HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-15 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: September 9, 2015
TIME: 6pm
LOCATION: 3rd floor
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Special Order of Business
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) EPMO Fines
b) CIITAP Revision
c) Taxi Regulations
d) Commons
5) Discussion
a) Comprehensive Plan: Phase II
6) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Public Art Commission Mural (Cass Park)
b) Fair Housing Action Plan
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/2992
7) Action items – Approval to Circulate
a) Backyard Chickens
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) July 2015
b) August 2015
9) Adjournment
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Nels Bohn & Lynne Truame, IURA
6:00
6:05
6:20
6:45
7:00
7:05
7:35
8:00
8:05
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk at 274‐6570 by 12:00
noon on Tuesday, September 8th 2015.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: September 3, 2015
RE: Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan
Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will include more detailed neighborhood and thematic plans
that build upon Plan Ithaca. There are numerous plans to be completed as part of Phase II; Plan
Ithaca identifies several thematic plans and many neighborhoods are in need of updated plans.
Work on Phase II will begin in early 2016, and Common Council will need to determine its top
priorities for this next phase.
As its final task, the Comprehensive Plan Committee prepared a recommendation of its priorities for
Phase II as well as the top 20 recommendations from Plan Ithaca that it believes are the most
important for the City to implement. During its consideration of Phase II priorities, the Committee
referenced the General Neighborhood Map, a list of thematic plans identified in Plan Ithaca, and a
list of previous City plans. All of these materials are included for your review. In addition to the
Comprehensive Plan Committee’s recommendation, the Planning and Development Board will
discuss its own recommendation for Phase II at its September 22nd meeting.
Staff will attend the September 9th Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to
discuss priorities for Phase II and how to proceed. If you have any questions prior to the meeting,
please contact me at mwilson@cityofithaca.org or 274-6560.
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE
August 17, 2015
PRIORITY PLANS FOR PHASE II
Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan will consist of thematic plans, identified in Plan Ithaca, and
more detailed neighborhood plans. After reviewing the lists of previously completed plans and
plans identified in Plan Ithaca, the Comprehensive Plan Committee recommended the following
plans to be top priorities in Phase II. The plans are listed in order, as ranked by the Committee.
Thematic Plans
1. Housing Strategy
a. Recommendation 5.1B: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, prepare a housing
strategy to identify specific ways to increase housing supply and decrease housing
costs.
b. All recommendations from Section 5.1 Housing should be considered as part of the
housing strategy.
2. Transportation Plan
a. Recommendation 6.2A: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, complete, adopt, and
implement a City Transportation Plan that addresses, at a minimum, the following
points:
i. Establishment of a street typology based on land use, transportation needs,
and impacts to neighborhoods.
ii. Identification of appropriate treatments (per complete streets standards) for
each type of street to accommodate multiple modes, ensure long-term
mobility, and protect the vitality of adjacent neighborhoods.
iii. Recommendations for low-volume streets that could be narrowed and
transformed into living streets.
3. Flood Management Plan
a. Recommendation 8.2C: As part of Phase II of Plan Ithaca, develop a City floodplain
management program that addresses, at a minimum, the following points:
i. A method for determining whether flood-prone areas should be rebuilt or
repurposed after a major flood;
ii. Harmonization with flood-related portions of the Tompkins County Multi-
Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan; and
iii. Changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Neighborhood Plans
1. Southside
2. Waterfront & Inlet Island
3. West Hill
2
TOP 20 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLAN ITHACA
The Comprehensive Plan Committee has identified the twenty recommendations from Plan Ithaca
that it believes are the most important for the City to pursue. These twenty priority
recommendations include a range of ongoing, short-, medium-, and long-term strategies. This list
should not be interpreted as a summary of the plan’s recommendations, and all of the
recommendations included in the document are important to the implementation of the plan.
Note: The ordering of the recommendations does not imply any ranking. The top twenty
recommendations are listed in the order in which they appear in Plan Ithaca.
