often negotiate parking details. With few
specific standards, the Town can only persuade applicants to have
well-designed and located parking areas.
The UDC should address these aspects of parking lot design.
• Dimensions: width/depth/length of parking spaces, and
drive and queuing aisles.
• Location: limit parking in front of a building.
• Size: require division of large parking areas into smaller lots,
separated by large landscape buffers or islands.
• Access: limit curb cuts and driveway width. Ban continuous
curb cuts. Require stubouts for connection to parking lots
on neighboring properties. Limit use of head-in spaces from
a public street.
• Circulation: require well-defined circulation routes for
vehicles and pedestrians. Require turn-around points at the
end of dead end rows.
• Function: require parking space marking, and solid defined
edges to the parking area. Require physical separation of
shopping cart corral areas; not metal racks in a regular
parking space. Require snow push zones.
• Electric vehicles: allow solar carports and charging stations
by right. Require charging stations in larger parking lots.
• Landscaping requirements: require internal and perimeter
landscaping. (See section 2.4.4.)
In TND areas, allowing on-street parking will reduce off-street
parking, and provide traffic calming. Off-street parking lots
should be out of sight, accessed from alleys where possible, and
designed and placed to foster street life.
Parkingosurface
Gravel and bare dirt driveways and parking lots are common
throughout Ithaca, even for more intensive uses. The current
zoning code only requires paving for drive aisles in the MHP and
MR zones, and for commercial uses. It also requires parking
“with blacktop, compacted gravel, or other dust-free material”,
but only as a condition for the Planning Board to reduce required
parking spaces” (Zoning code §270-227 A (3) e). Otherwise, the
way the code reads, a parking area that meets minimum space
requirements needs no surfacing or dust control.
Loose surfaced parking is inexpensive, and a defining feature of
rural character. However, it’s not without problems. Many lots
and driveways are little more than “parking patches”, where
parking is random, and often spills over to open areas. Snow
removal is difficult, and poor maintenance leaves lots with ruts,
weeds, and large water and mud puddles. Gravel and dirt can
run or blow off the site. They also may not comply with
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Simple design
and performance standards can address some of these issues –
curb stops to define spaces, a solid continuous edge to define
landscape areas and prevent spillover, and trackout and dust
control measures.
Properly maintained gravel lots may have some environmental
benefits over impervious pavement. However, their rustic
appearance, poor durability, and offsite impacts are inappropriate
for more intensive uses, or in built up suburban or urban settings.
The UDC should use a context-based approach that matches
parking surfaces and materials to setting and function. Parking
for more intensive uses, and in settings that are more suburban
or urban, should be hard surfaced. Loose surfaced parking is
more appropriate in rural zones and settings, and less intensive
and temporary uses. Hybrid surfaces that are porous yet stable,
Left: parking patch with a loose gravel and dirt surface, and no defined edge or marked spaces. Right: parking lot with an asphalt drive aisle,
and permeable turfblock spaces.
52
like plastic paving grids and ribbon driveways, should also be part
of the pavement palette.
2.4.6 Storm ater
Stormwater management has far-reaching impacts on site and
neighborhood design. The Town’s current approach towards
stormwater doesn’t always consider neighborhood character,
larger planning goals, or the many ways to meet state and federal
performance standards. Current standards, as they’re now
applied, unintentionally favor lower density sprawl, and impede
compact development.
The UDC should consider hydrology and engineering outcomes
with planning, placemaking, and environmental goals.
Stormwater regulations should be flexible, and open to innovative
practices that meet state performance standards. They should
favor attractive, low-maintenance facilities that fit into their
setting. Regulations should also consider stormwater
management at different scales – not just individual lots and
sites, but the neighborhood and region.
New regulations can only go so far. To make the Plan’s vision a
reality, the Town, along with area developers and engineers, also
need to think outside the detention pond.
Localostormwaterolaw
Town Code §228 acts as the Town’s local law for stormwater
management, and erosion and sediment control.
The stormwater law references the New York State Stormwater
Design Manual, the Town’s official stormwater design manual.
The manual, updated in January 2015, has a general overview of
how to select, locate, size, and design stormwater management
practices (SMPs) 6 that meet state and federal water quality
standards7.
Practices in the Stormwater Design Manual are mainly geared for
suburban greenfield development. The manual leaves room for
flexibility, recognizing that each community has different issues
and needs8. The Town’s stormwater law, like most in the state,
6 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2015.
New York State Stormwater Design Manual. 1-1
7 NYS Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) §17 (Water Pollution
Control); 6 NYCRR §700-750 (Classes and Standards of Quality and
Purity), State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program.
8 New York State Stormwater Design Manual. ii.
has a technical equivalence provision allowing SMPs that aren’t in
the manual, if their performance is verified. While uniform
management and a short menu of familiar SMPs may be easy, it
limits the types and forms of development in the town. Current
planning regulations don’t require or incentivize context-sensitive
SMPs. With land to spare, projects often fall back on cheaper and
“easier” SMPs that are more intrusive and space-intensive.
The UDC should expressly allow alternative SMPs, if an engineer
verifies performance, and the overall project complies with quality
standards. It should also favor SMPs – listed and unlisted – with
outcomes and design that best meet the Town’s planning goals.
Greenoandocontext-sensitiveopractices
The Town’s application of stormwater regulations focuses mainly
on performance and inclusion in the Stormwater Design Manual.
However, “effective” doesn’t always mean appropriate. Walkable
development suffers when “tried and true” SMPs meant for rural
or suburban areas, like detention ponds and ditches, are part of
the streetscape. They can harm walkability and connectivity, and
prevent the continuous building frontage needed for a vibrant
main street. Conversely, an overly engineered facility, like a sand
filter basin, would be out of place in a rural setting.
When drinking water, remember its source.
— Chinese proverb
Practices in the New York State Stormwater Design Manual are
oriented towards lower density suburban development.
A large swale fits into this exurban or rural setting, but it would
be out of place in a denser, more walkable neighborhood.
o
53
Different settings need different stormwater strategies. The
Comprehensive Plan recommends three alternatives to collect-
and-convey systems – green infrastructure (GI), low impact
development (LID) and light imprint new urbanism (LINU). They
all have the same goal in mind – reducing the stress of urban
development on watersheds – but take different approaches.
Green infrastructure (GI) are practices using vegetation, soils, and
natural processes – rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, and so
on – to mimic natural hydrology. GI has many environmental,
social, and economic benefits over “pipe and pit” SMPs. The
Stormwater Design Manual has a chapter on GI practices, but it’s
oriented to suburban development. As with conventional SMPs,
green infrastructure must be tailored to its setting – rural,
suburban, and urban.
Low impact development (LID) is a broader design philosophy
that aims to preserve pre-development drainage patterns, and
manage runoff at its source. It stresses conservation design,
green infrastructure, and decentralized onsite controls. LID
practices are attractive, cost effective, and usually low
maintenance. o
LID ranks hydrologic outcomes over development outcomes, and
favors lower density suburban development over TND. While LID
has practices for all types and scales of development, it’s largely
oriented to – and best suited for – rural and suburban settings
where most stormwater management is onsite.
Light imprint new urbanism (LINU) aims to create traditional,
compact urban forms that lie lightly on the land. LINU is a
response to conflicts between new urbanism design goals, and
LID and best management practices (BMPs). It balances
hydrologic and placemaking outcomes by integrating green and
conventional infrastructure practices, and new urbanism design
techniques. LINU uses practices in four categories – paving,
channeling, storage, and filtration –at the neighborhood, block,
and lot level. SMPs are context-sensitive, fitting their zone and
setting.
LINU is intended for mixed use projects with a range of transect
zones, where stormwater can be managed onsite and offsite at
different scales throughout a neighborhood. Freestanding
projects can also use the same context-sensitive approach.
Stormwater standards in the UDC shouldn’t be limited to one
“correct” approach or set of SMPs. Standards should be clear on
preferred approaches and SMPs for different zones, settings, and
types of development.
• Green infrastructure: favor natural systems, integrated
landscape features, and other green infrastructure practices
over single-purpose structural SMPs where possible. Favor
more cost-effective lower maintenance SMPs where possible.
• Low impact development (LID): for projects in a rural or
suburban setting, require stormwater management as close
to the source as possible, and site design that preserves
natural features.
• Light imprint new urbanism (LINU): for larger multi-lot
projects and new neighborhoods, allow context-sensitive
onsite SMPs, with off-lot block- and neighborhood-scale
SMPs, that don’t undermine the goals of good
neighborhood design.
• Design: favor surface SMPs that fit into and enhance their
setting.
The UDC should have a table showing SMPs that are contextually
appropriate, somewhat appropriate, and not recommended for
each zone.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report Using
Smart Growth Techniques as Stormwater Best Management
Practice has advice on integrating smart growth policies into local
stormwater regulations. This report can offer guidance for
updated regulations.
Neighborhoodoandooff-siteostormwateromanagemento
Most development projects in the town require onsite stormwater
management. The owner or developer builds and maintains their
own facilities – typically ditches, swales, ponds, and sand filters.
Onsite management has several disadvantages. Facilities on
smaller sites cost more per acre to design, build, manage than
those covering a larger area. Clay soils in much of the town can
complicate design. Where water quality in a larger drainage shed
depends on performance of private onsite facilities, neglected
upstream facilities can have harmful downstream impacts.
The site-by-site approach also puts compact development at a
disadvantage. A small building covering most of its lot will need Bioswale with curb cuts working in a more urban environment.
(Seattle Public Utilities)
54
costly SMPs – green roofs, cisterns, and above-ground tanks – to
manage stormwater onsite. Projects on larger sites with more
open space can use cheaper SMPs, like swales, rain gardens, and
ponds.
Site-by-site review was the most common way to address
stormwater, because it mirrors the town’s growth pattern –
fragmented land ownership, incremental development, and small
projects. However, this approach will make it difficult to build
even moderately dense new neighborhoods.
With site boundaries being all-important to stormwater
regulation, the UDC should consider new TND and pocket
neighborhoods as “sites” and “project areas” in their own right,
Salon de Refuses proposal, Katy, Texas. Stormwater infrastructure incorporated into street types calibrated to the transect. (Dreiling Terrones
Architecture and Crabtree Group)
Buildingoandomanagingoneighborhoodostormwateroinfrastructureo
Planning for neighborhood-scale stormwater management is one thing. Implementing it is quite another. Zoning doesn’t cover the
intricacies of funding, managing, and maintaining stormwater systems. Still, those details are important pieces of a larger development
puzzle.
Neighborhood stormwater facilities may need to be in place ahead of future development. However, limited resources of local
developers, and the area’s slow but steady growth rate, complicate building a full neighborhood-scale system upfront.
There are some models for building and managing neighborhood-scale systems that could work for Ithaca.
•ooPhasing: A developer designs the complete system, but it’s built in phases, as the neighborhood grows. This is similar to the current
site-by-site approach, but over a larger master planned project area.
•ooDeveloperoextensiono/olatecomerofee: The original developer (and the Town, if applicable) is compensated for the upfront cost of
building a larger system, by builders and developers who tap into the improvements later.
