HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-CC-1984-09-05�A
I
1 -1 kESEN`! :
Mayor (_,ut.e nbc:rge
Aldermen (10) - Cummings; Dc:r,ni , Hai- e, Hoffman, Holdsworth;
}�I1e:cn I ;C;Y.5 i'C- 1cp=s'�a "�; 1ZUfllalifil! 1<7.; �iClllatllCi'
OTHERS PRESENT
City Controller Spano
Dir . , Plann� ng DeveloViae, t. ;Urt
Fire Chief - Tuc.kerman
Dep, Controller - Cafferi.11o
Supt. of Public Works - Dougherty
Personnel Administrator - Shaw
Corporate Counsel. -- Stumbar
BPW Commissioner - Gerkin
City Rep. T C. Bd. of 1 <epresent:ati.ves - Nichols
City Clerk - Rundle
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Gutenberger led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance, to
the American flag.
MINUTES:.
Meeting of August 1, 1984
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the meeting of August: 1, 1.984 be
approved as published.
Carried Unanimously
425
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Alderman Schlather requested correction of the time of Adjourrrment:
from 8:18 p.m. to 8:18 a.m.
Resolutions
By Alderman Romanowski: Seconded by Alderman Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the minutes of the meeting of August 21; 7.984 be
approved as corrected.
Carried Unanimously
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS_:
Public Hearing--Proposed Zoning Map Amendment - Valentine Place
Rezoning - Entire Parcel T
Resolution To Open Public hearing
By AlUerman Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Haine
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the proposed. zoning
reap amendment of entire parcel of Valentine Place be opened.
Carried Unanimously
Public Hearings -- Proposed Zoning Map Amendment - Valentine Place
Rezoning - Excluding It acare Parcel
Resolution To Open Public Hearing
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Dennis
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider the proposed zoning
map amendment of Valentine Place, excluding Ithacare parcel., be
opened.
Carried Unanimously
Both hearings were declared open at the same time as they concerned
the same item.
Mayor Gutenberger read the following communications received by him:
11923 E. State Street
September 3, 1984
Mayor John C. Gutenberger
Ithaca Common Council
As the owner of property at 921 -923 Fast State Street, I wish to
oppose the rezoning request of the Valentine Neighborhood Alliance
as it pertains to my property on East State Street.
Mary K. Meadc (Mrs. R. T. Meade, Sr.)"
4 fi 2- _)epterher 984
"To: Mayor JOhn Gutenberner and
Members of Com"1011 0011116 �
From: I. Kramnick
Re: Planning Board Inquiry and \1a] ("Iti_TIC P1:�:,�::
There is some confusion over a decision made by the Planning Board .
at its August 28th meeting. At. that meeting; an ad hoc committee
composed of Richie Moran, myself., and Ste�ic Jackson was appoi_nt.ed
to conduct- an inquiry into how .Ind why l,nolal. edge emerged when. i.t:
did about the R3a parcel within the assumed P1 area in question on
Valentine Place these many months. The charge of the committee is,
to clear the air by recreating the history of the discovery as
well as to make procedural recommendations for the future. The
ad hoc committee is not conducting a general inquiry into the
history of Valentine Place rezoning and the role of public and
private actors. Nor was the ad hoc committee intended to play any
role in tile current debate or current deliberations. Its concerns
are to put on record what happened in the discovery of the 33 acre
and perhaps to draw from this historical record policy recommenda-
tions for future rezoning procedures."
"To: Joseph A. Rundle, City Clerk
Re: Zoning Review Pursub,nt to Secti.011 239 -1 and -m of the New
York State General Municipal Law.
Case: Proposed Valentine Place rezoning (within S00 feet of a state
highway, Route 79)
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under
Section 239 -m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore,
no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department
and you are free to act without prejudice.
However, we urge that you consider fully t:he consequences of tal<i_r1� _J
a zoning action which is in apparent disagreement with the develop-
ment policy published in the Ithaca General Plan. The need for
rental housing in the Ithaca /Tompkins County community continues to
be a matter of concern. The development proposal which prompted
this proposed rezoning is for a close -in site which is within walking
distance of three major employment centers, has an established
infrastructure, and is within a short walk of public transportation.
Although rental housing can be developed elsewhere in the community
it is unlikely that many sites with all of the advantages of this
one can be found.
Please submit a copy of your decision so that we can make it a
part of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank R. Liguori, Commissioner
Tompkins County Planning Department"
City Clerk Rundle read the following communications received by him:
...F0: The Common Council of the City of Ithaca, State of New York
The undersigned, aggregately constituting the owner of twenty per
centum or more of the area of the land included in the proposed
zoning change referred to herein and /or aggregately constituting
the owner of twenty per centum or more of the area of the 'land
immediately adjacent extending one hundred feet therefrom, and /or
aggregately constituting the owner of twenty per centum or more of
the area of land directly opposite thereto, extending one hundred
feet from the street frontage of such opposite land, pursuant to
Section 83 of the General City Law,
Does hereby protest against the proposed amendment to the City of
Ithaca zoning ordinance noticed to be acted upon at the September
1984 meeting of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca to be held
1c
'7
.�c. ;T�t.cinl;er ,,;, 1f, 2
VALENTINE ASSOCIATES
by John Novarr, General Partner"
Notarized by Martin A. Shapiro
Bryna Fireside, lOS Valentine Place, addressed the Council saying
that the issue is more than what Valentine Associates would like
to build. She said the residents have watched the gradual decline
of the neighborhood because of careless designation of present
zoning. She urged the Council to think about what could happen if
left as currently zoned.
Ruth Dietzel, 111 Valentine Place, expressed objection to any zoning
change, said it is unfair and unnecessary, and asked that her
property be exempted from zoning change.
Tom Shelley, 118 E. Court Street spoke to the Council in favor of
rezoning the area.
William Healey, Administrator, Ithacare, Inc., protested against
the alternative zoning proposal which excludes the Ithacare parcel.
Mr. Healey requested, on behalf of the residents of Ithacare, their
families, the Board of Directors and staff, that Ithacare be fully
removed from the Valentine issue.
on O i o''(A; { t l
1 � h .L 11 �, I t 1{ f`
property of the under. si- g.:ned i.oca i ('d I, i. c;) noa A-. 11 `; 0-0th Qu
Street and other property is to !)(,. rezoned. f) "orri F -I to R -la, said
proposed amendment. ent.it.lcd ".All �.)IJHNANCF A1\11.'.1?DING THE ZONING, MAP,
SECTION 30.22 OF CHAPTER 30 EN'TI'11J D 'ZONING' OF THE CITY 01, )-THACA
MUNICIPAL CODE."
The undersigned, owner of properly within; I'lha t past of the City, of
Ithaca, which would be. atfected such propo .,_ed amendment,
Does hereby protest against the change proposed by such amendment.
As to the owner whose name appears below, 1-his instrument is a
protest: against such amendment, pursuant. to General City Law
Section 83.
The undersigned property owner respectfully petitions the Common
Council to deny such amendment ar,d to retain the P -1- si.atus for the
entire property owned by the undersigned.
ITHACARE, INC.
(�I
By William J. Healy, Administrator"
�.,
Notarized by Debra L. Schmidt
(.Il
"To: The Common Council of the City of Ithaca, State of New York
�i.
We, the undersigned, aggregately constituting the owners of i.wenty
per centum or more of the area of the land included. in the proposed .
zoning changes referred to in the attached copies of two legal
notices and /or aggregately constituting the owners of twenty per
centum or more of the area of the land immediately adjacent ex-
tending one hundred :Feet therefrom, and /or aggregately cons t:i i:uti.ng
the owners of twenty per centum or more of the area of land. directly
opposite thereto, extending one hundred feet from the street:
frontage of such opposite land, pursuant. to Section 83 of the
General City L,aw,
Do hereby protest against the proposed amendments to the Cii -y of
Ithaca zoning ordinance noticed to be acted upon at the September
1984 meeting of the Common Council. of the City of Ithaca to be held
on or about September 5, 1984, wherein the existing zoning of the
property of the undersigned located at or near Valentine Place
Extension and other property is to be rezoned from P -1 and. R -3a to
R -la' said proposed amendments entitled. "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP, SECTION 30.22 OF CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE," copies of which are attached hereto.
VALENTINE ASSOCIATES
by John Novarr, General Partner"
Notarized by Martin A. Shapiro
Bryna Fireside, lOS Valentine Place, addressed the Council saying
that the issue is more than what Valentine Associates would like
to build. She said the residents have watched the gradual decline
of the neighborhood because of careless designation of present
zoning. She urged the Council to think about what could happen if
left as currently zoned.
Ruth Dietzel, 111 Valentine Place, expressed objection to any zoning
change, said it is unfair and unnecessary, and asked that her
property be exempted from zoning change.
Tom Shelley, 118 E. Court Street spoke to the Council in favor of
rezoning the area.
William Healey, Administrator, Ithacare, Inc., protested against
the alternative zoning proposal which excludes the Ithacare parcel.
Mr. Healey requested, on behalf of the residents of Ithacare, their
families, the Board of Directors and staff, that Ithacare be fully
removed from the Valentine issue.