1. Work with the public to identify the most effective ways of involving and communicating
with the community and dedicate resources to these methods. (Public Participation &
Communication M)
2. Explore flexible zoning options to achieve the identified land use goals and implement the
Future Land Use Map. (Land Use B)
3. Implement design standards and policies that require sustainable building practices and
technologies. (Land Use F)
4. Work with neighboring municipalities to explore mechanisms to preserve green space
surrounding the city and prevent sprawl, such as a transfer of development rights program.
Land Use G)
5. Encourage the return of tax-exempt properties to the tax roll. (Fiscal Health H)
6. Identify opportunities to share services and equipment with surrounding municipalities and
through public-private partnerships. (Fiscal Health K)
7. Encourage infill and redevelopment that includes a range of housing types and employment
opportunities, in coordination with the goals of the Land Use chapter. (Economic
Development D, M)
8. Work with schools, community organizations, and existing programs to expand job training
and placement, apprenticeship, and supported work opportunities. (Workforce
Development A)
9. Fund municipal services in a way that fairly distributes the burden of their cost across all
property owners, including tax-exempt properties, as a means of increasing affordability.
(Housing J)
10. Allocate additional staff resources to historic preservation. (Historic Preservation A)
11. Reassess the current use and condition of City infrastructure and facilities to determine if
some structures can be abandoned, deconstructed, demolished, sold, or consolidated.
(Physical Infrastructure Q)
12. Investigate extended hours and programming at City facilities to provide additional
recreational opportunities for youth. (Health, Wellness, & Support F)
13. Adopt complete streets principles as official City policy to ensure that Ithaca’s streets are
well-designed, interconnected, and provide safe and convenient accommodations for all
modes of transportation. (Increasing Transportation Choice A)
14. Work with the Town of Ithaca and Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council
(ITCTC) to (1) provide seamless bicycle and pedestrian linkages, such as continuous
sidewalks between destinations in the two municipalities, and (2) secure transportation
connections along the west City line, so that traffic heading to and from new development in
the town has alternatives to Route 79. (Increasing Transportation Choice B)
3
15. Promote participation in public and private transportation demand management (TDM)
programs. The City should work in partnership with the private sector to find mutually
beneficial solutions to accommodate employee commuting and other transportation needs,
including bicycles. (Increasing Transportation Choice J)
16. Work with NYSDOT, the Ithaca Tompkins County Transportation Council (ITCTC), and
other interested agencies to transform the Route 13 corridor — from the north end of its
Fulton / Meadow split to its Fall Creek bridge — into a complete street / urban boulevard
(with sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes and safe pedestrian crossings) for the purpose of
reconnecting areas of the city (e.g., the lakefront) that have been separated by this
functionally limited-access stretch of highway; conduct a feasibility analysis for this
transformation within five years. Consider the merits of adding a new intersection in the
vicinity of Carpenter Business Park. (Connecting Land Use & Transportation C)
17. Create and adopt an official City map (with input from both engineering and planning
standpoints) showing all planned future multi-modal transportation corridors and future
street connections. (Connecting Land Use & Transportation E)
18. Continue to work with property owners on a permanent easement for a trail connection
through the properties to connect the South Hill Recreation Way and the Gateway Trail.