•ooIn-lieuofees: The Town builds an offsite system to serve a growing area, and later developers pay a fee instead of building onsite
facilities. This is similar to a latecomer fee, but covers an area that isn’t part of a single development.
•ooStormwater/drainageodistrict: A developer (or the Town, if it creates a special improvement district under NYS town law) builds the
system, and the Town maintains it. Targeted user fees, often based on lot and impervious surface area, fund the district.
•ooStormwateroutility: The Town assesses special fees in an area, used later to build and manage stormwater facilities.
•ooGreenoinnovationoGrantoProgram: State grant to support projects that use unique stormwater infrastructure design and create cutting-
edge green technologies.
Town involvement may be unavoidable at some point. As with decentralized site-based stormwater systems, neighborhood-scale systems
will need maintenance over the long run. In New York, municipalities must maintain stormwater facilities along public roads and on
municipal property. This includes new neighborhoods.
o
55
like smaller subdivisions and cluster developments. Larger
neighborhood-scale projects have more choices for stormwater
management, and can use shared facilities to receive and absorb
runoff. Shared facilities offer economies of scale for design,
construction, and management. It’s also easier to plan for
mitigation at one time, something not possible with piecemeal
development over decades.
Light imprint development (LI) uses a “train of treatment”, linking
context appropriate SMPs to treat water sequentially at the lot,
block, and neighborhood scale. On-lot SMPs help reduce runoff
to offsite areas. Public and common space meets the needs of
the larger neighborhood; swales, pervious alleys, small parks,
gardens, and other SMPs at the block level; ponds, rain gardens,
and other facilities integrated into open spaces at the
neighborhood scale. Lower intensity zones with less impervious
surface can also help balance the runoff from higher intensity
zones.
A neighborhood-scale stormwater management system –
designed at the start for buildout, and meeting all state
performance requirements – must be a part of all neighborhood
or regulating plans. Recommended locations for TND have larger
adjoining parcels, ideal for unified stormwater management
systems. Even if these parcels are planned and developed
separately, they’re still big enough for stormwater systems that
won’t hinder walkability.
Natural resources that can channel, filter, and hold stormwater –
wetlands, ponds, flood zones, ephemeral streams, and so on –
should be identified and incorporated into neighborhood-scale
stormwater infrastructure. Regulations should not allow
subdivision that would hinder neighborhood-scale stormwater
management.
2.4.7 Other site features
Signs
Most sign regulations are now in a separate Town Code chapter
(§221). Some regulations related to signs are also in the current
zoning code.
Current sign regulations have been very effective at preventing
visual pollution. The Town will soon adopt an updated sign code
that clarifies existing standards, decreases maximum sign height
and size in some zones, and addresses new situations and sign
types. Billboards and off-premise signs, taller pole signs, and
animated and electronic signs will remain banned. Freestanding
signs won’t need Planning Board approval.
The UDC should group sign regulations with other building and
site design standards. Administrative rules – permitting,
variances, enforcement, and so on – should be in the UDC’s
administration section. Standards may need changes in wording,
organization, and formatting for clarity and consistency,
Sign regulations must cover new zones – TND and institutional
transect zones, and the Inlet Valley Corridor. In TND zones, sign
size and height standards should scale to pedestrians more than
moving vehicles. In the Inlet Valley Corridor, regulations should
favor shorter monument signs over taller pole signs.
Outdoorolighting
The Town was an early adopter of dark skies-oriented outdoor
lighting regulations. The Outdoor Lighting Law, adopted in 2006,
helps preserve star-filled nights over the town, and protect
residents and wildlife from the harmful effects of light pollution.
The Town adopted it as a single local law, but its rules spread
across three Town Code chapters – the zoning code (§270), sign
code (§221), and a separate “Lighting, Outdoor” chapter (§173).
As the title suggests, the Outdoor Lighting Law has basic
performance and design standards for outdoor lighting – output,
shielding, glare control, banned lighting types, and exceptions. It
also has special rules for signs, sports fields, and temporary
lighting. The law requires recessed or shielded canopy and soffit
lighting, and bans fascia lighting. Light spillover prevention is
one stated purpose, but related standards have no specifics; only
that nonconforming lighting causing “glare or trespass” must be
shielded or redirected after Town notification. it has few
requirements for fixture design, and is silent about color
temperature – how “cool” or “warm” light is.
A larger part of the law covers administrative matters like site
plan review, variances, violations, and conflicts, many of which are
redundant with the current zoning code.
Lighting regulations in the UDC should build on the protections
of the Outdoor Lighting Law. Standards should also consider
design, changing technology, and best practice in dark sky
protection. Updates should address:
• Spillover: specific limits on amount (lumens) and density
(lux) of light at the edge of a property or site, over ambient
levels.
• Color temperature: specific limits on how “cool” light can be.
(Color temperature above 4,000° kelvin is seen as harsher by
humans, draws more insects, and has a more harmful effect
on feeding, mating, and migration patterns of other
animals.)
• Measurement: use industry accepted metric units (lumens,
lux, kelvin) instead of obsolete Imperial units (footcandles,
candlepower) or units not related to light (watts).
• Freestanding fixture/pole design: limit pole height based on
location and context (parking lot, street type, etc.). Ban
raised bases (sonotubes), and poles directly on driving,
56
parking, and walking surfaces. Require decorative or
painted poles where appropriate.
• Attached fixture design: limit wall packs to industrial zones
and areas outside of public view.
• Gas station canopies: limit light fixtures per filling space, and
under-canopy output, to avoid a “landing UFO” effect.
• Maintenance: prohibit flickering and buzzing lights.
Lighting regulations cover both design and impacts. While good
code organization calls for keeping performance and design
regulations separate, lighting regulations grouped with other
building and site design standards would be more usable.
Performance standards for uses should have a cross-reference to
outdoor lighting regulations.
Fencingoandoscreening
Fencing and screening standards in the current zoning code are
inadequate. They don’t prevent un-neighborly tall fences and
walls in front yards, unsightly makeshift fences, barbed wire, or
open dumpster and outdoor storage areas.
The UDC should have more thorough fence and wall appearance
standards, to help achieve a higher-quality built environment, and
increase safety. Standards should prohibit certain fencing
materials in front and side yards, like uncoated chain link and
metal slats. They should require higher quality fencing materials,
and solid visual screening of service and utility areas. The UDC
should either prohibit fences in front yards, or limit height to 3’.
Undergroundoutilities
Current planning regulations ask for underground utilities only
for new residential development. Most suburban and urban
communities require underground utilities for all new
development, regardless of use. Considering the region’s winter
weather, the uncertainty of climate change on storm severity, and
the town’s scenic landscapes, it’s hard to justify projects that
expand an overhead web of wires, cables, and transformers. The
UDC should prohibit overhead wired utilities for all new
residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development.
2.4.8 Use-specific standards
Some uses have inherent design traits or impacts that make them
more difficult to fit in with their surroundings. Current
regulations recognize that some uses might need special
attention to consider their impacts, but they’re vague about how
to address and mitigate them.
Gasostations:oundesirableotraitso Use-specificoperformanceoandodesignostandardso
Heavy vehicle traffic, multiple curb cuts and entrances creating
conflicts with pedestrians
• Control curb cuts: limit number of vehicle entrances or the spacing
between them, and limit curb cut width.
• Require textured pavement that defines sidewalks and paths across
driving and parking surfaces.
Utilitarian buildings, standard corporate architecture • Apply special architectural standards to gas station buildings.
Large canopy in front • Require reverse frontage design: main retail building at the front of
the site (with a street-facing façade and functional entrance), and
canopy and other structures behind it.
• Require the same architectural details on a canopy as on the main
retail building: colors, roof materials and pitch, support pole
covering, etc.o
High pavement coverage • Require landscape islands that define parking areas, driveways,
and stacking lanes; and buffer areas that separate pavement areas
from neighboring streets and properties.
• Require a short perimeter screening hedge or wall around the
paved area.
Bright site lighting • Require outdoor lighting design that prevents light spillover to
neighboring properties. Limit canopy and site light output.
Noisy site features and accessory uses • Limit sound above ambient levels at the site edge.
• Require solid walls next to residential and lodging uses, and other
properties if needed to meet sound limit requirements.
• Allow use of intercoms only for communicating with customers.
• Prohibit AV or point-of-sale systems that play music or advertising.
• Prohibit equipment with buzzers, bells, beepers, and other
noisemakers.
• Require all car wash doors to be closed before starting.
• Prohibit car washes and vacuum cleaners on sites next to or across
the street from residential and lodging uses.
o
57
Design of an “outlier” use can make or break a streetscape or
neighborhood. It’s important that they complement their
surroundings in the same way as other allowed uses and
buildings. Many newer codes have special performance and
design standards for specific uses, to address potentially
troublesome operation and design issues. The table on the
previous page shows how use-specific standards might deal with
gas stations.
The UDC should have use-specific design requirements for gas
stations, vehicle repair, auto dealers, self-storage warehouses,
utility and wireless facilities, and other uses that might need
special attention to ensure they fit in with their curroundings.
Use-specific performance standards should also be part of the
UDC. (See the next section.) As with other regulations, use-
specific standards should be straightforward and well defined.
2.4.9 onconforming site features
Aspects of some commercial and industrial buildings and sites in
the town don’t conform to current zoning regulations; for
example, unpaved parking, no landscaping or screening, or
lighting that isn’t dark skies compliant.
Current nonconformance provisions are incomplete. They
address uses and structures, but not site features. Even if a
nonconforming site is empty for over a year, a new business can
move in without making any changes or improvements. One goal
of zoning is to remove nonconformities, but the current code
allows nonconforming site features to become entrenched.
The UDC should include specific nonconformance provisions for
uses, structures, site features, lots, and signs. Requiring full
compliance could be cost prohibitive or physically impossible on
smaller sites. Standards would be clear about when
nonconformities must be brought into conformance, and to what
extent. The UDC can take a less rigid approach for
nonconforming site features that can’t be modified easily, by
requiring compliance to “the greatest extent possible.” This helps
prevent blight, while respecting the intent of the underlying zone.
The UDC should allow extension of nonconforming walls of
residences, if it doesn’t increase the degree of nonconformity.
This helps prevent functional obsolescence in housing, encourage
continued investment in older houses and neighborhoods, and
reward residents who continue to invest in their homes.
Uses 2.5
Identifying and controlling specific uses allowed in different parts
of a community is an important part of any zoning code. Even
newer form-based codes, which focus on building, site, and
neighborhood design, still regulate allowed uses.
A review of the current zoning code found many issues with the
way uses are organized and regulated. A deeper look, however,
revealed some forward-thinking concepts the UDC should
continue.
Drafting new planning regulations offers the chance to revisit and
revise allowed uses. This isn’t just to make regulations more
rational, but also to better address mixed use development,
sustainability goals, agricultural and open space preservation, and
changing lifestyles.