4 2 S ..4_ September 5, 1984
Carl Carpenter, (_�wner of three parcel, iii the area, exPT( -, (_,(1
ob c(:.T ion t ally zon.1_ng (:)range.
Michael Brown, Attorney for Valentine Place Neighberheocl Alliailcc,;
addressed the Council as follows:
"I. Definitions:
Spot Zoning is the process of s:il)gling out a small parcel of 1.<a.n(1
for a use classification totaliv different from that of the sur-
rounding area., for the benefit of the owner of such property and to
the detriment of other owners. The question in spot zoning is
whether the zoning was accomplished for the benefit of the indi-
vidual owner, rather than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the
general welfare of the community-. (See Anderson: New York Zoning
Law and Practice, (Section 5.03))
Contract Zoning: is when a zoning ordinance authorizes a use on
condition that the owner of the land file a restrictive covenant,
or limit his use of the land in a certain way. It is rezoning "in
the future" based on the performance of certain acts by owners.
A municipality is without authority to diminish its legislative
power by entering a settlement agreement in a zoning action which
gives the land owner a vested right to use his land in a certain
way, without regard to subsequent changes in the zoning regulations.
Both. spot zoning and contract zoning have been held to be unlaw-
ful by the courts.
2. The question of Ithacare: Miether the Common Council decides
to re Ithacare toni- grit, or postpones its consideration of
Ithacare to a future date at which time the question of Ithacare
and its neighborhood may be taken up comprehensively, either course
of action would be legitimate. The Ithacare parcel was included in
one of the rezoning amendments to be brought up tonight because it
is at this time part of the old P1. zone which dates back to the Ilse
of the parcel as a hospital mane years ago. Leaving the parcel zone
as it is would not be spot zoning, or otherwise invalid. Keeping t},�
status quo as to zoning is merely not rezoning. There is no legal_
requirement that a municipality deal with all of its problems at the
same time, but a common council has more than ample freedom to attack
one problem at a time.
3. The proposal to zone the Valentine Associates ap reel R3 with
a contract to permit cluster housing:
As noted above the courts have found contract zoning to be unlaw-
ful. Even if this proposal is named something other than "contract
zoning" there are many problems which it would provide, and other
ways to accomplish.,the same aims in a less disruptive fashion. The
suggestion of an R3 zone with Rl for the rest of the neighborhood
could well be attacked as spot zoning. If not spot zoning, the
proposal would trade the protection of zoning ordinance (which the
BZA and Building Commissioner must respect) for the lesser pro-
tection of a contract or restrictive covenant (which neither the
BZA nor the Building Commissioner need consider in making their
decisions). This is a much lesser right, any contract being merely
a right to sue, rather than an ordinance with the force of law. The
zoning by contract approach asks the neighborhood to trust the
current or unknown future owners of the property to adhere to their
contract, and to trust the city to enforce the contract. The
contract would not appear on the zoning map, and therefore would no
give notice to other land owners or prospective buyers, and might
thus in the future be forgotten or ignored. Zoning by contract in
this sense would set a bad precedent for other land owners in the
city. Rather than being able to rely on the zoning law, they would
be faced with the question of )•: ether or not they could cut a deal
with the city and make a contract as to their land. Rather than
the impression of even - handedness of the law, this gives the im-
pression that the zoning ordinance can be dealt with by making a
deal.
c, r.,t F:r �; 198/429
4429
The c }i;e t:io11 �f` ,; (c i c :.meat c, r,' raci, r r�r.e o f l; :i s
sort . 14'};a t JA" thE: cWnea- c i:u i
for a very large development on i,c s:i.t.e? 1t:5a oning Y :r,U d alto},[
225 units on a four acre parcel Thc: IIIIJ l dJ I -J; c')llmissi7nel- may
rightfully ignore a. restrictive uver,ant i n i.s.s,iing a bil.ildi.n }; pei °rr,i i..
Ifhe does, and a permit is issu(!d, who can enforce this contract?
There is a. question, of :iAand.ing wiet.11ev anv of e nc :if�hhor:
could sue, If the ue ghbors c�a;, ; a ,"tle �. },c :r, 1-.o i � le", ; .? The ci ty
could choose not to sue on the m)(,sti.on, �,nd ;night well choose not:
to sue its own Building CommissiOTlel'. H t -he city did sue, the
developer might well be able to ;ei, Ole cn;irr.; invalidated a- beir,p;
spot zoning or contract zoning and thus inva.l.id, leaving him with
the least restrictive zone. The neighbors could not sue the city
for not sueing since the choice cr(` size or not to sue would. not be
something which could be compellc,d by a court.
The question arises as to how i.o change zoning of this sort:. There
are existing procedures for changes in zoning which have stood the
test of time. What mechanism is there to change such a contract?
Must the same public hearing, etc., be followed as in current re-
zoning? Certainly the mere fact of a contract allowing cluster
zoning does not guarantee that cluster zoning will be built. The
city has many examples of projects which were never to leave the
drawing board. If it is not built then the Land remains RZ leaving
Cl� the owner with a restrictive covenant which he could then sue to
have removed, which if removed would affect the rezoning of t=hat
parcel without the mechanisms bu=ilt: into the zoning l.aw. What: if:
the city later on wished to change the zoning on that parcel.?
Would the city then be in breach of contract?
Finally, such rezoning would require the defeat of the measures
now in front of the Council, for which the neighborhood has fought:
so long.
4. Cluster Housing: There is a less intrusive way to permit
cluster housing on not only the V,'jlent:ine Associates parse]., but
on any parcel in the city which is so situated, if the Council,
believes cluster housing to be desirable. Since cluster housing
is effectively single family (Rl) housing in which the conventional_
subdivided housing development is replaced with a cluster arrange-
ment, with the total density on the larger parcel being the same
as it would be in a subdivision but with the open space much larger
due to the grouping of houses, cluster housing could be permitted by
amending the zoning ordinances to allow cluster housing by special.
permit in R1 zones. The special permit could be conditioned on
any requirements which the BZA sees fit and appropriate to place,
and the BZA could be guided by the terms of the ordinance as to
minimal. lot sizes on which cluster housing would be permitted, and
other measures to be taken. This would be appropriate since the
question of cluster zoning is lot dependent, as are other special
permit applications, and at the same time the special permit pro-
cedure does allow for proper review using the established pro-
cedures of the zoning ordinance rather than grafting a new procedure
on to the law. Amending the zoning ordinance in this sense would
allow cluster housing anywhere else in the city where appropriate,
with appropriate limitations, rather than requiring any other land
owner to come to a contract with the city if he wishes to erect
cluster housing, with all of the problems noted above. Finally,
adopting this approach towards permitted cluster housing, if that
is thought appropriate, would not hold up the long worked for and
desired rezoning of this area to RI, but would permit the rezoning
with the question of cluster housing deferred to the special permit
stage.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael F. Brown
Attorney for Valentine Place Neighborhood Alliance"
Chris Zinder, 104 Valentine Place, presented the following from
the Valentine Place Neighborhood All.i_ance:
430 6 -- Septc mbcY 5, 1981
"Mayo) Gil tcnhertCi mcmbcr o f C� moron Cour�c�7 , City
employees, and fellow Ithacans:
I'd like to begin by asking the members of the valentine Place
Neighborhood Alliance who are here tonight, and those who are here
to support. is, to please rise,
c >r if you are already standing,
please raise your hands. Once again, we have come to these Counci -7
r11 for the future of the Valentine
Chambers to express our conce
Place neighborhood,
We would like to express our
resolutions t
thanks to
this as
lrpublicll hearing , _-
worked very hard to bring t
given the seemingly endless corrections
�J� who had t e made. And
o
we would also like to thank all of spoken
voted for neighborhood preservation during this process, and we
especially thank those of you who will do so again tonight.
Unfortunately, the question of rezoning Valentine Place has become
a terribly polarizing issue for this community. I can assure you
that we are very hurt, shocked, and saddened that this has happened.
We have been accused recently of being a rigid group of people,
unbending in our pursuit of an unrealistic goal. I would like to
submit to you that this is not true. We are an intelligent,
realistic group of people who have been working to maintain the
quality of life of that part of Ithaca in which we live. Finding
ourselves in the midst of an incredibly difficult and complex
struggle, we have had to accept losses, modify our position, and
yes-, propose compromises. For the record, I would like to spell -
these out for you.
1) Over two years ago, we accepted the variance granted to John
Novarr to reconstruct the Valentine dorm and fill it with S6 students.
We presented no opposition to this, believing that Mr. Novarr would
do a good job, give life to this building, and be a good neighbor.
2) We have reluctantly accepted the concept of some further develo
ment at the end of this little street being necessary. As has been
said many times, there is a need for more single - family homes here
in Ithaca. We say again tonight, that we would welcome the develop-
ment of single - family homes on John Novarr's land.
3) In doing so, we would accept the loss of the lovely wooded area
above the gorge, which is the only greenspace in the immediate area.
Up to now this greenspace has helped make living near the noise of
State Street tolerable.