(Natural Resources J)
19. Establish a permanent City Sustainability staff position(s) to coordinate the City’s
sustainability-related initiatives. (Energy A)
20. Investigate ways to diversify and strengthen our local power grid through City-owned
renewable energy systems including wind and hydropower, local energy production, and
district energy systems. (Energy I)
Comprehensive Plan Committee
July 20, 2015
Existing Plans
Plan Date
Adopted/Endorsed
Neighborhood Plans
Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines 2009
Turning the Corner: A Vision for the Northside Neighborhood 2003
Gun Hill Area 2003
Southwest Area Land Use Plan 2001
Southwest Natural Area Master Plan 2001
West Hill Master Plan 1992
Report of the Inlet Island Land Use Committee 1992
Southside Neighborhood Plan Not completed
Design Plans & Design Guidelines
West End Urban Design Plan 1999
Design Guidelines for the Southwest Area and the Elmira Road-Meadow
Street Corridor
2000
Northside Design Study 1998
Downtown Design Plan 1997
Inlet Island Urban Design Plan 2001
Thematic Plans
New York State Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: Cayuga Lake
Waterfront Plan
2006
Evaluation of Six Point Traffic Plan 2001
City Parks Inventory 1998
Update in Progress
Ithaca Bicycle Plan (2001 Amendment) 1997
Draft Transportation Plan Not completed
Draft Trails Master Plan Not completed
Phase II Plans Identified in Plan Ithaca
1. Housing Strategy
2. City Transportation Plan
3. Park System Plan
4. Natural Areas Management Plan
5. Trails Master Plan
NY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumData Source: City of Ithaca Department of Public Works, 2013Map Prepared by: City of Ithaca GIS Program, June, 2015
TOWN OF ITHACA
CITY OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA
CITY OF ITHACA
Treman Marina
Newman Golf Course
Fall Creek Gorge
Linn Street Woods
Cascadilla Gorge
Six Mile Creek Valley
Buttermilk Creek Gorge and Inlet Valley Slope
South Hill Swamp
Renwick Slope
Palmer Woods
Octopus Cliffs
COLLEGETOWN
WATERFRONT & INLET ISLAND
SOUTH SIDE
WASHINGTONPARK
CORNELLHEIGHTS
EASTHILL
NORTH SIDE
DOWNTOWN
BRYANT PARK &BELLE SHERMAN
FALLCREEK
SOUTH HILL
SOUTHWESTAREA
WEST HILL
CORNELL
TOWN OF ITHACA
CITY OF ITHACA
UNIVERSITYHILL
SPENCERROAD
Stewart Park
Cass Park
Negundo Woods
Allan Treman Marina
Strawberry Fields
Ithaca Falls Natural Area
Wood Street Park
McDaniels Park
Dewitt Park
Baker Park
Bryant Park
Conley Park
Conway Park
Brindley Park
Thompson Park
Maplewood Park
Auburn Park
Titus Triangle
Dryden Road Park
Cayuga Lake
Cayuga Inlet
Fall Creek
Sixm ile C reek
Cascadilla Creek
±1:7,000
General Neighborhood Map
0 3,0001,500 Feet
Legend
City Boundary
Waterway
Park/Natural Area
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: September 3, 2015
RE: Public Art Commission Recommendation on Mural Proposal from Ramiro Davaro-
Comas
In 2010, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) created a mural and street art program to
beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community
an opportunity to showcase their work. As part of this program, artist Ramiro Davaro-Comas
submitted a proposal for a mural on the large pool filter building at Cass Park.
The Board of Public Works discussed adding the exterior of the main building and the five
outbuildings at Cass Park to the list of sites approved for murals at its meeting on August 24th.
While they will not vote until September 14th, the Board members were supportive of the mural
program and approving the Cass Park locations as potential mural sites.
The PAC has sought public comment on the proposal through notification of the Parks
Commission and City staff. A public comment period was held at the August 26th PAC meeting to
gather input on the proposed design and location. The comments received were mostly supportive
of the project. After reviewing public comments, the PAC voted to recommend the mural for
selection by the Common Council.