2.5.1 Use classification
In the current zoning code, long “laundry lists” for each zone lay
out most uses – typical for older Euclidean-style codes. Each list
shows by-right and discretionary (special permit and special
approval) uses and building types, along with accessory uses and
structures. Some lists refer to use lists in other zones.
Site planning standards for Temecula, California include special
requirements for gas stations.
For every site there is an ideal use. For every use there is an
ideal site.
— John Ormsbee Simonds, landscape architect
58
About 180 specific uses appear in the use lists. Many uses are
undefined, redundant, very specific, anachronistic, or similar to
other uses yet regulated much differently. These distinctions
make the code longer and more difficult to manage. This
approach is also unable to respond to new and emerging uses,
resulting in use variances, use-specific zones and PDs, and other
kinds of negotiated approval.
Even with the zone-by-zone use lists, some allowed uses and
conditions are listed in other parts of the zoning code and Town
Code. There’s no easy way to find out all uses allowed or
prohibited in an area.
Masterolistoofouseogroupsoandotypesoo
Newer codes often take a different approach, combining specific
uses into a master list of broader generic categories and types.
For example, instead of listing drug stores, clothing stores,
florists, gift stores, and similar “main street” uses as separate
uses, they would all fall under the term “retail and service.” This
streamlined approach makes a code easier to administer, cuts out
redundancy, and better accommodates emerging new uses.
Use types should be in functional groups and subgroups;
“agricultural”, “residential”, “retail/service”, and so on. Standards
elsewhere in the code can refer to a category, and include all uses
in that category instead of listing them individually.
The master use list calls out specific uses only if they need special
treatment. Use definitions are mutually exclusive, and specific
uses aren’t part of a generic use type. For example, the UDC
wouldn’t allow an adult book store under the umbrella of a “retail
and service” use. If the UDC defines “drive-through facility” as an
accessory use, it can only be part of a bank or restaurant if the
master list allows it in that zone.
Zone-by-zone use lists in older codes often regulate different
types of buildings. This can cause conflicts under form-based
standards, which treats building form and function separately.
The lineup of allowed uses in the UDC should relate to building
and site functions where possible.
The current zoning code calls out millineries – manufacturing of
women’s hats – as a specific use.
Part of the current “laundry list” of uses and conditions in the CC/Community Commercial district.
o
59
The table above is a recommended list of use types and
categories, based on Town planning staff review of uses in the
current zoning code, and use lists seen in newer codes
throughout North America. The UDC wouldn’t allow all listed
uses; many codes define uses that aren’t allowed anywhere, such
as junkyards.
Useotableo
The UDC should have a table showing allowed uses by right and
special review in each zone, and where conditions specific to a
zone or location apply. This reinforces a common framework for
defining uses, prevents inconsistency, and allows easy
comparison between zones and uses. It also avoids problems
with “hidden” uses.
Use tables should have cross-references to conditions and other
important information. This will tie related code sections
together, without having to repeat information.
2.5.2 Allo ed uses
Appropriatenessoofousesoandoconditionso
The current zoning code allows some uses in zones where they
might seem out of place. Other uses that could fit well in a zone
may be subject to discretionary review or complicated conditions,
or prohibited. For example, by-right uses in the CC/Community
Commercial zone – the East Hill Plaza area – include monument
works, building supply stores, and electrical, heating, and
plumbing shops. However, some less intrusive uses that better fit
the zone’s intended purpose, like public libraries, restaurants,
veterinary clinics, and medical offices, need special permit review.
UDC coding should not simply copy uses and conditions from the
old code to the new, as previous updates did. Coding must revisit
uses, to see that they are a good fit for a zone, conditions make
sense, and similar uses are allowed under the same conditions.
Newoandoemergingouseso
Most communities struggle with new types of uses unlike
anything else described in their zoning regulations. In the past,
video arcades, mini-storage, home day care, and cell towers left
decision-makers scratching their heads. Today, it’s composting
facilities, wood boilers, AirBnB, and in some states, marijuana
dispensaries.
honceptualoUDhouseocategoriesoandotypeso
Principal:oagriculturalouses
Agricultural use
Kennel
Wildlife rehabilitation center
Principal:oresidentialouses
Housing: detached (1 unit)
Housing: double (2 units)
Housing: attached (2-6 units)
Housing: multiple (3+ units)
Housing: live-work
Housing: mixed use
Housing: manufactured home
Group housing: collective
Group housing: room/board
Group housing: group home
Residential care facility
o
Principal:olodgingouses
Bed and breakfast
Hotel / motel
Campground: recreational vehicle
Campground: tent
o
Principal:oofficeouses
Health / wellness practice
Professional office
Veterinary practice
Principal:oretailoandoserviceouses
Adult use
Commercial recreation: indoor
Commercial recreation: outdoor
Day care: center
Day care: pet
Funeral services
Restaurant / bar
Retail and service: general
Retail: large item
Retail: vehicle
Retail: heavy commercial
o
Principal:ovehicularouses
Vehicle fueling and repair
Vehicle major repair
o
Principal:oindustrialoandosemi-
industrialouses
Artisan
Industrial use: low impact
Industrial use: high impact
Junkyard
Research / laboratory
Self-storage facility
Trade use
Principal:oextractionouses
Mining
Timber harvestingoo
o
Principal:ocivicouses
Cemetery
Community workshop /
makerspace
Country club
Cultural facility
Government facility
Hospital
Marina
Outdoor education facility
Park
Park and ride lot
Place of assembly
Private club / lodge
Public safety
School: college / university
School: primary / secondary
School: vocational
o
Utilityoandocommunicationouses
Solar farm
Utility substation
Wireless facility
Temporaryoandointermittento
uses
Garage sale
Garden market
Seasonal outdoor sale
o
Accessoryousesoandosingleo
purposeostructures
Agricultural tourism / value
added use
Antenna: radio hobbyist
Day care: home
Donation collection box: outdoor
Drive-through facility
Fowl keeping
Guest room lodging
Home occupation
Housing: accessory unit
Housing: agricultural worker unit
Housing: caretaker unit
Solar panel
Vending machine: outdoor
Wildlife rehabilitation: home-
based
Wind collector
Wood boiler
Woodshed
A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place --
like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.
— George Sutherland, Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S.
365, 388 (1926).
60
The Town’s zoning code has often been ahead of the curve in
addressing emerging uses, like accessory apartments. The Town
was a pioneer in adopting standards for solar panels and wind
generators. However, code amendments for those new uses were
often wordy and complicated.
The UDC should preemptively address the latest generation of
new and emerging uses.
Communal living, where a group of unrelated adults lives
together and shares resources, is one of the “hidden uses” the
current zoning code allows. It’s not in the zone-by-zone use lists,
but it is allowed through a process that the definition for “family”
spells out. Communal living should be among the lineup of
allowed uses. Because of Ithaca’s “college town” environment,
group living needs careful regulation, to ensure it considers the
needs of all area residents. Shared expenses of communal living,
and income from guest room rental, can help make housing more
affordable. The UDC should also address AirBnB-style guest
room rental.
To prevent abuses that could “ruin it for everybody else”, the
Town should consider limiting accessory apartments to owner-
occupied properties, to prevent future abuse by absentee
landlords.
Even with generic use groups and types, uses with unique
footprints and impacts will still be an issue. The conceptual use
list includes emerging uses that may need special treatment, like
doggie day care, clothing collection boxes, and live-work space.
The UDC should have use types for commercial uses that tend to
cluster together or be visually overpowering, like auto and power
sports dealers, heavy equipment rental, and bulk fuel dealers.
Spacing and design requirements can prevent their concentration,
and control their appearance.
hommercialousesoinoresidentialozoneso
The Ithaca area has a strong tradition of homegrown small
businesses and cottage industry. Some of the region’s most
iconic businesses began in someone’s kitchen, basement, or
garage. Home occupations provide many benefits; lower start-up
costs, reduced commuter traffic, and flexibility for those taking
care of other family members. They also need careful regulation,
to ensure they peacefully coexist with their neighbors, and fit into
their residential surroundings.
Current home occupation regulations are unusually permissive.
There are no restrictions for the kind of use, or customer visits, if
there’s no impacts or visible evidence, there are four employees
or less, and the use takes up under 500’² or 25% of the floor area.
The same rules apply in all zones that allow home occupations -
C-Conservation, AG-Agricultural, and all residential zones.
While it’s easy to start a home occupation in the town, the one-
size-fits-all approach doesn’t consider if uses are suitable for its
setting. Some types of businesses that might have little or no
impact in a rural area could be very disruptive in a denser
neighborhood or multifamily setting.
Many communities struggle with uses their zoning codes didn’t
anticipate, like used clothing donation boxes.
Monument works like this one in Rochester are a by-right use in
the CC zone, but medical offices and restaurants need a special
permit.
hurrentohomeooccupationoregulationsoinoplainoEnglisho
• Business owner/proprietor must live at the house.
• Location: inside the dwelling or an accessory building.
• Floor area: ≤25% of the dwelling or 500’², whatever is less.
• Employees: ≤4, including residents.
• Sales: only goods created/assembled/reconditioned on the
property.
• Parking: all off-street.
• Impacts: no offensive noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor,
heat, glare or electronic disturbance detectable beyond the
property. No traffic beyond what one would expect in a
residential area.
• Character: preserve residential character. No signage.
o
61
Home occupation regulations in the UDC should build on the
current rules, and aim to:
• Limit daily customer visits to the house and business-related
traffic. This prevents busier storefront uses, and allows more
control over traffic than a subjective “no traffic beyond
what’s normal for residential uses” requirement.
• Limit number, types, and visibility of business-related
vehicles.
• Limit or ban uses that tend to grow beyond the limits
allowed for home occupations, or create a nuisance to
neighbors. Examples are vehicle-related uses, barber and
beauty services, and retail uses.
• Ban outdoor storage.
• Use a tiered or context sensitive approach, with more limits
on customer visits, number of non-resident employees, and
types of uses in denser zones; and expanded options in large
lot and rural settings.
Live-work units accommodate shared business and living space.
Live-work include artists’ lofts where living and working occur in
the same physical space, and “live above-work below”
townhouses with a storefront on the ground floor, and living
space above. Live-work units and a wide range of allowed uses
should be allowed in denser conventional and TND zones, as part
of a larger development.
Corner stores and cafes are part of the neighborhood fabric in
many Upstate New York villages and towns. Small-scale retail,
service, and “third place” uses like coffee houses, may be suitable
at major intersections in residential areas. Parking, hours, and
general impacts and appearance must be carefully controlled, to
ensure compatibility with their surroundings.
Agritourismoandovalue-addedoagricultureo
Diverse agricultural operations, natural beauty, well-developed
tourism infrastructure, and a strong food and wine culture come
together in Ithaca, making it perfectly situated for agritourism.
The Comprehensive Plan and the Agriculture and Farmland
Protection Plan support agritourism, both to preserve farmland
and agribusiness, and to foster sustainable economic
development. However, incomplete and sometimes complex
regulations limit its potential.
Current zoning regulations allow a variety of traditional
agritourism-related uses. “Lawful farm purposes … excluding
rendering plants”, nurseries, equestrian facilities, kennels, and
roadside stands (with conditions on size, placement, and product
source) are allowed by right in the AG-Agriculture zone.