4) I would like to point out that we have substantially modified
our position with respect to Ithacare. Back in July, we asked
Ithacare to accept the R -la designation that had been proposed for
its parcel of land. But we have listened to the reasons Mr. Healy
has given for why Ithacare wishes to remain P -1 at this time. We
now believe that the rezoning decision concerning Ithacare should
be made at another time, free from the turmoil and controversy that
has surrounded these resolutions, and it should be made with full
participation by Ithacare and its surrounding neighbors. We there-
fore prefer the second, alternative resolution, for the sake of
Ithacare. with regard to that strange piece of R -3 land owned by
Ithacare that is dealt with in the second resolution, I would
remind you that that land was designated as a "no build" area by _"40)
the EIS, which described it as a "major surface water drainage area
potentially high impact with development." I-Iow it ever got to be
zoned R -3 is a major question which still needs to be answered.
An R -la designation will provide it with the protection it needs, at
the least cost to the city. To the director and the Board of Trustees
of Ithacare, we say: we understand your position, and we ask you to
understand and support ours. Any technical problems or calculations
concerning that strange piece of land can be worked out later.
Please do not oppose this alcernati.ve resolution on those grounds
alone.
1JLF'.J11� "'('J i J 9t1i4431
5) During the course o1= this t; r)Jf; dji f:.1 c,; t
been asked many i .illii: t
with compromise ideas. 1 e bel.icwc (i,a1_ ,,r: have, and t;lit. l
wish to present one more comproii-i.i se. :idea for ;Tour consi der�l t.j on .
In discussions recently with cer t<i i r, Couilc:i l members . i:he idea of
a return to Contract Zoning has bees) mentioned to us, The neighbor-
hood ckiiinot. accept 1 -his No i10 J;r,t i., tls1 i i:. foi
reasons oui att i�rJle� I; as u.-,i 1J ;.`,(:d �IUkdE` :, co-J1- 1pJ'o1J11 SC S (r11
be negotiated uJJder R fa. The :i (y could ameJ d the Zoning OrdiiJanc(;
to allow cluster development. of s j ngl o f anii l y dwellings under 11
and R-2 density and lot size reti;ulatjons Ruch an 2mend.menr could
include the provision that this be allowed only by special. permit.
of the Board of Zoning Appeals, which would protect R -1 and R -2
neighborhoods from automatically having cluster developments im-
posed. Under this arrangement, Hj-. Novarr could still build a
cluster development by permit from the BZA, but it would be a
project much more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood .
that we wish to preserve. This option for the city caJ; and should
be discussed, and we would be glad to participate in. such dis-
cussions, once our neighborhood is protected with an R--la. designa-
tion.
G) I want it to be clear that the neighborhood is asking for protection
111 not only from inappropriate development on the Valentine Associates'
CL) parcel, but also from the expansion by other property owners in the
CA neighborhood. We do not want to see Carl Carpenter, Ruth Ditzell,
Jim Iacovelli, or Chris Anagnost expand beyond what they have now.
The balance between families and students is at a breaking point.
already.
The R -la resolutions before you tonight have been portrayed re-
peatedly in the news media. as being "the neighborhood's resolution,"
But these aren't our resolutions, Lhey`re. your resolutions. They
have come out of committee legitimately; they have been backed by a
majority of you, the members of Common Council. You have backed
these resolutions because, in the absence of an updated. Master Plan
(4wool for zoning of neighborhoods in this city, you have decided that our
neighborhood is worth preserving, and that an R -la. zone for our area
is the most appropriate way to ensure that preservation.
This has been a very difficult summer for me and my family, and for
many of my neighbors. Old friendships have even been broken over
this controversy. We have suffered emotionally and consequent]),
physically. Unfortunately, no matter what happens tonight, we
won't be able to put this issue behind us. There are several major
Questions that need to be answered, concerning the procedures that
have been followed and the bizarre twists and turns that this whole
process has taken. These questions aren't going to go away, and
neither are we until we get some satisfactory answers.
"Thank you."
Resolution To Close Public Hearing
By Alderman Sc lather: Seconded by
RESOLVED, That the Public Ileari.ng to
map amendment of Valentine Place and
Ithacare be closed. ,
Alderperson Peterson
consider the proposed zoning
alternative proposal excluding
Carried Unanimously
In conclusion, one cannot help
but be reminded of the old myth of
Sisyphus, whose punishment was
to toil arduously but never to
achieve his goal. He struggled
to push a boulder to the top of a
mountain, only to have it fall
to the bottom when he was almost at
the top. Well, we have felt a
lot like Sisyphus this summer. In
the past few weeks, given the
recent developments, our efforts at
times have seemed futile. We
have talked to alderpeople who in
July vocalized their support,
yet in the interim seem to have
changed their minds.
What we are asking of you tonight,
from the bottom of our hearts,
is that you relieve one of our
Sisyphean burdens by voting so that
one of the resolutions before
you will pass and our neighborhood
will. receive the protection it
deserves under R -la.
"Thank you."
Resolution To Close Public Hearing
By Alderman Sc lather: Seconded by
RESOLVED, That the Public Ileari.ng to
map amendment of Valentine Place and
Ithacare be closed. ,
Alderperson Peterson
consider the proposed zoning
alternative proposal excluding
Carried Unanimously
432
8.1 September 5, 1984
Public Hearing - Proposed Zoning Amendment - Accessory Apartment
Or d1Ila11cC
Resolution 'To Open Public Ilearinc,
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconclecl by Alderman K:illeell
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearin, to consider proposed zoning
amendment for Accessory Apartment Ordinance be opened.
Carr i-ed 1?zanimously
Mayor Gutenberger presented the following communication from the
Tompkins County Planning Department:
"August 29, 1984
To: Joseph A. Rundle, City Clerk
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239 -1 and -m of the New
York State General Municipal. Law
Case: Proposed zoning ordinance amendment providing for "accessory
apartments"
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under
Section 239 -m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore,
no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department
and you are free to act without prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank R. Liguori, Commissioner
Tompkins County Planning Department"
No one appeared to speak to the hearing.
Resolution 'I'o Close Public Hearing
By Alderman Romanowski: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the Public Hearing to consider proposed zoning
amendment for Accessory Apartment Ordinance be closed.
Carried Unanimously
ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee
Alderperson Cummings requested the addition of two items to the
agenda:
XVI C. Support of State Funding Assistance to Regional
Planning Agencies -- Resolution
XVI D. Accessory Apartment Ordinance Environmental Assess-
ment-- Resolution. GIs. Cummings commented that the
resolution needed to be dealt with before the vote
on the Accessory Apartment Ordinance.
No Council member objected.
Budget i Administration Committee
Alderman Dennis requested the addition of one item to the agenda:
XIV I. Fire Contract, Town of Ithaca, which was tabled at
the June 6, 1984 meeting, to be lifted from the
table -- Resolution
No Council member objected.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Mayor Gutenberger reported having received letters from the
following:
Edward C. King, Jr. - regarding penalty on late payment
of taxes
Edward P. Abbott - regarding staffing at the parking ramp
cl
Mayor Gutenberger referred the letters to the BSA Committee.
PETITIONS AND HEARIN(,S Oil
Fair Pract��es OrcI- finance
Leonard Ferris, 104 Short
objection to enactment of
passages from the B-ihlc:
support his stand,
4 `
l'iikSGiV; fsl;l;OkE COONC I 1;
Street.., ;,cidi,essed t.l,e Cr „��;ciJ e >;i,rc:ss:�
the Fair Practices Ordinance. He cited
20:1 3 and PO17ian- , 1 :26, 2'% to
Alienation /Recreation Plan - West iind
George Sheldon, Lansing, N.Y. , on Delia] f of I-lie Farmers Market:,
addressed the Council on the proposed Al. ienat:i.on /R.ecr.ea.tion Plan
in the West End of Ithaca at the site where the Farmers Market is
located. He requested the Council. to consider carefully before
voting for the plan as it would mean the end of the Farner.s Market-
as it is now constituted. He urged Council. to vote against
alienation.
Fair Practices Ordinance
Edwin York, Newfield, N.Y. and Alan Walters, 104 E. Lewis Street,
addressed the Council, speaking against. the Fair Practices Ordinance,
presenting quotes from Luke 13:3 and First Corinthians 6 :9 as the
basis for their request that Council not pass the Ordinance.
Nancy Bereano, 312 N. Geneva Streei -, addressed the Council on behalf
of the Lesbian and Gay Task Force, requesting the Council to vote in
support of the Fair Practices Ordinance to provide the same kind of
protection to lesbians and gays as to other minority groups. She
referred to an article in the New York Times wherein the recent
U.S. Conference of Mayors in June recommended approval of a resolu-
tion at all levels of government adopting Legislation protecting
the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.
REPORT OF BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Rep. Nichols reported on the following:
Asbestos Removal from T.C. Library: The work should be completed
this month and the library will close for a week or so, then be
open again with the following improvements: new carpet, relocation
of main desk, a computer terminal for benefit of the public will be
available.
Reapportionment: The Board has passed the Reapportionment resolution;
the 1S- member committee will continue with the five from the City
remaining as chosen two years ago.