The mural proposal is attached for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
September 9, 2015
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation at Cass Park
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls
within the city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street
art by resolution on May 19, 2010 and added the exterior of the main building and the five
outbuildings at Cass Park to this list on September 14, 2015, and
WHEREAS, Ramiro Davaro-Comas submitted a proposal for a mural featuring owls, cats, and
zebras to be installed on the large pool filter building at Cass Park, as part of the PAC’s Mural
and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the mural design and location at its
meeting on August 26, 2015 to gather input on the proposed installation, and the majority of the
responses to the proposal have been positive, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Parks Commission supports the installation of the proposed mural
in Cass Park, and
WHEREAS, the artist will donate his time and materials to install the mural, and the installation
will be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on August 26, 2015, the Public Art Commission voted to recommend
that the Common Council select Ramiro Davaro-Comas’s mural to be installed at Cass Park;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Ramiro Davaro-Comas’s mural
featuring owls, cats, and zebras, as recommended by the Public Art Commission, to be installed
on the large pool filter building at Cass Park and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art
collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of the mural upon the
execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
September 9, 2015
Fair Housing Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, in the Fall of 2003, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notified
the City that it qualified as an ‘Entitlement Community’ and that it would be receiving an annual
allocation of HUD funds through the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, and
WHEREAS, in order to access these funds, the City is required, every five years, to undertake an Analysis
of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and develop an Action Plan to address the impediments
identified in that analysis, and
WHEREAS, in June 2014 the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR) was retained as a consultant
to conduct the City’s AI and did deliver the completed analysis to the City in May 2015, and
WHEREAS, the AI identifies nine direct and one indirect impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the City
of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the February 14, 2013, agreement between the City of Ithaca and the
Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA), the City has designated the IURA as the Lead Agency to plan,
administer, implement, and monitor the HUD Entitlement grants awarded to the City in accordance with
all program requirements, and
WHEREAS, at their June, July, and August 2015 Neighborhood Investment Committee meetings the
members reviewed the AI submitted by OHR, discussed the identified impediments, and prepared a
Draft Action Plan for the consideration of the IURA and Common Council, and
WHEREAS, at their August 2015 meeting the IURA reviewed the Draft Action Plan and recommended its
adoption, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the IURA‐recommended Fair
Housing Action Plan, dated August 14, 2015.
1
8/14/15
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing: Draft Action Plan
In 2014, the City of Ithaca contracted with the Tompkins County Office of Human Rights (OHR), to
conduct an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI). OHR completed their analysis in May 2015.
The AI contains a wealth of information concerning the city’s demographics, economy, governmental
structure, patterns of land use and transportation, and many other aspects of life in Ithaca that
influence our housing landscape. The report will be invaluable to the City in planning new ways of
improving that housing landscape for all of our residents.
OHR identifies nine direct, and one indirect, impediments to fair housing choice in Ithaca. The City has
carefully reviewed these listed impediments and the observations provided by OHR to support them.
We agree with many of the conclusions reached by OHR, and disagree with others. Below, we list each
identified impediment, indicate the City’s agreement or disagreement with OHR’s position, provide
observations in support of the City’s position, and enumerate and prioritize the steps to address that
impediment that the City proposes to take. In some cases, the City believes additional research will be
required to better define the impediment before appropriate actions to address it can be devised.
Where this is the case, we have so indicated. Once this research has been concluded, the City will
provide HUD with an updated Action Plan.
The impediments are listed here in the order they appear in the Analysis of Impediments; no priority is
implied by the order in which they are listed.
Impediment #1
“People with disabilities report higher levels of discrimination and lower levels of housing
accommodation than other residents.”
The City’s position: The City agrees that this impediment exists and believes that more research is
needed to better understand the impediment so that actions taken to address it will be effective.
The City’s observations:
• The AI reports that 43% of fair housing complaints received between 2005 and 2014 were
related to disability, but no information is provided concerning the type of disability (mobility,
sensory, mental health, etc.) or type of discrimination (failure to show a unit, failure to provide a
requested accommodation, etc.) to which the complaint was related. The report shows that 24
of the 34 total fair housing complaints received during that period originated in either the City
or Town of Ithaca, but does not break out a specific figure for the city. The report also notes
that 73% of all complaints resulted in findings of “no cause”; but again, we do not know how
many of those “no cause” findings related to complaints originating within the city or to
complaints related to disability. It is therefore difficult to know the true extent of the
impediment within the city or the ways in which the impediment manifests. Even assuming all
2
24 complaints for the ten-year period originated within the City and not the Town, with 43% (10
complaints) relating to disability, and 73% of those 10 resulting in a “no cause” finding, there
would have been only two disability-related complaints in the City over a ten year period that
resulted in some type of settlement or administrative closure.