Discretionary uses include retail sales related to agricultural
operations (with conditions on building and site size), farm
retreats, and bed and breakfast inns.
The current zoning code allows “retail sales of machinery,
products, supplies, or produce primarily related to, or derived
from, agricultural operations” in the AG-Agriculture zone, subject
to Planning Board approval and conditions on site and building
size. This provision allows some potentially intrusive uses, such
as agricultural equipment and feed sales. However, the code
leaves out many less intensive agritourism-related uses, like farm-
to-table bistros, and site rental for weddings and receptions9.
Value-added agriculture includes agritourism, along with small
commercial, manufacturing, and service operations that increase
the value of agricultural commodities. The current zoning code
doesn’t allow many value-added operations, such as onsite
processing and packaging, farm breweries and distilleries, and
shared kitchens.
The UDC should allow a wider range of agritourism and value-
added operations on working farms, without a formal
interpretation or use variance from the Zoning Board. Conditions
for building and site size and design, signage, and business hours
would help preserve rural character, and ensure agritourism and
value-added operations are secondary to a main farm use.
Allowing small garden stands and CSA distribution points in
neighborhoods can bring fresh food closer to residents, and
reduce food miles. Agriculture support businesses, and general
retail sales of farm machinery and supplies, may not be
appropriate in rural areas.
9 Six Mile Creek Vinery needed a use variance to host weddings,
receptions and other small events. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals, 1 November 2005 meeting.
Live-work housing in Norfolk, Virginia. (Photo: Opticos Design)
62
Accessoryoandotemporaryouseso
In the current zoning code, zone-by-zone use lists have a
category for accessory uses and buildings, along with conditions.
Some accessory uses, like accessory apartments, are among the
lists of principal uses. The code’s Special Regulations and General
Provisions articles list some other allowed accessory uses and
buildings. The code identifies a handful of temporary uses and
structures, among them temporary buildings “for commerce or
industry, where such building is necessary or incidental to the
development of a residential area.”
Accessory and temporary uses can pose problems if they’re not
carefully defined and limited. The UDC should identify a broader
range of accessory and temporary uses than the current code.
Standards and conditions – location, time limits, and so on – will
help make regulation clear and consistent.
Agritourismoandovalue-addedoagricultureoinotheoTowno
• A.J. Teeter Family Farm - hayrides, educational tours
• Cornell Orchards - farm product store
• Early Bird Farm - farm stand, garden center
• Eddydale - farm stand
• Hands On Gourds - gourd art and home furnishings
• Indian Creek Farm - farm stand, u-pick
• Ithaca Beer Company - brewing, restaurant, tours
• Laughing Goat Farm - goat yarn and woolen goods
• Little’s Greenhouse - retail nursery
• Kestrel Perch Berries - u-pick CSA
• Six Mile Creek Vineyard - winery, tasting room, small events
• Steep Hollow Farm - crop/sound maze
• Tree Gate Farm - farm stand
• West Haven Farm - farm tours, education, CSA pickup
Potentialoagritourismouses
• Agricultural and rural/primitive crafts
• Barn and site rental for private events
• Bed-and-breakfast or farm stay inn
• Crop maze
• Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) share pickup
• Educational and heritage tours and demonstrations
• Farm campsite
• Farm retreat
• Farm stand/store
• Farm-to-table restaurant or meals
• Garden plot rental
• Horse, hay, and sleigh rides
• Produce self-harvesting (u-pick farm)
• Winery/brewery/distillery/cidery tasting room and sales
Potentialoagritourismouseso
• Agricultural and rural/primitive crafts
• Barn and site rental for private events
• Bed-and-breakfast or farm stay inn
• Crop maze
• Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) share pickup
• Educational and heritage tours and demonstrations
• Farm campsite
• Farm retreat
• Farm stand/store
• Farm-to-table restaurant or meals
• Garden plot rental
• Horse, hay, and sleigh rides
• Produce self-harvesting (u-pick farm)
• Winery/brewery/distillery/cidery tasting room and sales
Farm stands, wineries, and educational programs are a sampling
of uses agritourism entails.
o
63
Accessory buildings should not be among regulations for
accessory uses, unless they are single purpose or temporary
structures. Site and building design standards in the UDC should
control accessory building location and appearance.
2.5.3 Use and context specific standards
Specific standards or conditions for some uses are among the lists
of allowed uses in a zone. Some other use-specific standards are
in the Special Regulations or General Provisions articles. For
adult uses, some standards are in the LI/Light Industrial section of
the current zoning code, while other requirements are in their
own chapter of the Town Code (§100), separate from zoning.
Newer zoning regulations often have definitions for each use,
along with any general and zone-specific standards and
conditions, after an allowed use table. A use table may have a
cross-reference to definitions and conditions.
UDC should have more use- and zone-specific standards and
conditions for common uses, to help control impacts, ensure
better compatibility, and guide decision-making. This approach
can allow more uses by right, conforming to set standards, rather
than subject to discretionary review and more arbitrary approval
conditions. It will help make the review process more streamlined
and predictable, and offer more certainty for both the applicant
and neighbors.
Gas stations and vehicle-related uses, self-storage, and wireless
facilities should also have added site planning and design
requirements, to help improve their appearance and make them
blend in better with their surroundings. This report discusses
use-specific design requirements in the previous section.
2.5.4 Performance standards
Newer development codes often have a section for performance
or activity standards, which regulate impacts of uses and objects
that could affect neighboring properties. Performance standards
can be both general, for example, regulating noise and vibration
levels, and specific, like regulating outdoor speakers and vacuum
cleaners at gas stations. In comparison, property maintenance
and nuisance regulations in a municipal code deal more with
actual impacts or effects, than control of the sources.
Performance standards regulating sources of noise, vibration,
glare, dust, smoke, odors, and other impacts should be part of
use regulations in the UDC. Site planning and design regulations
should also have standards for location, screening, and buffering
of uses, objects, and storage areas that could be a nuisance if left
unchecked.
2.5.5 Use revie reform
Specialouseso
Discretionary review at a public hearing is a powerful tool to
control difficult land use situations. This includes controversial
uses that the Town must allow somewhere, but doesn’t want to
The Buffalo Green Code groups use definitions, with general and
zone-specific conditions, after the allowed use table.
Newer codes accommodate a wider range of temporary and
seasonal uses, like Christmas tree sales.
64
encourage, like adult entertainment. Discretionary review ensures
these types of uses aren’t allowed outright, but instead receive
careful scrutiny at a public hearing. However, the Town’s current
planning regulations often call for discretionary review for uses
and actions that are benign. o
Allowing more uses by right, especially those that seem like a
good fit for the zone or area, subject to clear standards and
conditions, is one way to streamline the development review
process. (Section 2.6 looks at streamlining the development
review process in general.)
Singleoboardoreviewoofodiscretionary/specialouseso
Most zoning codes have two classes of uses – by-right and
discretionary. Staff approves by-right uses, with no formal public
hearing. Discretionary uses – often called special uses – are
those that need more scrutiny to determine impacts and
compatibility. A planning board usually approves (or denies)
special use requests at a formal public hearing.o
The current zoning code further divides special uses into two
classes – special permit uses that need Planning Board approval,
and special approval uses that need Zoning Board approval. This
table shows how split discretionary review works in the
MDR/Medium Density Residential zone.
Under New York State town law §267 (2), the role of a zoning
board of appeals – an appellate or quasi-judicial body – is to
consider use and area variances, and hear appeals of
interpretation of planning regulations. This should be the main
role of the Zoning Board. The UDC should have only one class of
special uses, with the Planning Board –a quasi-legislative body –
as the decision maker.
hhangeoinocommercialooccupancy
On paper, different commercial zones allow certain retail, service,
and office uses by right. In practice, both by-right and special
permit uses must be approved through the same discretionary
review process. Rules for site plan modification in Zoning Code
§270-191 say:
… Notwithstanding the foregoing, Planning Board approval of a
modification shall not be required:
A. If the modification does not involve: …
(4) Construction, alteration, or renovation of the interior of a
building involving a change in occupancy or use …
This “double negative” rule means the Planning Board must
approve any occupancy change involving interior renovation,
even for by-right uses. For example, the Planning Board had to
grant site plan approval for Subway to move into a space once
occupied by a bank in East Hill Plaza. This level of scrutiny for a
change in by-right uses is unheard of in most communities.
This policy exists because of a concern that a new use won’t have
enough parking. Most other communities address this through
staff review; if a proposed use doesn’t have the amount of
parking that zoning requires, staff denies it. The UDC should not
MDRozoneo–ocurrentoby-rightouseso MDRozoneo–ocurrentospecialopermitousesoo
(PlanningoBoardoreview)o
MDRozoneo–ocurrentospecialoapprovalouseso
(ZoningoBoardoreview)o
• Single family house occupied by one family,
with or without a boarder.
• Duplex, with second unit ≤50% of the floor
area of the primary unit (and other provisos
for basement area).
• Public park or playground.
• Municipal or public utility purpose
necessary to the maintenance of utility
services.
• Day-care homes, family day-care homes
and group family day-care homes.
• Community residence.
• Small wind energy facilities.
• Church, convent and parish house.
• Cemetery.
• Public, parochial and private schools, public
library, public museum, day-care center,
nursery school, institution of higher learning
including dormitories.
• Fire station or other public safety building.
• Golf course, driving range or miniature golf
course.
• Bed-and-breakfast inns with ≤2 bedrooms
if the lot is <30,000’², or four bedrooms if the
lot is ≥30,000’².
• Elder cottages.
• Accessory dwelling units in a building other
than the primary unit, subject to various
conditions and provisos.
• Keeping of domestic animals in accessory
buildings.
Collegetown Bagels needed formal site plan approval to expand
into a neighboring storefront in East Hill Plaza.
o
65
call for Planning Board approval – and the many person-hours
that a public hearing involves – for a simple change in occupancy
or use, or expansion into a neighboring storefront.
o
Staffointerpretationoofonewoandounlistedouseso
Most zoning codes allow staff to decide if a use is “close enough”
and allowed in a certain zone. Criteria about different aspects of
an unlisted use compared to allowed uses help guide
interpretation. Administrative interpretation for unlisted uses
should be a part of the UDC, with the option of Zoning Board
interpretation or appeal if needed.
Process and administration 2.6
There are two aspects to managing planning regulations – the
entitlement or development review process, and code
administration. Entitlement includes the process and criteria for
reviewing site plans, subdivisions, variances, and other planning
actions. Code administration includes enforcement, vesting,
nonconformities, interpretation, and rules for managing the code
itself.
If planning regulations are like a cookbook for placemaking, the
Town’s current codes can seem like a set of recipes that are more
concerned with the utensils than the ingredients. The Town often
relies on the process itself, not clear standards, to control
development.