Michael Bacon, representing i.t;c
ih�jca
Gay Task i�orce,
addressed the Council, speaking
-,ii suppor c of ll-,e
Fair Pract.i ce
Rep. Nichols
Ordinance, and expressing thanks
to the Chartc)' &
Ordi- na.nce
to recommend
Committee for preparing the cardi;�r,ce
American Community Cablevision
for consider
».lion.
before and liked
A. F. Marshall, 41 -6 N. Geneva St.i-c:ct,
presented a
petition s,jpned
Community Gardens are
by 11 residents requesting Mayor
(iutenberger and
the Counci -] i:o
issue directive to Ithaca Cable
(;()mmission Chairman
Robert Fletche3°
to order ACC to restore the three
basic channels
or issue a 25%
reduction in payment to ACC for
tl)e loss of those
channels. He
commented that duplication of three
channels does
not constitute. a
replacement for the three basic
channels lost.
Alienation /Recreation Plan - West iind
George Sheldon, Lansing, N.Y. , on Delia] f of I-lie Farmers Market:,
addressed the Council on the proposed Al. ienat:i.on /R.ecr.ea.tion Plan
in the West End of Ithaca at the site where the Farmers Market is
located. He requested the Council. to consider carefully before
voting for the plan as it would mean the end of the Farner.s Market-
as it is now constituted. He urged Council. to vote against
alienation.
Fair Practices Ordinance
Edwin York, Newfield, N.Y. and Alan Walters, 104 E. Lewis Street,
addressed the Council, speaking against. the Fair Practices Ordinance,
presenting quotes from Luke 13:3 and First Corinthians 6 :9 as the
basis for their request that Council not pass the Ordinance.
Nancy Bereano, 312 N. Geneva Streei -, addressed the Council on behalf
of the Lesbian and Gay Task Force, requesting the Council to vote in
support of the Fair Practices Ordinance to provide the same kind of
protection to lesbians and gays as to other minority groups. She
referred to an article in the New York Times wherein the recent
U.S. Conference of Mayors in June recommended approval of a resolu-
tion at all levels of government adopting Legislation protecting
the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.
REPORT OF BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Rep. Nichols reported on the following:
Asbestos Removal from T.C. Library: The work should be completed
this month and the library will close for a week or so, then be
open again with the following improvements: new carpet, relocation
of main desk, a computer terminal for benefit of the public will be
available.
Reapportionment: The Board has passed the Reapportionment resolution;
the 1S- member committee will continue with the five from the City
remaining as chosen two years ago.
Budget.; The County budget must be passed by November 7; the Board
are now working on it. It looks as though there will have to be a
sizeable increase.
Alderman Schlather asked what the procedure and schedule are from
here on out, in connection with the jail site.
Clinton Street Site
Clinton Street site
for New Jail: The
chosen for the new
engineers' report on the
jail. is very unfeasible;
the soil is mostly
silt and not really
buildable.
Rep. Nichols
suggested that the
City would be wise
to recommend
some alternate
sites- -the one considered
before and liked
was the
NYSEG site where
Community Gardens are
located. They must
have at
least three acres.
Budget.; The County budget must be passed by November 7; the Board
are now working on it. It looks as though there will have to be a
sizeable increase.
Alderman Schlather asked what the procedure and schedule are from
here on out, in connection with the jail site.
434 -lo
Rep. Nic}1() 7 responded that the)� jmjird to
October. 'the City had preferred I -lie .jail
but sit.es will. be considered also outside
Mayor Gutenberger requested that the City
meetings concerning the ,jail sil e.
1.984
(1loose a
be built in the City
the city.
be apprised of all
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR:
Letter from Mari sue Bishop
Mayor. Gutenberger called attention to a. two -page letter from blarisue
Bishop, Chair, Affirmative Action Advisory Committee, which containe
recommendations to the Council. Copies of the letter had been dis-
tributed to the members of Council.
Resolution
By Alderman Schlatl
RESOLVED, That the
Service Commission
recommendations to
ier: Seconded by Alderman Holdsworth
letter from Ms. Bishop be referred to the Civil
with the request that the Commission make
the Budget administration Committee.
Carried Unanimously
Grand Jury Recommendation /Task Force
Dlayor Gutenberger reported that he had received
from Asst. City Atty. Paul Bennett, Chairman. of
Recommendation /Task Force and said he will refer
the Charter Fa Ordinance Committee for review and
the Police Commissioners and staff.
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS:
t
the final report
the Grand Jury
the report to
advice, and to
Ithaca Housing Aut orl
Mayor Gutenberger reported that .June Protts had resigned from
Ithaca Housing Authority and requested endorsement of Richard
Banks as a replacement on the Authority.
Resolution
By Alderman Myers: Seconded by :,alderman
RESOLVED, That the Council endorses the
Banks, S06 Hudson Street, to the Ithaca.
term to expire October 17, 1988, to fill
the resignation of June Protts.
the
Ilof fll'an 1J
appointment of Richard
flousi.ng Authority for a
the vacancy caused by
Carried Unanimously
CORPORATE COUNSEL'S REPORT:
PBA Unfair Labor Practice Complaint
Corp. Counsel Stumbar reported that the complaint filed by the PBA
concerning overtime for guarding of the defendant in a murder case at
Cornell University was dismissed by the Administrative Law Judge.
Cable Franchise
Atty. Stumbar reported that the Commission has had several meetings.
As a result he sent a letter to Georgia Griffiths at the ATCC
concerning demands the City was making with respect to the franchise
agreement, particularly in two areas, where it was felt the cable
television people were not in compliance: in notifying customers
about the rate structure, the demand has been made that the company
send to all subscribers a written statement specifying various items
they charge for and what they don't charge for; how the local office
was operating with respect to services they were providing, demand
has been made that these problems or other service problems be
handled. Under the franchise agreement they have 60 days to respon
or clear up the problems where they are in breach. Letter was
mailed to them August 20, 1984.
Alderman Killeen requested an update on the Strand Theatre and
Cornell Heights cases.
Strand Theatre
Atty. Stum ar reported that a summons was served on the three owners
of the Strand Theatre and the city is awaiting an answer which is
due next week. The next process would be discovery depositions.
435
Cornell He- i4 =hts
Atty. Stu mbar rejr(,r i (;cs tfi., E:IIe ; i �:� r i e�C�• . �:o
University has 30 days to file ar, answer i.r,f; br :i_ef . He
looks like the appeal will not be =. irgoed in A.i hany until NciTeniber
or December. Then there is anotlier G ,veel <s to decide.. delay
in this case is not blurt- -ng the city because it has a stay >o thai:
Cornell University is not ahle i_-) do oi.fih the biii idillj;,
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE %COMMITTEE:
Valentine Place Rezoning Environmental Review Findings_
By Alderman Schlather : Seco -fin —ed try– A7.�ernia ii !To ma —n
Q000V WHEREAS, The City of Tthaca, by t1iis Common Council_, has been
considering various rezoning proposals for -:hat area. of the city
which borders the Six Mile Creek gorge, "known as Valentine Place
and its neighborhood.; and
WHEREAS, The City, as part of the envir.onmer,1.a1 review process,
pertinent to rezoning this area, commissioned the preparation of
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and thereafter a Final.
Environmental Impact Statement; and
}J) WHEREAS, all public hearings have been held and procedures followed
as required by law in connection with this environmental review
O1 process; and
(Ya WHEREAS) Common Council is now considering i.wo separate zoning
<1. proposals in the alternative for this area, both of which were
developed after due consideration of the identified impacts in
the area; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That this Common Council does hereby make the following
findings pursuant to S 36�14(B) of Ithaca City Hunicipal Code and
related state and federal requirements:
1. That the requirements of the State Environmental_ Quality
(awov, Review Act regarding tl-,c; proper -preparatioli of 3.11 7Jllpac1:
statement, due consideration of the identified impacts,
and the selection of an alternative lahi.ch. minimizes or
avoids the adverse environmental effects have been met:;
and
2. That both of the R -la zoning proposals, now currently
under consideration in the alternative, avoid the adverse
environmental effects revealed in the impact statement
process to the maximum extent practicable and consistent
with socio- economic and other essential considerations;
and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Ithaca City Clerk be and he is hereby directed
to file this resolution and make it available as provided in the
State Guidelines, as well as maintain files open for public in-
spection of all notices of completion, draft and final environ-
mental impact statements, this written determination and the
pertinent zoning ordinance proposal finally enacted by Common
Council.
Amendment
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderman Myers
RESOLVED, That Item 2 of the resolution be deleted.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the amendment resulted as follows:
Ayes (2) - Cummings, Myers
Nays (8) - Peterson, Hoffman, Killeen, IIaine, Dennis,
Holdsworth, Romanowski, Schlather
Motion Defeated
A vote on the original. resolution resulted as follows:
4 12 September S, 1984
A�es (7) Pctersorn, [[offman, ](.i]lec;n, flri i.nc , 11� >1ds�c�.rlli
Romanowski, Schlal,her
Nays (3) - Dennis, Cummings, Myers
Carried
Valentine _Place _Rezoning: Entire Parcel _ Corrected Ordinance
By Alderman, Schlather: Seconded by -alderman. Holds�aorth
ORDINANCE N0, 84
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE- 'ZONING MAP, SECTION 30.22 OF CHAPTER
30, ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE,
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDING ZONING MAP.