• Of the four fair housing tests conducted for disability, the two that resulted in evidence of
discrimination both involved service or emotional support dogs. One of the two inconclusive
tests involved a service animal, while the other involved a mental disability. Additional testing
not related to the use of service animals would help the City understand the extent of the
impediment and therefore design more effective outreach and educational materials to address
it.
• Although the vast majority of the buildings in the city were constructed before 1987, it is not
known how many of those buildings have been, or could be, renovated to be accessible to the
mobility impaired. The ratio of rental to owner-occupied units that meet ADA standards is also
unknown. Having this information would help the City design an appropriate programmatic
response to address this impediment.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will conduct outreach and provide educational information to local landlords
concerning fair housing requirements. A particular focus will be placed on those types of discrimination
found during testing to be more prevalent. Specifically, the City will provide fair housing information in
annual Certificate of Compliance mailings, and to owners and property managers at Certificate of
Compliance inspections. Such information may include, but not be limited to, a listing of available on-
line fair housing training resources, fair housing pamphlets, and contact information and a description of
services for the Office of Human Rights.
2. At a future date, when funding to undertake the activity can be secured, the City will secure
information on the number of rental units in the city that are ADA compliant, the number of owner-
occupied units that are ADA compliant, the location of any high concentrations of non-ADA compliant
units, the extent to which accessible units are in fact occupied by disabled households, and methods
used by local landlords to advertise the availability of accessible units. This research could potentially
serve as the basis for creating a program to support accessibility upgrades to existing units.
3. At a future date, when funding to undertake the activity can be secured, the City will conduct
additional fair housing testing to determine the prevalence of discrimination on the basis of disability
where a service animal is not required.
Impediment #2
“The needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals may be underserved by the City of Ithaca and by
its sub-recipients of federal funding.”
The City’s position: The City agrees with OHR’s assessment of this impediment.
3
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will revisit its current LEP Plan for the purpose of developing a viable LAP.
2. Year two: The City will survey federally-assisted sub-recipients concerning their compliance with Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act, as required by their funding contracts, and will monitor their compliance on an
annual basis.
Impediment #3
“The obligation of sub-recipients of City CDBG/HOME funds to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)
is not effectively communicated by the City nor understood by its sub-recipients.”
The City’s position: The City disagrees with OHR’s assessment of this impediment.
The City’s observations:
HUD has provided the following guidance in the CDBG Entitlement FAQs section of the HUD Exchange:
There is no requirement that a subrecipient have its own separate policy or plan for
affirmatively furthering fair housing, although the subrecipient must comply with general fair
housing requirements in carrying out a CDBG activity. Rather, it would be appropriate for your
local government to involve its CDBG subrecipients in the process of determining locally
appropriate actions to further fair housing and carrying out those actions, and to hold the
subrecipients accountable for them in all their projects. Subrecipients engaged in housing
activities may have more direct involvement in furthering fair housing; nevertheless, all
subrecipients, other participants in the CDBG program, as well as the general public can provide
information, insight, and resources that contribute to fulfilling the county’s obligation to
affirmatively further fair housing. The county may establish a local requirement for subrecipient
involvement in its efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through provisions in its
subrecipient agreements, although such a contractual provision is not a specific CDBG regulatory
requirement.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will encourage all sub-recipients to offer observations and suggestions to the City
so that the City may improve its efforts to AFFH.
2. Year two: The City will require all sub-recipients undertaking a housing activity to either attend fair
housing training or provide evidence of completing on-line fair housing training on an annual basis, and
will encourage sub-recipients undertaking non-housing related activities to do so.
Impediment #4
“Exclusionary tactics against households who rely on public and private subsidies for housing is prevalent
in the City and has a disparate impact on protected classes in Ithaca.”