The current zoning and subdivision codes, typical of older
planning regulations, often lay out complex rules or processes for
situations that don’t always justify them. Applicants may navigate
a review process with unclear rules, and an unpredictable path to
approval. There’s no guarantee it will translate into high quality
development. With so many variables, developers may cut their
risk with projects that are “safe”, rather than innovative. Some
may not trust the process – and by association, the Town and its
decision-makers – to arrive at a fair or “right” outcome.
Planning regulations are as effective as their implementation.
The UDC must have review processes that are open, predictable,
and clear. This will help reduce risk and uncertainty, and attract
developers who can help build the places the Plan envisions.
2.6.1 Code administration
The development review and administrative sections of the UDC
must be organized to make processes and protocol clear and easy
to follow.
Separatingoregulationoandomanagemento
Current planning regulations often comingle regulations and
process. The lack of dedicated review and administration
chapters makes regulations longer and more repetitive, and leads
to confusing (and usually unnoted) cross-references and
inconsistencies.o
As this report recommends earlier (§2.1.2 – Organization), the
UDC should group development review and administration
functions in their own chapters, separate from zoning and
development standards. This will make processes easier to
understand, and reduce redundancy and potential conflicts.
hodeocomplexityoandostaffoadministrationo
Many older zoning and development codes have complex rules or
processes for situations that don’t really justify them. The Town’s
current planning-related codes are no exception. Complexity
often results from trying to cover even the most remote
contingency, using the longest and “most thorough” model as a
template for a new provision, or decades of one-off amendments
for specific situations. Unnecessary complexity makes it harder
for Town staff to administer its planning regulations.
The UDC and some of its new approaches will have a learning
curve. The learning curve can be gentle by using a “keep It
simple" approach – that systems work best when their design is
simple, not complex. It doesn’t mean less regulation, but rather
less complicated regulation with similar protections and
outcomes.
To ensure consistent, predictable review and administration, and
reduce future conflicts – especially with the prospect of form-
based regulations and other “unfamiliar” planning tools – the
UDC must have clear rules for code and map interpretation, and
measurement.
66
Rolesoandoresponsibilitieso
Planning decisions fall into three categories – legislative and
quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and administrative. As this report
describes in §2.5.5 (Use review reform), the responsibilities and
function of the Town’s review bodies are unclear to the public,
and their given roles often overlap. It can also be difficult for
applicants and staff to find the right permit or review process for
a certain planning action.
The UDC should have a master list of all review bodies, with their
specific roles and powers. There should be clear separation of
authority and powers; the Town Board and Planning Board
perform legislative and quasi-legislative functions, and the Zoning
Board performs quasi-judicial functions. The table below
describes where the functions of the Planning Board and Zoning
Board overlap, and how the UDC can better define their roles.
The UDC should have a master table for every planning action,
with a description, review type (minor/one-step or major/two-
step), and thresholds, involved approval bodies, and references to
relevant code sections.
2.6.2 evelopment revie
Historically, the Town’s stance towards growth and development
has been ambivalent. While processes aren’t necessarily onerous,
they are often unclear and inconsistent. The resulting regulatory
and review framework can increase uncertainty for applicants,
frustrate residents, and undermine the Town’s ability to attract
the high quality development it wants.
The Comprehensive Plan is the Town of Ithaca’s growth
management plan. The UDC should communicate the Plan’s
vision and recommendations clearly and directly with regulations
that don’t hide their intent, and a review process following a
predictable path to a decision.o
honsistentoprocedureso
Review processes for different planning actions are scattered
through the current zoning and subdivision codes. There’s little
consistency among them. Some local laws for planned
development zones set their own review processes and
requirements.
The Town’s current planning-related codes don’t always spell out
thresholds for different actions and processes. There are no
criteria for what needs a one-step “preliminary and final” review,
or a longer two-step with separate stages for preliminary plan
and final plan review. Current regulations are also silent about
the order or concurrence of different reviews. State law requires
subdivision approval before site plan approval, but the Town
often combines them into a single approval. If a site plan
requires a variance, it’s unclear what approval comes first.
The UDC should group review procedures together in one
chapter, with subsections of a consistent format and level of detail
for each application type. The development review chapter
should also have common procedures, like application, public
notice, public hearings, recording, lapsing, and appeals. Sections
devoted to various specific procedures (for example, special uses,
or site plan amendments) would follow and refer to the common
procedures, and note any exceptions. This would make the
development review process easier to understand and follow,
avoid unnecessary duplication, and ensure consistent
administration.
The UDC should have clear criteria and thresholds for the type
and scale of projects that need administrative approval; a “minor”
one-step approval, with one Planning Board meeting; and a
“major” two-step process, with separate preliminary and final
approvals. The UDC should also clarify review order and
concurrence.
ZoningoBoardoandoPlanningoBoardoresponsibilitiesoandofunctions:ocurrentozoningo
ZoningoBoardoresponsibilities/functions
• Variances – bulk/area and use (quasi-judicial)
• Interpretation (quasi-judicial)
• Uses – review/approval of special approval uses (quasi-legislative)
PlanningoBoardoresponsibilities/functions
• Site plan – review/approval (quasi-legislative)
• Subdivision – review/approval (quasi-legislative)
• Uses – review/approval of special permit uses (quasi-legislative)
• Interpretation – undefined special permit uses in commercial zones
(quasi-judicial)
ZoningoBoardoandoPlanningoBoardoresponsibilitiesoandofunctions:ounifiedodevelopmentocodeo(recommended)o
ZoningoBoardoresponsibilities/functions
• Variances – bulk/area and use (quasi-judicial)
• Interpretation – appeals (quasi-judicial)
PlanningoBoardoresponsibilities/functions
• Site plan – review/approval (quasi-legislative)
• Subdivision – review/approval (quasi-legislative)
• Uses – review/approval of special permit uses (quasi-legislative)
• Alternative design compliance (quasi-legislative)
o
67
Streamlinedodevelopmentoreviewoo
Current zoning regulations set a low threshold for the kinds of
projects and changes that require formal Planning Board or
Zoning Board hearing. Formal public review for actions that
zoning allows by right, exempt from SEQRA (Type 2), or with
minimal or no impacts, is time-consuming and expensive for both
the applicant and the Town. The system could break down under
its own weight if development activity increases.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends streamlining the review
process; not for its own sake, but to improve customer service,
use time and resources better, and attract quality development.
One streamlining strategy is allowing staff to review and approve
actions that support the Comprehensive Plan, don’t need SEQRA
review, and don’t raise health, safety, or environmental concerns.
Approaches to help reduce reliance on formal review include:
• More allowed uses by right or administrative review, subject
to clear design standards, conditions of operation, and
performance standards in the UDC.
• Higher threshold for site plan amendments, boundary line
adjustment, and other minor changes that trigger formal
Planning Board review.
• Same review thresholds, criteria, and review processes in
both regular and planned development zones.
• Pre-approved building types for TNDs.
• Administrative design and architectural review.
• Administrative review/approval of certain types of
subdivisions (for example, lot splits in on local streets in
residential zones). (Also see section 2.3.8.)
• Setback, height, and other dimensional standards that reflect
variances the Zoning Board commonly approves. (Also see
section 2.4.2.)
• Administrative adjustment for small variations to building
setback and height requirements, under objective criteria.
• Specific rules for unlisted uses, and other provisions allowing
common sense interpretation by staff.
Every step in the review process should serve a purpose, and
benefit the applicant and the community. The UDC should use
the least complicated permitting procedures possible, consistent
with State law requirements and the need to ensure effective
project review and proper Plan implementation.
Table of planning actions and review bodies in the Raleigh, North Carolina unified development code.
68
Applicationorequirementso
The current zoning and subdivision codes hard-code application
requirements – drawings, their details and scale, narratives,
certificates, and even paper sizes – as law. The Town Board must
amend the code to make any changes, no matter how small.
There’s no benefit to hard-coding, and no higher law requires it.
Application requirements should be in a separate guide, not the
Town Code. This will declutter the actual code, and allow staff to
waive or change certain requirements as needed.
While staff and board members want to see a full picture before
making a decision, too much information can lead to “analysis
paralysis.” Some preliminary and final plans include far more
detail than the Town asks for, sometimes approaching the level of
permit-level construction drawings. This can make minor tweaks
and changes – expected during preliminary review – costly and
time-consuming. Changing an innocuous site feature that an
approved plan locked in might need another public hearing,
because there is a low threshold for major amendments.
Town staff and review bodies should revisit submittal
requirements, and pick out what’s needed and not needed to
make an informed decision at each review stage. Requirements
should keep nonessential “nice to know” items to a minimum,
and discourage overdetailed building permit-level drawings.
During final subdivision or site plan review, or building permit
review, staff can conduct a compliance check to ensure final
landscaping, lighting, and other small details meet UDC
standards. Alternatively, there can be more flexibility for tweaks
and changes between different review stages. Approval should
not lock in details that the UDC doesn’t control. A review process
with less front-loading can also lower upfront soft costs for small
local developers.
2.6.3 iscretionary po er and
predictability
Broad or subjective rules for some aspects of land use and
development, and reliance on discretionary review to negotiate
design and conditions, are recurring themes in this report. They
can cause uncertainty and delays, and inconsistent decision-
making. Discretionary power might keep bad projects out, but it
doesn’t require or reward good design and positive development.
A core principle of Smart Growth is making development
decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. A UDC with clear,
concise, and well-defined rules and processes is essential for
attracting the kind of development that Ithaca wants, and
protecting it from land use decisions that aren’t consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Discretionaryoandoopen-endedoregulationso
When the Town drafts the UDC, it needs to find the right balance
between flexibility and certainty that will best implement the
Comprehensive Plan. People want to know the rules and
standards for new development, and how staff and approval
bodies will make their decisions.
To allow more flexibility or control over some aspects of
development, many older zoning codes used open-ended or
subjective standards, and let decision makers make the call. The
Town’s current codes are no exception, with:
• Requirements based on subjective or nebulous concepts
with no criteria, like what is “adequate”, “appropriate”, or
“compatible”, instead of objective or measurable criteria.
• Missing standards for some aspects of land use, where
negotiation and discretionary review often fill in the gaps.
• Discretionary provisions – both measurable and open-ended
– that allow the Planning Board to change different parts of
a proposal, or impose or waive various requirements, based
on “reasonable opinion” “the judgement of the Board”, or
vague criteria.
PlanningoBoardodiscretionaryopowerso
It’s not easy to count the number of discretionary (and often
subjective or open-ended) provisions in the Town’s zoning
and subdivision codes. A quick search found no shortage of
ways the Planning Board can set its own standards, impose
or waive various requirements, or make other major changes
to projects, with few or no constraints. These are a few
examples.
• Zoning Code §270.111 (MR/Multiple Residence zone): …
the Planning Board … may require additional landscaping,
fencing, screening, or earth berm to be provided in any
[MR/Multiple Residence] area where the proposed structure
or use would, in the opinion of the Planning Board, create a
hazardous condition or would detract from the value of
neighboring property if such additional landscaping, fencing,
screening, or berm were not provided. (There are also similar
provisions for commercial zones.)