"1. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New
York," as last amended, is hereby amended and changed so that the
following described areas presently in the R -3a Residential District
and P -1 Public Use District are reclassified and changed to the R -la
Residential District:
All that tract or parcel of land situate in the City of Ithaca
and described generally as follows:
Beginning at a point located on the southerly boundary of East
State Street at its intersection with the westerly property line
of 901 East State Street; thence easterly along the southerly
boundary of East State Street, which is also the northerly boundary
of the currently zoned R -3a District, to the westerly boundary of
the currently zoned R -lb Residential District; thence southerly along
the westerly boundary of said R -lb Residential District to a point on
said line as it bounds the existing P -1 District marked by the inter-
section of the city water l=ine with the R -lb boundary, which point it
just northerly of the Six -Mile Creek gorge rim; thence in a general].
westerly direction along the course marked by the current placement
of said water line as it bends and curves through the existing P -1
zone to the southeasternmost corner of the most easterly structure
now standing on the so- called Ithacare site currently located in the
P -1 zone; thence along the southernmost outline of said structure and.
adjacent structures to the northwestern corner of the westernmost
adjacent connected building to a point marked by the intersection of
said corner with a sanitary sewer line; thence along the course
marked by the route of said sanitary sewer line as it bends and curves
in a roughly northwesterly course which is roughly parallel to the
Six -Mile Creek gorge rim to a point marked by the eastern boundary of
the public right -of -way at the confluence of Quarry Street, Ferris
Place, and the so- called Columbia Street footbridge; thence along the
easterly boundary of said public right -of -way in a generally north-
easterly direction to the existing southerly boundary of the R -3a
District which fronts on East State Street; thence along the southerly
boundary of said R -3a District, which is also the rear property lines
of the southern or southwesterly 800 block of East State Street to the
westernmost boundary of the property located at 813 -815 East State
Street, then along the southern or southwesterly (rear most) property
lines of the properties located at 813 -815 Fast State Street and Tax
Parcel #83 -2 -24.12 to a point at the southeasterly corner of said
Tax Parcel #83 -2 -24.12 then northeasterly along the easternmost
property line of said Tax Parcel #83 -2 -24.12 to a point marked by th
southwestern corner of the property located at 901 East State Street
thence along the western boundary of said property known as 901 East
Street to the point or place of beginning.
SECTION 2.. The aforesaid description shall be added to the "Official
Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York" as a footnote so as to
better define this district.
SECTION 3. EFFEC'T'IVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice
as provided in 9 3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
-13-
Iliscuss��:)��� rn! i- A..'cd -:'i I1if f1;any'.
September 5, 11347
The question of
the adoption of 1.1)( Loregoinj.
J: esolu ti.0n 14,1 duly
put to a vote. 011
rol 1 gal l , wh.lch , (:slll t.e(I a�i
follGvJs:
Peterson
Aye Myers
Nay
SchIat_ her
Aye ii;::ine
.dye
Hoffmai
h, /,e `; ,lunint;s
Nay
Dennis
Nay Hol dswortll
Aye
Killeen
Aye Romanol.,ski.
Nay
Ayes (6)
Nays (4)
Motion
Def_ea.ted.
NOTE; Protest
was filed, requiiir1g eight affirmative
votes for
passage.
Valentine Place
Rezoning: Exclu(Iin_g__Ithacare
Parcel - Corrected
Ordinance
-
By Alderman Schlather:
Seconded by Alderman
Holdsworth
ORDINANCE NO, 84-
AN ORDINANCE. AMENDING THE ZONING MAP, SECTION 30.22 OF CHAPTER 30,
ENTITLED 'ZONING" OF THE CITY OF TT HACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENAC'T'ED by the Common Council of the CiA.), of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDING 'ZONING MAP.
I. That the "Official Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York,"
as last amended, is hereby amended and changed so that the following
described areas presently located in the R -3a Residential District
and P -1 Public Use District are reclassified and changed. to t:he R- -la
Residential District:
All that tract or parcel of land situate in the City of Ithaca and
described generally as follows:
Beginning at a point located on the southerly boundary of East
State Street at its intersection with the westerly property lines
of 901 East State Street; thence easterly along the southerly
boundary of East State Street, which is also the northerly boundary
of the currently zoned R -3a District, to the westerly boundary of
the currently zoned R -lb Residential District; thence southerly
along the westerly boundary of said R -lb Residential District to a
point on said line as it bounds the existing P -1 District marked by
the intersection of the city water line with the R -lb boundary,
which point is just northerly of the Six -Mile Creek gorge rim; thence
in a generally westerly direction along the course marked by the
current placement of said water line as it bends and curves through
the existing P -1 zone to a point marked by the intersection of said
water line with the eastern boundary of the Ithacare property (Tax
map parcel #83 -2- 24.21); thence along said eastern boundary of the
Ithacare property in a generally northeasterly direction to a point
where said eastern boundary intersects the southern boundary of the
currently zoned R -3a District; thence generally in a northerly and
westerly direction along said R -3a zone boundary to a point marked by
the southwest corner of 813 -81S East State Street, also known as Tax
Parcel #83 -2 -13; thence along the southern or southwesterly property
line of said 813 -81S East State Street, to a point located at the
southwesterly corner of Tax Parcel #83 -2- 24.12, then along the rear
most property line of said Tax Parcel #83 -2- 24.12, then northeasterly
along the easternmost property line of that parcel to a point marked
by southwesterrl corner of the premises known as 901 East State Street;
thence along the western boundary of the premises known as 901 East
State Street to the point and place of beginning.
SECTION 2. The aforesaid description shall be added to the "Official
Zoning Map of the City of Ithaca, New York" as a footnote so as to
better define this district.
SECTION 3. E•FFE'CTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notice
as provided in 9 3.1l(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
433 1.14 - September 5, 1984
Discussion Follower1 oi-i tlic floor.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
put to a vote oil roll call , wbich resulted is k ollows,
Romanowski
Aye
Killeen
Aye
Holdsworth
Aye
Dennis
Nay
Cummings
Nay
Hoffman
A,Ye
Haine
Aye
Schl at:her
Aye
Myers
Nay
Peterson
Aye
Ayes (7) Motion Defeated
Nays (3)
NOTE: Protest was filed, requiring eight affirmative votes for
passage.
Referral Resolution
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Haine
RESOLVED, That the Valentine Place rezoning issue be referred. back
to the Planning and Development Committee with the request that a_
meeting be called as soon as possible.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) - Peterson, Schlather, Hoffman, Dennis, Killeen,
Myers, Haine, Cummings, Romanowski
Nay (1) - Holdswor.th
Carried
Referral Resolution
By Alderman Hoffman: Seconded by Alderperson Peterson
RESOLVED, That the issue of environmental review as it applies to
building permits and similar acts be referred to Charter � Ordinance
Committee for consideration.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Alderperson Cummings requested that the Planning f Development
Committee be included as it needs to be involved also.
Carried Unanimously
Alderman Schlather, Mayor Gutenberger and Alderperson Cummings ex-
pressed thanks to the residents of the Valentine Place area for
their attendance at the meetings and participation in the process,
and expressed the hope that they continue to come to the meetings
when the matter is discussed.
Fair Practices Ordinance
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Dennis
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -13
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 29 ENTITLED "FAIR PRACTICES ORDINANCE"
TO THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Section 1. That a new Chapter to be known and designated as
Chapter 29 entitled "lair Practices Ordinance" is hereby added to
the City of Ithaca Municipal Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 29
FAIR PRACTICES ORDINANCE
S 29.1 Purpose
Existing state and federal human rights laws guarantee protection
against discrimination based on race, creed, sex, color, national
origin, and physical disability. These Laws do not, however, provide
similar protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual or
affectional preference or orientation. Therefore, it is the purpose
of this ordinance to ensure that every individual in the City of
Ithaca shall enjoy protection from discrimination based on her or
his affectional preference or orientation.
.15
S 29.2 Definitions
September S, ) 984 439
A. "Individual" fficans any per�.ur,, IA -im, corpo Lion., partne:rshlp,
or other association or group of ;,k rsons, hoiaever crganized., 1V11 c1-1
ever this ordinance ;refers to ai; ;.,;divi dual , and i:i;at individual may
be construed to be a groups the term shall apply to any member of
the group .
s
B. "Sexual or affectional preference or ori.enta.i_i_on" meanfl. having
or manifesting an emotional or physical attac_Iiment to ariother cori.-
senting person or persoits, ox ha:.ing or manifesti-ng a. preference fo)
(400.1 such an attachment,
C. "Discriminate" means any act, or attempted act that results in
the unequal treatment or separation or segregation of an individual,
or denies, prevents, limits, or otherwise adversely affects, or if
accomplished would deny, prevent, limit, or otherwise adversely
affect, that individual's benefit to and enjoyment of his or her
civil rights as established by this ordinance.
g 29.3 Provisions
A. Unlawful. Practices: It shall. be unlawful for any individual. to
discriminate against any individua:L on the basis of that individua.l's
sexual or affectional preference or orientation.
B. Unlawful Practices Relating to Coercion or Retaliation:
1. It shall be unlawful to coerce, threaten, retaliate against,
or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoy-
ment of, or on account of having exercised or enjoyed, or
on account of having aided or encouraged any other indi-
vidual in the exercise or enjoyment of any right granted,
affirmed, or protected under this ordinance.
2, It. shall be unlawful For any i.ndi_vi dual to require, request:,
Co., or suggest that an individual retaliate against, interfere
with, intimidate, or discriminate against an individual
because that individual has opposed any practice made un-
lawful by this ordinance or because that individual has made
a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner
in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing authorized under
this ordinance.