4
The City’s position: The City agrees that discrimination on the basis of source of income occurs in the
city; the extent to which is occurs in unclear. More research is needed to determine the true extent of
the problem as well as to understand why some landlords are unwilling to accept Housing Choice
Vouchers before the City can devise an appropriate response to the problem. The City does not agree
that it would be appropriate to add source of income as a protected category in the City Code until that
additional research has been conducted. Apart from any consideration of adding new protected classes,
the City does agree that Section 215 of the City Code should be revised to provide for an effective
enforcement mechanism for discrimination complaints (see impediment #7 below).
The City’s observations:
• There is no doubt that some landlords in the city are unwilling to accept Housing Choice
Vouchers. One large landlord who until recently did accept vouchers is now refusing to accept
them; however, apart from this single landlord, neither local issuer of HCVs has noted a
decrease in the number of landlords who accept vouchers. Only one of the four fair housing
tests performed for source of income was conducted in the city; therefore, the conclusion that
the problem is widespread within the city seems premature.
• Preliminary inquiries with small landlords about the voucher program reveal a need for outreach
and education to dispel some common misconceptions, and potentially a need for
administrative improvements at one of the local agencies that issues HCVs. Simply adding
source of income as a protected class may not be the most effective way to address this
problem; more, or different, action on the part of the City may well be required.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will initiate a conversation with local landlords to better understand the views of
those who currently accept HCVs, those who previously have accepted them but no longer do so, and
those who have never accepted HCVs.
2. Year one: The City will initiate discussions with our local HCV-issuers to better understand their
processes and procedures, and the ways in which they interact with both landlords and voucher holders.
3. At a future date, when funding to undertake the activity can be secured, the City will conduct
additional fair housing testing to determine the prevalence of source of income discrimination.
3. The next steps to address this impediment will depend upon what is discovered as we further
investigate the problem. At a minimum, we would anticipate conducting an outreach and education
campaign, and potentially providing support for our HCV-issuers to streamline administrative
procedures to the extent possible.
Impediment #5
“Some housing professionals’ policies, practices, and lack of knowledge limits housing options for
protected classes.”
5
The City’s position: The City does not find that OHR’s observations provide evidence to support the
existence of this impediment; however, we agree that more education is nearly always beneficial.
The City’s observations:
• No evidence is provided to support the statement that smaller landlords are not well versed in
the requirements of fair housing law.
• OHR notes that 90% of survey respondents perceive landlords to be leading perpetrators of
housing discrimination, while nearly one-half of Tompkins County residents rate themselves as
having very little or no knowledge about fair housing. The City observes that the same group of
survey respondents is both charging landlords with being perpetrators of housing
discrimination, and admitting that they themselves have very little or no knowledge of fair
housing.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will conduct outreach and provide educational information to local landlords
concerning fair housing requirements. Specifically, the City will provide fair housing information in
annual Certificate of Compliance mailings, and to owners and property managers at Certificate of
Compliance inspections. Such information may include, but not be limited to, a listing of available on-
line fair housing training resources, fair housing pamphlets, and contact information and a description of
services for the Office of Human Rights.
Impediment #6
“Processes related to the construction of housing within the City may limit housing choice and inhibit the
development of affordable housing within the City.”
The City’s position: The City does not find that OHR’s observations provide evidence to support the
existence of this impediment; however, we agree that creative new local policies might stimulate the
development of affordable housing.
The City’s observations:
• Due to the high cost of construction in the Ithaca area, any new affordable housing requires
public subsidy. Securing this public subsidy involves very lengthy application processes which
are entirely independent of the City’s approval process. Based on the experience of the
Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning, it is far more likely that the City’s approval
process may have a negative impact on the development timeline of a market-rate project than
of an affordable housing project.
• No examples are offered of any existing procedural barriers to the creation of affordable
housing.
• The City already does, as suggested, “review and assess policies related to housing development
and planning for the purpose of eliminating procedural barriers”. Toward that end, the City
6
recently instituted a PUD ordinance, and is currently investigating other policy approaches that
could proactively stimulate the development of affordable housing.