• Subdivision Code §270.25 (solar orientation): The Planning
Board may require subdivisions to be platted so as to
preserve or enhance solar access for either passive or active
systems, consistent with the other requirements of these
regulations. Improvement of solar orientation may be a
sufficient consideration, in the judgment of the Planning
Board, to warrant site plan modifications.
• Subdivision Code §270.25 (cluster development): The
Planning Board may restrict the subdivider [to] a lesser
number of dwelling units if, in the Planning Board's
judgment, particular conditions of the site warrant such
restriction.
o
69
This open-ended approach can make zoning a lot-by-lot tool, and
foster a bargaining environment where any concern can be
raised, regardless of actual impact. A review board risks
becoming “taste police,” with decisions reflecting personal
opinions. It can increase uncertainty and risk for a developer, and
soft and hard costs from delays in the approval process.
Developers usually recoup these costs in the sale price or rent for
a property.
Most planning regulations allow some common sense discretion,
because they can’t cover every possible situation. However, if a
regulation is too vague, or leaves too much room for arbitrary
decisions, a court can strike it down for being a standardless
delegation of legislative authority10, or violating the due process11
or equal protection12 clauses.
As this report says earlier, rules and regulations in the UDC – or
any set of planning laws – must be clear, specific, consistent, and
objective. Standards can be flexible by providing a range of
options. The UDC should avoid subjective terms or abstract
concepts where possible, and clarify them with objective criteria
when they’re unavoidable. The link between approval criteria and
standards should be obvious. A reasonable foundation of Plan
goals, good planning practice, and objective findings – not
unsupported opinion or speculation – must be the basis for
decision-making.
UDC language must clearly communicate that it is the law; the
Planning Board can only administer and enforce it. The UDC
cannot have redundant “the Planning Board shall require”
statements that imply the opposite is true.
None of this means the Planning Board should have no discretion
when it reviews a project. Under state law, planning boards
maintain other broad discretionary powers. They can:
• Impose reasonable approval conditions to address
foreseeable impacts.
• Require or waive requirements for installing street signs,
lighting, street trees, water mains, sanitary sewers and storm
drains.
• Waive certain development standards if they’re not
applicable to a subdivision.
10 Standardless delegation of legislative authority: legislative power
passed on individuals, without any articulable standards for exercising it.
11 Void for vagueness: courts generally rule that a law deprives due
process rights if it doesn’t give the average person a reasonable sense of
what it allows or requires. This includes laws that are open-ended, and
unwritten laws.
12 Equal protection clause: courts see unequal treatment of similar
situations as unconstitutional.
• Require setaside of suitably located land for park,
playground or other recreational purposes; or money in lieu
of parkland.
• Make conditions on ownership and use of open space in
cluster development.
The Planning Board, in a role as lead agency for SEQRA
(environmental review), can request mitigation, or justify approval
or denial, based on the findings of an environmental impact
statement (EIS).
Many codes allow a planning board to consider alternative
compliance with some design standards. If the UDC allows
alternative compliance, it should have approval criteria to ensure
the outcome won’t be a downgrade.
Hiddenoregulationso
Even with a unified development code, there will still be a
“shadow code” of little-known local laws, interpretations, and
conditions that could affect a project. These hidden regulations
are in meeting minutes, resolutions, memos, emails, and
institutional knowledge. If applicants don’t know about them
upfront, they could cause confusion and unexpected delays, and
add to the uncertainty of development review.
A recorded staff interpretation of the Scottsdale, Arizona zoning
code.
70
Town staff is using Municity, the Town’s permit tracking system,
to document special conditions for rezoning, cluster subdivisions,
and site plans. Other conditions are in archived minutes,
resolutions, and case files – all public information, but not always
easy to find. A “tickler map” that shows sites subject to special
conditions can be a helpful reminder to staff and applicants.
No zoning code can address every possible situation or aspect of
regulation. The UDC should have a process for documenting text
interpretations. This will help preserve institutional knowledge,
and ensure predictable and consistent code administration.
Because the UDC will have clear standards and processes from
the start, many old interpretations will be obsolete13. Older
interpretations are relevant only if they conferred rights that
someone carried out.
2.6.4 Vesting and expiration limits
A vested right is the right to complete a project following the
regulations it was approved under, even if they change later.
Under state law, vested rights lock in when a project reaches a
level of substantial construction or completion. Most zoning and
subdivision codes in the state set a timeframe for a project reach
that point. If it doesn’t, the approval and all vested rights expire,
regardless of any permits, expenses, or site prep work. For an
applicant, vesting protects investor-backed expectations, and
provides certainty about the rules they must follow. For a city or
town, vesting timeframes prevent premature or slow-moving
13 Legal doctrines of lex posterior derogat legi priori, the younger law
overrides the older law; and “distinguishing”, that precedent applies only
to cases that are similar in most regards.
projects from staying active for years, and undermining current
planning goals.
The Town’s current planning regulations don’t adequately
describe the vesting process for all types of development. In the
case of final subdivisions, the vesting timeframe is much longer
than most other communities, and the threshold much lower than
state law. The current subdivision code now sets a 10-year
vesting period for subdivisions, allows unlimited extension, and
locks in vested rights when work “materially commences” or any
lot is sold. It doesn’t state a timeframe for preliminary
subdivision expiration. This makes it very difficult to plan for new
regulations, because word of new regulations may bring on a
rush of applications under old rules – and get near-perpetual
development rights if vesting provisions don’t change.
The UDC must have vesting and expiration limits that better
balance the Town’s need to respond to changed circumstances
against an applicant’s need for certainty. It should set a firm
timeframe for approval expiration when entitlement rights are not
exercised or vested. It should consider the region’s moderate
growth rate and the constraints of small local developers, but
prevent or stop underfunded or quixotic ventures that can drag
on for years. The following conceptual timeframes are based on
state law, and zoning and subdivision codes in other New York
towns.
• Preliminary subdivision plat
▪ No phases – 6 months (state law) to 1 year from
preliminary approval to apply for a final plat.
▪ Multiphased – 6 months (state law) to 1 year from
preliminary approval to apply for a final plat for first phase,
and 1 year after completion of an earlier phase, if there is no
final plat applications for other phases.
▪ Approval under the former subdivision code, for a
proposal that doesn’t comply with new UDC standards: void,
with no vested rights.
• Final subdivision plat
▪ Approval under the UDC to filing: 62 days (following state
law), considering all improvements or a performance
guarantee are in place.
▪ Filing to “substantial construction” under a performance
guarantee: 2 to 3 years.
▪ Approval under the former subdivision code to
“substantial construction”, for a proposal that doesn’t
comply with new UDC standards: 2 years (following state
law), with no extension.
• Zoning/site plan preliminary approval
▪ 1 year from preliminary approval to apply for final
approval.
▪ Approval under the former zoning code, for a proposal
that doesn’t comply with new UDC standards: void, with no
vested rights.
One essential element of a properly made decision is that it
accords with … clearly articulate rules and standards. This
is so because there is a tendency for regulatory systems
which operate without clearly enunciated standards to be
inherently irrational and arbitrary. The problems are …
apparent when one's ability to get approval from a board …
cannot be predicted because no hint is ever given … as to
when the board will give such approval and when it will
withhold it. The problem is basically one inimical to ad hoc,
standardless decisions. … [A]gency attempts to control any
form of behavior should be governed by standards for
decision which are stated in advance and given wide
circulation. … For due process reasons, these standards
should be publicly promulgated and written precisely
enough to give fair warning as to what the standards for
decision will be.
—Warren Young, District Judge, Federal District Court, U.S.
Virgin Islands. 350 F. Supp. 1159 (1972)
o
71
• Zoning/site plan final approval (site plan, special use,
variance): 1 to 2 years.
• Extension: one only, for the same timeframe as the previous
approval, with clear approval criteria. No extensions of
extensions.
The UDC should have criteria and timeframes to ensure continuity
for larger, long-term multi-phase projects, like those subject to
TND regulating plans, or master plans for planned development
zones. However, it should limit time extensions, to expedite slow
moving and stalled projects, and keep them from staying active
for years. Expiration should be automatic; not at the judgement
of the Planning Board.
Because zoning and subdivision regulations are not contracts,
there should be no expectation that approvals under old codes
are “grandfathered”, unless construction is underway. The UDC’s
new standards and vesting provisions would close the books on
slow-moving proposals that conflict with current Comprehensive
Plan goals and desired development outcomes.
orm thaca initiative 2.7
Form Ithaca is an initiative supporting zoning reform in the Town
and City of Ithaca. It also promotes public awareness of local
planning issues, and the benefits of form-based codes.
One goal of Form Ithaca is to draft a version of the SmartCode –
an open source template for a form-based and transect-based
zoning code –calibrated to ideal local conditions. The calibrated
SmartCode will inform and guide zoning reform efforts in the
Town and City. Aspects of the calibrated SmartCode that should
be part of the UDC, especially in TND transect zones, include:
• Organization based on scale of planning concern: regional
level, neighborhood level, lot level, and building level.
• Design sequence for TNDs and new neighborhoods. The
SmartCode design sequence can also be adapted to
conventional and cluster development.
• Rules for the type, location, and ratio of different transect
zones in a new neighborhood area.
• Neighborhood and civic space design standards.
• Street design standards.
• Building configuration and placement standards.
• Site design standards.
• Allowed uses in each transect zone.
These standards may need recalibration, so they don’t conflict
with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals, recommendations,
character districts, and desired development outcomes.
Form Ithaca workshop with Town and City staff.
o
73
CHAPTER 3 | COMPREHE S VE PLA
RECOMME AT O S
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Landouseo
LU-1-A: Concentrate development in areas with adequate
infrastructure and services.
• Comprehensive Plan character map, which considers utility service
areas, guides zone location.
LU-1-B: Preserve/protect environmentally important and scenic
lands.
• On-site transfer of development rights from sensitive areas.
• Tree preservation requirements.
• Ridgeline protection requirements.
• Context-sensitive architecture regulations
• Stealth/concealed design requirements for wireless facilities.
• Sign corridors with reduced height and size limits.
• Viewshed protection through new overlay zones.
LU-1-C: Limit intrusion of non-agricultural uses into
agricultural/conservation areas.
• Conservation and agricultural zoning in the Natural/Open and
Rural/Agricultural character districts.
LU-1-D: Limit low density residential to areas with limited/no value as
agricultural/ conservation areas, unlikely sewer/water.
• R-R (LDR) zoning limited to the Semi-Rural character district.
LU-1-E: Require development to take a cluster/conservation form in
environmentally, agriculturally and visually sensitive areas.
• Density bonus for cluster/conservation development or mixed-use
hamlets in rural/semi-rural areas, or density penalty for conventional
development.
LU-1-F: Establish more intensively developed mixed use
neighborhoods near employment centers. (South Hill, East Hill)
• Overlay that requires future development as a TND, and prohibits
conventional or cluster subdivision, in the TND High Density
character district.
LU-1-G: New mixed use neighborhoods where they can be supported
due to proximity to utilities and adequate transportation networks.
• Overlay that requires future development as a TND, and prohibits
conventional or cluster subdivision, in the TND Medium Density and
TND High Density character districts.