3. It shall be unlawful for any individual to cause or coerce,
or attempt to cause or coerce, directly or indirectly, any
individual to prevent any individual from complying with
the provisions of this ordinance.
C. City Contracts: Any contract to which the City of Ithaca is
the sole municipal party shall include substantially the following
provision:
"The contractor hereby agrees not to discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment on the basis of sexual or
affectional preference or orientation."
D. Subterfuge: It shall further be unlawful to do any of the acts
prohibited by this ordinance for any reason that would not have been
asserted but for, wholly or partially, a discriminatory reason based
on sexual or affectional preference or orientation.
S 29.4 Enforcement
A. Any individual who is aggrieved by any of the unlawful practices
forbidden in this ordinance has a cause of action against the violator
for money damages, and any other remedy available at law, together
with reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the Court.
B.
Any ind.1viclual who violates
any
provision of this Chapter shall,
lipon
conviction, be punished by a
fine
not to exceed $500 or imprison-
ment
of not more than IS days, or
both
such fine and imprisonment.
40 16.. September 5, 1.984
S 29.5 seirerability
If any part or provision of this ordinance, or the application
thereof to any individual or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall
continue in full force and effect."
Section. 2. This ordinance shall I.alce e:Efect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of a notice as provided in
Section 3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Alderman Schlather requested that the record. reflect that it was
the intent, lest there by any confusion, of the Charter & Ordinance
Committee 'that the protections afforded an individual under this par-
ticular ordinance will be no greater than the protections afforded an
individual under the Fair Housing Act. The exemptions available under
the Fair Housing Act will also be available under this act. That was
discussed in Committee.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
put to a vote on roll call, which resulted as follows:
Killeen
Aye
Myers
.Aye
Cummings
Aye
Holdsworth
Aye.
Peterson
Aye
Haine
Aye
Romanowski
Nay
Hoffman
Aye
Schlather
Aye
Dennis
Aye
Ayes (9)
Nay (1)
Carried
Fair Housing Ordinance Amendment
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Killeen
ORDINANCE NO. 84-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
Section 1. That Section 20 o
of the City of Ithaca Municipal
"Section 28.20
Enforcement
28 ENTITLED "FAIR HOUSING" OF TIIE
the Common Council of the City of
f Chapter 28 entitled "Enforcement"
Code is amended to read as follows:
Any individual or group aggrieved and alleging discrimination,
except as proscribed in Chapter 29 of this Code, may lodge a com-
plaint with the Tompkins County human Rights Commission, the New
York State Division of Human Rights, and the United States Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development. The Tompkins County human
Rights Commission will investigate any alleged violation of the
provisions of the New York. State Human Rights Law."
Section. 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with jaw upon publication of a notice as provided in
S 3.11(B) of the Ithaca City Charter.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Ayes (9) - Peterson, Hoffman, Killeen, Maine, Dennis,
Iloldsworth, Cummings, Myers, Schlather
Nay (1) - Romanowski
Carried Unanimously
Recess
Common Council. recessed at 10.:45 p.m. and reconvened in Regular
Session at 10:55 I).m.
J
1'/- September 5, 1,984 441
PLANNIT�'C: ANIl I?i?VI:Li,i =f, l N7 COMMI;'t:1.:
- -- _6__ - -- -_ _- -- _ --
Accessry Apartment. Ordinance - E- M111,0nrne11ta1 ��ssetis,ment
By Alderperson Cumming-s: Seconded by Alderman Killeen
IVHEREAS, the preparation of an E)i i i onnlent.a:1 Assessment Form (EAF)
and determination by the Common Council as lead agency regarding the
preparation of an Environment:a] 1,i,�; act. St:ateme:�t is necessary >qh(,)-j.
ever a reAJj s] on -i o t.;le Zii]1) ,g 0, ; 1 )1f1nC.0 15: ] "))'GAO e t r1r;r Secl i on .iii , (1))
of the Code of :ixdinances, and
IVHEREAS, Planning and Development- department: staff has prepared t:I)e
EAF for the proposed addition to the 'Zoning Ordinance of Section X0.2'7
Loe, providing for Accessory Apartment,,, acid
IVHEREAS, staff recommends that t.hl� Common Council make a negative
declaration on the EAF; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Common Council make a negative declaration on the
EAF for this zoning change and authorize the Mayor to sign the EAF
as the representative of the lead agency.
10 Discussion followed on the floor.
C I
0) A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:
Accessory Apartment Ordinance
By Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Romanowski
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30 ENTITLED 'ZONING' OF THE CITY OF
ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDITION OF 5 30.27 ENTITLED 'ACCESSORY
APARTMENTS' AND OF S 30.62 ENTITLED 'SEPARABILITY';, AND AMENDMENT OF
S 30.3, 'DEFINITIONS,' S 30.25, 'DISTRICT REGULATIONS' AND 8 30.26,
'STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECTAh PERMITS.'
(4w� BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, New York, as follows:
SECTION 1. ADDITION OF SECTION 30.27, ACCESSORY APARTMENTS.
That Chapter 30 is hereby amended to add the following:.
"S 30.27 Accessory Apartments
A. Intent
This Section authorizes, upon issuance of a special temporary
permit, the installation of accessory apartments in owner - occupied
homes. The purpose and intent of permitting accessory apartments
is to:
I. Provide homeowners, especially those of low and moderate
income, with a means of obtaining, through rental income, companion-
ship, security, and services, and thereby to enable them to stay more
comfortably in homes and neighborhoods they might otherwise be forced
to leave;
2.
the needs
(aw,001 3.
household!
the city;
Add inexpensive rental units to the housing stock to meet
of smaller households, both young and old;
Make housing units available to low - and moderate- income
who might otherwise have difficulty finding homes within
4. Develop housing units in family neighborhoods that are
appropriate for households at a variety of stages in the life- cycle,
thereby lessening fluctuations in neighborhood demand for services;
S. Preserve and a1 -low the more efficient use of the city's
existing stock of dwellings while ensuring healthy and safe living
environments; and to
442
W.. September 5, 1984
6. Protect stability, property values, and the residential.
character of a neighborhood by cDsurim that. accessory Wrtments
are installed only in owner- occupied houses and under such additional.
conditions as may be appropriate to further the purposes of this
ordinance.
B. Issuance of Temporary Permit
Application for an Accessory Apartment, Temporary Permit shall be
made to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the Procedures
of S 30.58(C) of this ordinance. Application shall also be made for
a recommendation from the City Punning and Development Board.
Applications shall include the following:
accessory apartment application form
- site plan
floor plans, existing and proposed, with dimensions
specified
facade drawings, if exterior alterations are proposed
(V = 1 ft.)
affidavit of residency and ownership
- proof of notification of property owners within 200 ft.
building permit application
application fee of $15.00
An Accessory Apartment must comply with the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. An Accessory Apartment
Use Special Permit shall be issued for a three (3) year period.
C. Renewals
Renewal permits for additional three (3) year periods shall be
granted by the Building Commissioner, following inspection of the
premises by the Building Department, submission of a renewal
application form issued by the Building Department, and an affidavit
stating that the conditions as originally set forth to the Board of
Zoning Appeals have not changed in any way. The Building Commission
shall determine that the premises still meet the standards of the
New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and that
the original qualifying conditions still exist.
D. Requirements
In order to be granted a temporary permit, the following criteria
and requirements must be met:
1. Owner Occu an Required. The owner(s) or contract vendee
of the lot upon w ich the accessory apartment is located shall occupy
and maintain as legal full -time residence, at least one of the
dwelling units on the premises, except for temporary absences not
to exceed 18 months in any S -year period. Longer absences will
result in revocation of the temporary permit except by approval of
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Owner- occupants must maintain 33 1/30
interest in the property. In the event of the transfer of the
property either by deed or land contract or lease, to other than
the owner's spouse or other family member residing on the premises,
the permit shall automatically expire and a new owner or contract
vendee must apply for a renewal permit.
2. Occupancy. The accessory apartment unit may be occupied
by an individual or family, plus not more than one unrelated
occupant. Minor dependent children in the care of a parent or
relative shall be excluded in determining the number of unrelated
occupants in a dwelling unit.
3. Location. Accessory apartments may be located on one -
family properties in any district in which residential use is
permitted. An accessory apartment may be located either in the
main structure or in an accessory- building, provided that such
accessory building and main structure meets all requirements of the
City of Ithaca Building Code. There shall be no more than 1
accessory apartment per lot.
1y September S, 1984 44 :3
4. Size. The floor- :area of ;,r, acct: ;!;orb, apa.rt.mc:r,t �r:iil,in
a princiI)aFd 1dellirig bui.ldi.ng ;,:k;a1 i noE cxcC(-,d 1.liirty- i.Iircc
one -third percent (33 1/30) of tl)e total habit : able floor a.rc:a of
the building in which it is local(,(], Tf: Hie Board of Zoning
Appeals determines that a greater floor space is necessary because
the configuration of the building makes meeting these requirements
impractical, then the Board of Appeal; may 1•,,aiire the maximijii-1.