LU-1-H: Limit commercial/industrial zoned land to what is needed,
discourage strip commercial and speculative rezoning.
• Minimum and maximum land areas and frontage lengths for
groups of commercial zoned lots; minimum spacing between those
groups.
• Limit the extent of a future Inlet Valley commercial zone.
• No commercial or industrial zoning in areas with limited or no
sewer/water service.
LU-1-I: Restrict frontage residential development. • Full/major review process (separate preliminary and final plat) for
frontage subdivision.
• Re-subdivision time limits.
• Larger minimum lot size for agricultural lot splits.
• No “frontage cluster” loophole.
• Lot width-to-depth ratio range.
• Limit lots fronting directly on same road that parent lot fronts.
LU-1-J: Redevelop/retrofit aging/abandoned industrial/commercial
sites as mixed use, pedestrian-oriented development.
• East Hill Plaza and Danby Road/King Road ares in a TND/new
neighborhood overlay zone.
• Emerson site in a PD zone with transect-based subzones.
LU-1-K: Ensure development is sensitive of scenic resources. • See approaches in LU-1-B.
• Undergrounding new wired utility transmission and distribution
lines required everywhere, not just residential areas.
LU-2-A: Adopt architectural design requirements. • Architectural design requirements for residential, commercial,
industrial, and mixed use buildings.
74
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Landouseo
LU-2-B: Implement site planning requirements. • Site planning requirements that cover aspects beyond building
setback and bulk.
LU-2-C: Establish landscaping and screening standards. • Prescriptive landscaping and screening standards.
• Standard screening and buffering types or classes, to avoid
repeating standards.
LU-2-D: Enhanced sign requirements. • UDC includes sign regulations.
• Sign regulations for new zones.
LU-3-A: New development compatible with existing development. • Consider “compatible” as being respectful of scale, form, setting,
and context; not “frozen in amber.”
LU-3-B: Infill development takes advantage of existing infrastructure. • Minimum and maximum density range in conventional residential
zones.
• Shadow platting and site planning to accommodate future
densification.
• Streamlined procedures for flag lots and backlot
consolidation/development in developed areas.
LU-4-A: Scale new neighborhoods around pedestrian sheds. Define
neighborhood edges.
• TND neighborhood unit size ≤5-10 minute walk from center (about
0.25- 0.35 mi²).
LU-4-B: Variety of uses, densities and building types; more intensive
in neighborhood center.
• Wide variety of building and housing types and lot sizes in
appropriate transect zones.
LU-4-C: Mix of uses and recreation spaces to meet daily needs of
residents.
• Park and open space design, location, and size requirements in
neighborhood design standards.
LU-4-D: Variety of housing types and price ranges for various
household types.
• Wide variety of housing types and lot sizes in appropriate transect
zones.
• Pocket neighborhood/bungalow court and residential care facility
options in transect zones, MDR and more urban conventional zones.
• MR zone allows more than just complex-type development.
• Also see Comprehensive Plan recommendation HN-2-A.
LU-4-E: Civic uses in prominent locations. • Civic space and site requirements in neighborhood design
standards.
LU-4-F: Scale blocks for variety of building types, pedestrian traffic. • Block length or perimeter requirements in neighborhood design
standards.
LU-4-G: Site similar buildings across from each other. Face entrances
towards public spaces.
• Neighborhood planning standards that require transect zone
boundaries to follow rear property lines or alleys.
• Site planning standards that require front-facing facades and
building entrances.
LU-4-H: Sustainable practices such as light imprint development, low
impact development, alternative energy production in neighborhood
design.
• Context sensitive stormwater management.
• NYS Stormwater Manual used as performance guide; not list of only
acceptable SWPs.
LU-5-A: Implement institutional zoning. • Institutional overlay (over IC, CU, and CMC/Museum of the Earth
areas) and institutional transect zones.
LU-6-A: Adopt new zoning code, consider unified development code. • Unified development code (UDC) with most or all planning-related
regulations.
LU-6-B: Require form/transect-based zoning where appropriate. • Overlays for Medium Density TND and High Density TND character
districts, where TND is required.
• Form-based development standards for transect zones.
o
75
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Landouseo
LU-6-C: Adopt new subdivision regulations, consider unified
development code.
• Unified development code includes subdivision regulations.
• Neighborhood design and process/administration in separate UDC
chapters.
LU-6-D: Revise/amend development standards to reflect best
planning practice.
• Challenge “we’ve always done it that way” regulations and policies.
• Take inspiration from other communities in the US (and Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand), not just upstate New York.
LU-6-E: Simplified/more logical categorization of zoning districts,
uses, siting standards.
• Scale of land use as UDC organizing principle; not individual zones.
• Master list of broader use groups and types.
• No carryover of obsolete or single-purpose zones.
LU-6-F: Plain English regulations, using tables, charts, and
illustrations where possible.
• See §2.1.3 and §2.1.4.
• Plain English For Lawyers, Planning in Plain English, and other
guides for drafting plain English legislation.
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Housingoandoneighborhoodso
HN-1-A: Suitable land in appropriate locations to meet housing
needs.
• Comprehensive Plan future land use/character district map guides
residential zoning.
HN-1-B: Concentrate new housing development closer to city and
where public transit is available.
• Comprehensive Plan future land use/character district map guides
residential zoning.
• TND overlay following the Comprehensive Plan and future land
use/character district map, with mandatory TND mandatory, not
optional.
HN-1-C: Locate senior housing close to services and transit.
Encourage housing that accommodate aging in place principles.
• Pocket neighborhood/bungalow court and residential care facility
options in transect zones, MDR and more urban conventional zones.
• Residential care facility conditions: near bus route, integrated into
larger neighborhood, not an isolated complex.
HN-2-A: Require percentage of, offer incentives for affordable
housing in new developments. Affordable housing should be
indistinguishable from market rate.
• “Carrot” (bonus/incentive) over “stick” (quota) approach.
• Density bonus for projects that have middle-income market rate
and income-qualified housing.
• Architectural design standards that treat housing units of the same
type similarly.
HN-2-B: Allow smaller lot sizes in zoning regulations. • Smaller lots in neighborhood transect zones (example: 2,500’² -
10,000’², depending on zone).
• Small lot subdivisions for detached/patio/cottage homes in the R-S3
(MDR) district.
• Pocket neighborhoods as an option in conventional residential
zones.
HN-2-C: Pursue mechanisms that would ensure long term supply of
affordable housing.
• See Comprehensive Plan recommendation HN-2-B.
• Large minimum T-4 or T-5 zone area in TNDs.
76
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Naturaloresourceso
NR-2-A: Establish buffers between development activities and large
contiguous sensitive/protected areas.
• Unified sensitive area setback requirements including
stream/riparian areas, Unique Natural Areas (UNAs), Critical
Environmental Areas (CEAs), and conservation easements
• Preservation of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and (DEC/TNC) Natural
Heritage Sites.
NR-2-B: Focus development in urbanizing areas to prevent habitat
fragmentation.
• Zoning follows the future land use/character district map.
NR-2-D : Tree preservation regulations • Tree preservation requirements in landscaping regulations.
NR-5-B: Encourage use of native species in landscaping. • Landscaping regulations that count only native and adapted species
towards plant material requirements.
• Invasive/exotic plant ban.
NR-6-A: Low impact development, light imprint development, and
green infrastructure standards.
• LID in suburban/rural areas
• Light imprint in TND and pocket neighb orhoods.
NR-6-H: Wetland protection regulations, emphasis on areas not
addressed by state or federal laws.
• Sensitive area setback requirements.
• Stormwater regulations that consider natural features.
NR-7-C: Adopt development standards to protect scenic resources. • See Comprehensive Plan recommendation LU-1-B, LU-1-K.
NR-8-A: Regulate outdoor wood burning. • Outdoor wood boiler regulations in use regulations.
NR-8-B: Regulate air quality impacts from industrial operations. • Performance standards in use regulations.
NR-9-B: Performance/design standards to address noise pollution. • Measurable performance standards in use regulations.
• Buffering, setback, and other conditional requirements for noisy
primary and accessory uses (auto body shops, gas stations, etc.).
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproach
Energyoandoclimateoprotectiono
EC-7-C: Plant shade trees. • Minimum canopy and street tree planting requirements in
landscaping regulations.
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Agricultureo
AG-1-B: Spatial and vegetative buffers between non-farm dwellings
in agricultural zone and agricultural activities.
• Deeper setbacks in AG zone.
• Lot siting requirements considering prime agricultural soils,
agricultural activity areas.
AG-1-C: Vegetative buffers on non-agricultural land to shield from
farming (dust, pesticides).
• Tree preservation requirements include windbreaks.
• Landscaping regulations requiring windbreaks, shelterbelts, living
fences.
AG-2-A: Review/revise regulations regarding agricultural structures. • Harmonization with NYS Ag & Markets regulations.
• Agritourism and value-added operation building regulations to
keep agricultural use and character dominant.
AG-3-A: Better accommodate farm stands, year-round farm markets,
greenhouses and value-added product operations.
• Use regulations allowing a broader range of agritourism and value-
added operations at working farms, small garden stands and CSA
pickup locations in residential areas.
AG-3-B: Require community gardens in new development. • Neighborhood design standards have garden location, size, and
design requirements.
• Stormwater regulations allow gardens as an SMP.
• Community gardens defined as a civic space type in TNDs.
AG-4-C: Encourage household food production. • Landscaping regulations allowing food gardens and raised beds,
including front yards.
o
77
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Parksoandorecreationo
RE-1-E: Allow required park setasides to be met in different ways.
RE-1-F: Require new parks to be amassed into meaningful spaces,
functionally part of the public realm.
• Park location and siting requirements in neighborhood design
standards.
• Park location fronting on streets, not backing onto rear yards.
RE-2-A: Recreational opportunities near residences and workplaces. • Park location and siting requirements in neighborhood design
standards.
• Park proximity requirements for TNDs.
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Transportationo
TR-2-A: Control traffic speed through road design standards, traffic
calming, and street diets. Incorporate low-speed designs when
reconstructing roads.
• Neighborhood design standards have low-speed road design
requirements, more urban standards (curbs, sidewalks, and tree
lawns over shoulders and ditches), narrower roads.
• No arterial-style lane marking on residential neighborhood or
subdivision roads.
• Guidelines for street diet retrofits.
TR-2-D: Context sensitive approach for road planning and design. • Context-sensitive road design standards for Town and private
roads.
• Encourage context-sensitive design for state and county roads.
TR-2-G: Road networks in new developments to follow TND
principles.
• Neighborhood design standards include road connectivity,
complete streets, block perimeter, and alley requirements.
TR-3-D: Access management requirements that are compatible with
County and State standards.
• Access management standards that meet or exceed county and
state standards.
• Strict curb cut limits in TNDs, arterial roads, and exurban and rural
areas prone to frontage subdivision.
• Actions to trigger closing redundant curb cuts.
TR-4-C: Require developers to dedicate ROW, construct portions of
proposed collector roads.