Each accessory apartment shall. be i :i.mi ted to a maxi_riium of 2
S. Area Requirements, A permit. shall be granted by the Board
of Zoning Appeals in spite of existing legal area deficiencio- foi`
main structures, except where the Board. of Zoning Appeals determines
that there would be a negative effect on surrounding properties.
Relaxation of area requirements for purposes of a. temporary perni.it
shall terminate with the temporary permit, and shall. not be viewed as
a variance.
Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, a minimum
side and rear yard setback of 5 ft. shall be required, except: that
If) where light, air and open space requirements of the City Building
and Housing Code can be met, the S-- f.t . setback may be waived ill
(�' existing main structures, with the exception of accessory buildings.
i -9 -i New structures housing accessory apartments sha.1 -1- meet: al] applicable
(.Il codes, including the area requirements of this ordinance.
6. Exterior Appearance. If an accessory apartynen.t is located
in the main building, the entry to the building and its design Shall
be such that the appearance of the building shall remain as a single-
family residence. New or additional front entrances or windows are
discouraged, but in any event must be in keeping with the architec-
tural style of the rest. of the structure. Exterior stairways may
only be constructed in the rear, except where an alternate location
would be less publicly visible. Any exterior design changes may be
referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Design Review Board,
for their technical advice. New oi- addi.tional front: entrance: must
have the approval_ of the Design Review Board.
7. Off- street Parking. Off- street parking requirements shall
be met, except that in cases of practical- difficulty the Board of
Zoning Appeals may waive the parking requirement, if there is
adequate parking in the neighborhood.
8. Deed Restriction. Within thirty (30) days of an Accessory
Apartment Permit, the owner(s) must record at the Tompkins County
Clerk's Office a Declaration of Covenants on the subject property,
with cross referencing to the original deed, and provide proof of
such recording and cross referencing to the Building Commissioner,
who may then issue a building permit. The Declaration shall state
that the right to let an accessory apartment ceases upon transfer
of title. The Building Commissioner shall note existence of an
accessory apartment on the record of the property.
E. Unapproved Accessory Apartments
Owners of unapproved accessory apartments in existence as of the
effective date of this amendment shall have ninety (90) days from
the date of enactment to apply for an Accessory Apartment Temporary
Permit and to meet the requirements of this Section. Any such
(4wol property owner who is not in the process of completing or who has
not completed these requirements within the required ninety (90) days
shall be found in violation if the apartment is occupied.
F. Revocation
The Building Commissioner shall
hereunder should the applicant or
provision of this local ordinance
issuance of the special permit.
G. Periodic Review
revoke any special permit issued
applicant's tenant violate any
or any condition imposed upon the
The Building Commissioner and the Department of Planning and
-20- September '), j.!)81
Development. shall review the effects of this Accessory Apartment
Ordinance at least every five ( 5 ) )'('sirs to (leter,uine -r.hc c)m
effect on the residential character of the neighborhoods.
H. Terms
The terms of this ordinance shall be liberal-ly construed in favor
of granting an Accessory Apartment. Permit unless the Board of 7.oning
Appeals specifically finds that the granting of the permit. would have
"
a negative impact on the surrounding area.
SECTION 2. ATTENDING SECTION 30.3, DEFINITIONS.
That S 30.3 is hereby amended to add:
110. 'Accessory Apartment' shall mean. a small dwelling unit
added to an owner - occupied single - family residential property, which
is subordinate to the principal residential use in terms of size and
appearance."
SECTION 3. AMENDING SECTION 30.25, DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
That the District Regulations Chart, 9 30.25 is hereby amended to
add:
under Use District R -1, Col. 3, Permitted Accessory Uses:
"5. BY SPECIAL PERMIT: An Accessory Apartment (See S 30.27).
Permit required in all use districts.
SECTION 4. AMENDING SECTION 30.59, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
That S 30.59(C), 'Powers and Duties,' is hereby amended to add:
at end of paragraph 1:
11
In addition, the Board of Zoning Appeals may, refer applications
for Accessory Apartment Temporary Permits for technical advice
when exterior design changes are proposed and for approval of
front entrances. (This is pursuant to Section 10 (1) (a.) (J.1) of
the Municipal home Rule Law.)"
at end of paragraph 3:
"Recommendation of the Design Review Board shall not be binding
upon the group or individual. submitting the plan or proposal., but
shall be voluntary, unless such recommendations shall also be
incorporated into a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the
case if an appeal action on such proposal, or in the case of an
accessory apartment front entrance."
and that S 30. 59(D), 'Applicability,' is hereby amended to add:
"7. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section and chapter,
exterior design changes for Accessory Apartment Temporary Permits
in any residential district may be referred to the Design Review
Board."
SECTION S. ADDITION OF SECTION 30.62, SEPARABILITY.
CIS 30.62 Separability
If a term, part, provision, section, subdivision or paragraph of
this Ordinance shall be held unconstitutional, invalid or i.neffecti
in whole or in part, such determination shall not be deemed to
invalidate the remaining terms, parts, provisions, section, sub-
divisions and paragraphs."
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall. take effect immediately and in accordance
with law upon publication of notice as provided i.n S 3.11(B) of the
Ithaca City Charter.
Discussion followed on the floor.
1.(
f fl
1,11
<1;
�M_
-21
A 1' Ee f) :)ic r(_1 iot: it; ; t!i 1
Ayes (9) - Peterson, Hoffmai
Myers, Rovianow.91
Nay (1) - Holdsworth
September 5, 1.984 445
Ki 1 1 een 5 lla in.e, Dennis, Cunuru.ngs
,,(")I I a t_h (1 J,
Carried
Parking Meter Enforcement
Alderman Schlat er repor.ted that clue Commit: tee had. discussions
concerning the Department: of Public Works rather than the Police
Department handling enforcement of parking rneters. Both Police
Chief Herson and the Board of Public Works were supportive; however.;
they wished to have some sense oi the Counci]`s feelings before
spending time and resources in dev.sing a particular plan in )naki.;,b
a recommendation. The unanimous recommendation of the Charter and
Ordinance was that they go ahead and devise a plan and that the
matter be referred to the Budget and Administration. Committee when
ready as it will probably include personnel..
Discussion followed on the floor.
BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
No. Fire Station Roof Replacement:_
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by Alderman Schl.ather
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1984, this Common Council approved $10,000 to
replace the roof on No. 9 Fire Station, and
WHEREAS, bids were received on August 16, 1.984, and reviewed by
the Fire Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the low bid was submitted by Conklin Roofing, of Binghamton,
New York, in the amount of $13,1265 and
WHEREAS, the Fire Commissioners
Roofing be awarded the contract
therefore, be it
have recommended that Conklin
for its low bid of $13;126; now,
RESOLVED, That an amount not to e;c:eed $3,1.2.6 be transferred within
the Fire Department, from Account A3410 -475, Equipment Maintenance,
to Account A3410 -435, Contractual Services.
Carried Unanimously
Egner & Associates Proposal
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by Alderman Schlather
WHEREAS, the Acting Superintendent of Public Works has requested
authorization to retain the services of Egner F Associates, in
accordance with the August 20, 1984 proposal to prepare an estimate
for construction work to accommodate the rearrangement of space for
the Department of Social Services, in the City Hall Annex and
fourth floor of City Hall, at a cost not to exceed $5,500, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has approved this request, at
its meeting of August 22, 1984; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That $S,S00 be transferred within the Department of Public
Works, from Account A162S -47S, Property Maintenance, to Account
A1621 -430, Fees for Professional Services.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
Superintendent of Public Works Position
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by Alderman Holdsworth
RESOLVED, That John A. Dougherty be provisionally appointed to the
osition of Superintendent of Public Works, at an annual salary of
41,224, that being Step 6 of the 1984 Compensation Plan for those
employees not covered by a Union, effective August 27, 1984, as
recommended by the Board of Public Works in conjunction with Civil
Service reduirements.
Carried Unanimously
446 7.2- September 5, 1984
Tom k.ns County Lease Agreement
By Alderan Dennis: Seconded by : \lderman >chlather.
m
RESOLVED, That the Lease Agreement between the City of Ithaca and
the County of Tompkins, for rental of space currently occupied `'Y
the E.O.C, and J.T.P.A., at the G.I.A.C. Building, for the period
January 1, 1983 to December 31, 1944, be approved, and that the
Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign and execute such Lease
Agreement on behalf of the City. Carried Unanimously
Water Supply and Distribution System Bond
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by5.,1984an Schlather.
BOND RESOLUTION DATED SEPTEMBER
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,500,000 SERIAL BONDS OF
THE CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, THE YRECONSTRUCTION RK, PAY T E COST OF
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO
OF THE WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF SAID CITY.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, 'Tompkins
County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. For the specific object or purpose of paying the cost
of t e construction of additions to and the reconstruction of
portions of the water supply and distribution system of and in and
for the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, consisting of,
but not limited to, the construction of new sludge dewatering lagoons,
the construction of new chlorination facilities, the reconstruction
of the existing flocculation and sedimentation basins, the purchase
and installation of new meters, the reconstruction of the clearwell,
the reconstruction of Potter's Dam, the reconstruction of the chemical
feed facility, the reconstruction of support facilities, the recon-
struction of Bolton Point interconnections, construction of
ene� °new
8 -inch water main at the Stewart Avenue Bridge and other
construction of additions to and the reconstruction of the existing
water distribution system, including incidental expenses in connecti
therewith, at a maximum estimated cost of $1,500,000, there are here
authorized to be issued $1,500,000 serial bonds of the City of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York, pursuant to the provisions of the Local
Finance Law. Further details concerning said bonds will be prescribed
in a further resolution or resolutions of this Common Council.
Section 2. The plan for the financing of the aforesaid specific
object or purpose is by the issuance of the $1,500,000 serial bonds
of said City authorized to be issued pursuant to the provisions of
this resolution.
Section 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probable
usefulness of the aforesaid specific object or purpose is forty years,
pursuant to subdivision 1 of paragraph a of Section 11..00 of the Local
Finance Law.
Section 4. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the
power to authorize the issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes
and sale of the serial bonds herein
in anticipation of the issuance
hereby delegated to
authorized, including renewals of such notes, is
the City Controller, the chief fiscal officer. Such notes shall be
of such terms, form and. contents, and shall be sold in such manner, a-
may be prescribed by said City Controller, consistent with the pro-
visions of the Local Finance Law.
Section 5. The faith and credit of said City of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York, are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of
the principal of and interest on such obligations as the same respec-
tively become due and payable. An annual- appropriation shall be made
in each year sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such
obligations becoming clue and payable in such year.
Section G. The validity of such bonds and bond anticipat=ion notes
may be contested only if.:
1) Such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for
which said City -is not authorized to expend money, or
2 September 5, 1984 44'7
2) The provisions of law which I,on7d bc: c:ompl _eci with; P Ilice d�,t.e:
of publicatioli of this re�r,,:�1.ioil �,j, liol ;,�i,st:a- r,tirJl';� i,lll]i1:i�:ri
i�) i .tl_.i , and
la,, acLioif, suit or, proceeciij,.g contest i;ig �,i
448 -24_ September 5, 1984
Audit.
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by Alderman Killeen
RESOLVED, That the bills audited and approved by the Budget and
Administration Committee, in the tot .a). amour►t of $1 9, 588
listed on Audit Abstract #16/1984, be approved for payment.
Carried Unanimously
Fire Services Contract __ City /Town of Ithaca
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by .- \lderman Schlather
RESOLVED, That the Contract between the City and ]'own of Ithaca,
for fire services from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 198S, which
was tabled at the June 6, 1984 Common Council meeting, be lifted
from the table.
Carried Unanimously
Resolution
By Alderman Dennis: Seconded by .alderman Schlather
RESOLVED, That the Contract between the City and Town of Ithaca,
for fire services from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1985, be
approved, and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign
and execute such Contract on behalf of the City.
Discussion followed on the floor.
A vote on the resolution resulted as follows:
Carried Unanimously
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE:
Raccoon Problem
Alderperson Haine reported briefly on the findings and. recommenda-
tions of the Raccoon Study Committee. She said the report is now
complete and copies will be given to each Council member with a
few days. She commented that the ordinance pertaining to garbage
containers needs to be rewritten. The Committee feel that the City
needs an educational program to get people to cap their chimneys
and stop providing encouragement for the raccoons to come around
the habitable areas.
1985 Revenue Sharing Requests
Alderman Hoffman reported that the Coalition had decided that the
Displaced Homemakers request would meet the city criteria for
inclusion in the list of proposals to be sent to the Mayor for
consideration. A point raised by several people was that perhaps
instructions to the Human Service Coalition were not specific enough,
that some ranking on the merits of the proposals beyond whether they
meet the criteria should be provided. fie said that the Human
Services Committee will take this up in their next couple of meetings.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
Alienation Recreation Plan _ West End
By Alderperson Cummings: Secon ed by Alderman Romanowski
WHEREAS, as a condition of funding received for their purchase and
development, the Cayuga Inlet Island and South West Park lands are
restricted to public outdoor recreational use, and
WHEREAS, both South West Park and the Cayuga Inlet Island are presently
under - utilized as recreation sites, and
WHEREAS, both these parcels have been identified among the few prime
sites for commercial /industrial development in the City, and
WHEREAS, Council has already approved the alienation of Cayuga Inlet
Island, and
WHEREAS, City Planning staff has developed a proposal to alicnat.e
both South Nest Park and Cayuga Inlet Island, making them available
for private /public sector development, and
WIIF.REAS, certain otllcr parcels of land have been preliminaril-y identi-
fied as lands better suited for recreation which could be substituted .
for the lands to be alienated, and
.25- September. 5, 1984 4')
WHEREAS, certain compct,c-131 - s�;:ici
by the Town of Ithaca, in developing for recreat:.ional. use la;td t.o he
acquired by the City as substitute for the al.ienat-ed parcel s, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Conuttit: tee has reviewed and
approved said proposal; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That Compton Council does accept and approve ai.d pi °oposal
for alienation and joint recreational development:, and be i.t-. furt:her
RESOLVED, That the Mayor and the planning Department staff are
hereby authorized to submit said proposal. to the New York State
Legislature for action, and to take the steps necessary to provide.
substitute land, and to meet otl)c.i reguirerntents of 1:he a1 i.eiiai.:i on
process.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Tabling Motion
By Alderman Romanowski: Seconded by Alderman Hoffman
RESOLVED, That the Alienation /Recreation Plan proposal. be tabled
until the full Council receives copies of the proposal. and resource
materials and has opportunity to review it.
Carried. Una.nimousl.y
(.l Neighborhood Presentation Plan
Alderperson Cummings reported that the Committee would like to
host a forum for neighborhood civic. associations. They -would "like
to invite all city civic associations to give presentations on the
state of their neighborhoods, identifying problems, positive points,
what they would like the city to do and what they would like to do
themselves. It would be an effort to assist: groups in developing
presentation skills, leadership skills and prioritizing concerns.
The Committee hope to set something up for late October or early
November.
Support of State Funding Assistance to Regional Planning Agencies
By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderman Sclilather
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca participates in the Southern Tier East
Regional Planning Development Board from which it receives a
variety of services, and
WHEREAS, the Southern Tier East Regional. Planning Development: Board
and other regional agencies through New York State provide a number
of benefits to statewide programs through the provisions of local
technical assistance, participation in the State Intergovernmental
Review System, and the State Data System programs, among others,
and
WHEREAS, counties and federal agencies are called upon to provide
funding support for such activities of statewide benefit, and
MIEREAS, it is desirable that the State of New York provide a level
of funding support for regional planning agencies to allow for the
continuation of such statewide activities, without increases in
county funding of such agencies, and
WIIEREAS, dur=ing the 1983 -84 Legislative Session, Senate Bills S -6795
and S -7025 and Assembly Bills A -8130 and A -8260 endeavored to provide
such support; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Planning and Development Board of the City of
Ithaca and the Common Council hereby indicate their support for the
provisions of State Funding support for established regional planning
and economic development agencies, as specified in the bill introduced
in the 1.983 -84 Legislative Session, and be it further
RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Governor
OE the State of New York urging his inclusion of such funding in his
annual btidllet for 1985, and to the State Senators and Assemblymen
representing this city urging their support for such funding.
Carried Unanimously
450 -26- September S, 1984
UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Suspezis on of Ca le TV Rate Inc_ rease
L'y Alce man Killeen: Seconded by Alderman11oldsworth
WHEREAS, the City of Tt:h.aca, in good faith., recently re ded
an operating franchise to ACC to provide satisfactory and adequate
cable TV services to this community, and
WHEREAS, the terms of the franchising agreement call for a rate
increase effective 1 July 1984 which was premised upon the provision
of satisfactory and adequate cable TV services to this community, and
WHEREAS, throughout past months and to the present moment, there has
been a constant, conclusive demonstration of popular dissatisfaction
with the provision of cable TV services, and
WHEREAS, the City's Cable Commission, based upon the substantial
testimony received at their 1.4 August 1984 open meeting, strongly
support the remedy offered by this resolution; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca forthwith and with all due notice
procedure, suspends the rate increase awarded to ACC on 1 July 1984;
and furthermore this rate increase without benefit of retroactive
application will be applied at some point in the future and upon the
clear and conclusive demonstration of good faith practice by ACC
and by popular acceptance of satisfactory cable TV service by the
City of Ithaca.
Kevin Grossman, Asst. General Manager, American Community Cabl.evisi.on,
addressed the Council, presenting a position statement, basic rate
increase agreement, customer complaint fact sheet and improvements.
Discussion followed on the floor.
Referral Resolution
By Al erman Killeen: Seconded by Alderman Holdsworth
RESOLVED, That the resolution be referred to Corporate Counsel,
Carried Unanimously
Mayor Gutenberger commented that he had been asked by many people
why the city doesn't own and operate its own system and asked if
the Council would support investigation of this.
Resolution
By Al erman Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings
RESOLVED, That the Cable Commission, in anticipation of thy,
January 20, 1988 expiration of the contract, investigate all
manner of alternative providers of service. Carried Unanimously
Jail Site I s Sue
Ley Alderman Schlather: Seconded by Alderman Killeen
RESOLVED, That the issue of the selection of a new jail site be
referred to the Planning and Development Committed.Unanimously
ADJOURNMENT:
On a motion the meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m.
-- J—
4epA.Rundle, City Clerk
hn C. Gutenberger, tyor