• Official map showing proposed collector roads.
• Official map showing all proposed roads when a neighborhood
regulating plan is approved.
TR-5-B: Support establishment of community/regional
pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
• Road design templates include profiles with bike lanes.
• Street diet guidelines include adding bike lanes.
TR-6-A: Design streets using Complete Streets principles. • Neighborhood design standards require sidewalks in all but rural
areas, and bike lanes on collector and arterial roads.
• Complete Streets requirements following Town of Ithaca Complete
Streets policy, and best street design practice.
TR-6-B: Neighborhood design that reduces automobile dependence. • Minimum density at a level making public transportation viable (7
units/acre and up) in new neighborhoods.
• Complete Streets requirements.
TR-6-E: Evaluate parking requirements to reduce excessive
pavement, other uses of paved areas.
• Reduced parking requirements for various uses; more so in TND
areas. Include maximum parking requirements.
• On-street parking in TNDs, count in parking space= requirements.
• Shared parking requirements for neighboring uses with different
peak parking times.
• Context- and use-sensitive pavement requirements (ex: hard
surface required in urban/suburban areas, loose surface acceptable
in exurban/rural areas).
• Parking lot landscaping requirements: landscape islands, rain
gardens, canopy trees.
78
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
hommunityoserviceso
CS-2-D: Update Town’s Zoning Code to reflect fire code changes. • Road and site planning requirements harmonize with Fire Service
Features section of the Fire Code of New York State.
Goal/recommendationoo UDhoapproacho
Economicodevelopmento
ED-1-C: Streamline development review, land use regulations. • Keep it simple.
• Least complicated review and permitting procedures possible,
consistent with state law requirements and the need to ensure
effective project review.
• Administrative and by-right approval where possible.
• Separate Planning Board and Zoning Board powers.
• Standard administrative review, minor review (combined or one
step preliminary/final) and major review (separate or two step
preliminary and final) processes.
• Standards that are prescriptive, not open-ended or discretionary.
• Reveal interpretations and shadow laws.
• Don’t tie the UDC down to interpretations of old laws.
o
79
CHAPTER 4 | CO CEPTUAL U C OUTL E
hhaptero1o|oIntroductiono
§270-100 Title
§270-102 Purpose
§270-104 Authority
§270-106 Applicability
§270-108 Former planning regulations
§270-110 Severability
§270-112 Code approacho
o
hhaptero2o|oZoningoooo
§270-200 General
§270-202 Base zone and overlay summary
§270-204 Conventional zones
§270-206 Traditional neighborhood overlays and transect zones
§270-208 Institutional overlay transect zones
§270-210 Planned development zones
§270-212 Historic overlays
§270-214 Planned development overlays
§270-216 Zoning mapso
o
hhaptero3o|oNeighborhoodoandosubdivisionodesigno
§270-300 General
§270-302 Development types
§270-304 Lot types
§270-306 Standards for all development types
§270-308 Standards for conventional development
§270-310 Standards for cluster development
§270-312 Standards for pocket neighborhood development
§270-314 Standards for traditional neighborhood development
§270-316 Standards for institutional development
§270-318 Standards for mobile home park developmento
o
hhaptero4o|oSiteoandobuildingodevelopmentoandodesigno
§270-400 General
§270-402 Building and structure placement and arrangement
§270-404 Site design
§270-406 Architecture
§270-408 Buffers
§270-410 Landscaping
§270-412 Fences and walls
§270-414 Circulation and parking
§270-416 Signs
§270-418 Outdoor lighting
§270-420 Docks
§270-422 Utilities
§270-424 Other site features
§270-426 Use-specific standardso
o
hhaptero5o|oEnvironmentalocontrolso
§270-500 General
§270-502 Steep slopes
§270-504 Stormwater management
§270-506 Tree protection
hhaptero6o|oUseso o
§270-600 General
§270-602 Allowed use summary
§270-604 Principal uses
§270-606 Utility, infrastructure, and communication uses
§270-608 Temporary and intermittent uses
§270-610 Accessory uses and single-purpose structures
§270-612 Performance standards
hhaptero7o|oHistoricopreservationo[future provision]
hhaptero8o|oNonconformitiesoandovestedorightso
§270-800 General
§270-802 Nonconformities
§270-804 Vested rights
hhapteroo9o|oPlanningoactionsoandoapprovalso
§270-900 General
§270-902 Planning action summary
§270-904 Common procedures
§270-906 Zoning actions
§270-908 Master planning actions
§270-910 Subdivision actions
§270-912 Site development actions
§270-914 Appeal and adjustment actions
hhaptero10o|oEnforcingotheoUDho
§270-1000 General
§270-1002 Authority
§270-1004 Violations
§270-1006 Investigation and action
§270-1008 Violation notice
§270-1010 Remedies and enforcement powers
§270-1012 Persons subject to penalties
§270-1014 Appeals
hhaptero11o|oInterpretingotheoUDho
§270-1100 General
§270-1102 Interpretation process
§270-1104 Interpreting regulations
§270-1106 Interpreting measurement
§270-1108 Interpreting words and terms
o
81
CHAPTER 5 | ZO G RESOURCES
Zoning/developmentocodeodiagnosticoreportso
• Arlington, Texas
http://landuselaw.wustl.edu/ordinances/arlington_diagnosis_public_review_draft.pdf
• Aurora, Colorado
https://www.auroragov.org/DoingBusiness/CityPlanning/ZoningCodeUpdate/020592
• Austin, Texas
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/Austin_CodeDiagnosis_PublicDraft_web_050514.pdf
• Daytona Beach, Florida
http://www.newcodedaytonabeach.us/a/pdf/Daytona_Diagnosis_Annotated%20Outline.pdf
• Los Angeles, California
http://recode.la/zoning-code-evaluation-report
• Madison, Wisconsin
http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborhoods/zoningrewrite/documents/ZAReport2.pdf
• Raleigh, North Carolina
http://www.glenwoodagency.com/resources/diagnostic-approach-report.pdf
• Roswell, Georgia
http://www.roswellgov.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2709
• Syracuse, New York
http://www.syrgov.net/ReZoneSyracuse.aspx
• Union County, North Carolina
http://www.co.union.nc.us/Portals/0/Planning/Documents/Land%20Use%20Ordinance%20Rewrite-
Concepts%20and%20Directions%20Report.pdf
• Zebulon, North Carolina
http://townofzebulon.org/uploads/Zebulon%20Diagnostic%20Report.pdf
Zoning/developmentocodeorewriteoprojectso
• Amherst, New York: Imagine Amherst
http://imagineamherst.com
• Buffalo, New York: Buffalo Green Code
http://www.buffalogreencode.com
• Carbondale, Colorado: Unified Development Code
http://carbondaleudc.com
• Daytona Beach, Florida: New Code Daytona Beach
http://www.newcodedaytonabeach.us
• Indianapolis, Indiana: Indy Rezone
http://www.indyrezone.org
• Los Angeles, California: re:code LA
http://recode.la
• Miami, Florida: Miami 21
http://www.miami21.org
• Salem, Oregon: Salem Code Cleanup
http://salemcodecleanup.net
• Washington, District of Columbia: Zoning Regulations Review
http://zoningdc.org
82
hontemporaryozoning/developmentocodeso
• Babylon, New York: Downtown Wyandanch Form-Based Code
http://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/01/wyandanch-straight-path-corridor-fbc.pdf
• Birmingham, Michigan: Zoning Ordinance
http://www.bhamgov.org/document_center/Planning/zoningordinance.pdf
• Bluffton, South Carolina: Unified Development Ordinance
http://www.townofbluffton.sc.gov/Documents/izone.pdf
• Brattleboro (town), Vermont: Land Use and Development Regulations
http://tinyurl.com/j98nmln
• Buffalo, New York: Unified Development Ordinance
http://www.buffalogreencode.com/Components/BuffaloUDO_Public_Review_Draft.pdf
• Clifton Park, New York: Form-Based Development Code
http://www.cliftonpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Clifton-Park-Town-Center-Form.pdf
• Cincinnati, Ohio: Land Development Code
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/zoning/view-the-draft-land-development-code/
• Hutto, Texas: Unified Development Code
http://www.huttotx.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1894
• Malta, New York: Downtown Malta Form-Based Code
http://www.malta-town.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/196
• New Albany, Ohio: Urban Center Code
http://www.newalbanyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Urban-Center-Code.pdf
• Olean, New York: Downtown Form-Based Code
http://www.cityofolean.org/commdev/pdf/Olean-FBC-2015-12-30.pdf
• Raleigh, North Carolina: Unified Development Ordinance
http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/extra/Books/PlanDev/UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance/
• San Marcos, California: Form-Based Code
http://www.san-marcos.net/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3660
• SmartCode (open source model/template for a form/transect-based code)
http://transect.org/codes.html
• Williamsville, New York: Mixed Use Design Standards, Historic Landmark Design Standards, Neighborhood Mixed Use Design
Standards, Multiple Dwelling Residential Design Standards
http://www.walkablewilliamsville.com/code.html
Articlesoandoguideso
• Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning: Form-Based Codes - A Step-by-Step Guide For Communities
http://landuselaw.wustl.edu/articles/A%20Form%20Based%20Code%20Guide.pdf
• Congress for the New Urbanism: Updating the Zoning Code - Issues and Considerations
https://www.cnu.org/sites/files/zoning_primer.pdf
• Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company – Light Imprint New Urbanism: A Case Study Comparison
http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Light%20Imprint%20NU%20Report-web.pdf
• International City/County Management Association: Creating a Regulatory Blueprint for Healthy Community Design - A Local
Government Guide to Reforming Zoning and Land Development Codes
http://bookstore.icma.org/freedocs/Active%20Living%20Code%20Reform.pdf
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Creating the Community You Want – Municipal Options for Land Use Control
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Creating_the_Community_You_Want.pdf
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Guide to Planning and Zoning Laws of New York State
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Guide_to_Planning_and_Zoning_Laws.pdf
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Questions for the Analysis and Evaluation of Existing Zoning Regulations
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Evaluating_Zoning.pdf
o
83
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Subdivision Review in New York State
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Subdivision_Review_in_NYS.pdf
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_and_the_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf
• James A Coon Local Government Technical Series: Zoning Board of Appeals
http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Zoning_Board_of_Appeals.pdf
• Local Government Commission: Building Better Communities - A Policy-Maker’s Guide to Infill Development
http://lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/guides/blc_infill_dev_guidebook_2001.pdf
• Local Government Commission: Form-Based Codes Factsheet
http://lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/fact_sheets/form_based_codes.pdf
• Michigan Association of Planners: Form-Based Codes – New Approach to Zoning
https://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf
• Queensland (Australia) Department of Local Government and Planning – Next Generation Planning
http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/ngp-handbook.pdf
• Regional Plan Association: Form-Based Codes in New Jersey – Issues and Opportunities
http://www.state.nj.us/state/planning/publications/190-form-based-codes.pdf
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments – Form-Based Code Handbook
http://www.sacog.org/projects/form-based-codes.cfm
o
o
o
o
o
o
o