• It is unclear why a reference to the Consolidated Plan has been included as evidence of the
existence of this impediment. Section MA-40 of the Consolidated Plan, “Barriers to Affordable
Housing”, does not identify any existing City processes as being detrimental to the development
of affordable housing.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. The City will continue with its ongoing work in this area, investigating various policy approaches, such
as inclusionary zoning, that could proactively stimulate the development of affordable housing.
Impediment #7
“The City of Ithaca does not provide its residents with any effective legal mechanism by which their fair
housing rights are meaningfully enforced.”
The City’s position: The City agrees with OHR’s assessment of this impediment.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The Office of Human Rights has presented a draft new anti-discrimination ordinance to the
County for their consideration. The City will consider whether a review of its anti-discrimination
ordinance is appropriate at this time and whether City and County protected classes should be aligned.
2. Depending upon the outcome of these discussions in year one, the City will determine the best
approach and next steps for creating a local enforcement mechanism.
Impediment #8
“There is an inadequate supply of emergency shelter and transitional housing services especially for
homeless families with children and persons with disabilities.”
The City’s position: The City agrees that there is a need for additional resources to address
homelessness locally. We disagree with OHR’s analysis of local trends in the sheltered and unsheltered
homeless population and with the conclusion that additional shelter beds and transitional housing are
required, particularly in light of HUD’s current emphasis on a Housing First approach.
The City’s observations:
• The Point in Time Count shows a decrease in both unsheltered and imminently homeless
populations in 2015 due to the community’s focus on housing the unsheltered and preventing
the unstably housed from becoming homeless.
• As noted in our Consolidated Plan, there has been a change in operators at our local emergency
shelter. The new operator, Rescue Mission, began their operations with very different
admission requirements and operating procedures than the former operator, Red Cross. The
7
transition has not been smooth, and the City is monitoring the situation to determine what real
trends in homelessness exist. The Human Services Coalition (HSC), compiler of the PIT count,
notes that the increase in usage at the Rescue Mission shelter is most likely due to the increase
in number of beds made available by the operator, while the increase in Advocacy Center safe
house usage is attributed to normal fluctuations.
• Shelter stays are significantly longer than necessary due to the lack of permanent affordable
housing in Ithaca and the limited supply of HCVs. The shelter operator has also told us that
security deposits pose a barrier to families leaving their shelter. In response to this observation,
the City increased funding for security deposit assistance in our 2015 CDBG Entitlement Action
Plan.
• Federal funding is no longer available to construct transitional housing, as this type of
programming has been found less effective in reducing homelessness than a Housing First
approach.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will consult with DSS to determine the significance of the increase in the number
of families that were housed by DSS in motels this past winter.
2. The City will continue to monitor usage of the emergency shelter and work with the current operator
to address barriers to their clients’ securing permanent housing.
3. The City will continue to collaborate with the Continuum of Care on appropriate responses to local
housing instability.
4. The City may explore the possibility of creating a new emergency shelter specifically to address the
needs of homeless families with children, if DSS and our Continuum of Care partners agree that the need
for such a facility exists.
5. The City will continue to fund programs that house the homeless. In the past, the City has funded the
Learning Web’s Housing Scholarship program (homeless youth) and Tompkins Community Action’s
Housing First (chronically homeless).
6. The City will continue to explore the potential for a pilot program to address housing instability for
families with elementary school aged children.
Impediment #9
“Ithaca’s student-dominated rental market leads to the prevalence of discriminatory practices by local
housing providers who screen out families with children (and other protected classes) in favor of single
students for housing.”
8
The City’s position: The City agrees that there is evidence of discrimination on the basis of familial
status, particularly in Collegetown, the city’s primary student-oriented neighborhood. The extent of
discrimination on the basis of familial status in other areas of the city is less clear.
The City’s observations:
• OHR cites longer waiting list times for family public housing, as compared to senior public
housing, as evidence of the existence of this impediment. The Ithaca Housing Authority owns
over twice as many senior/disabled units (235) as family units (106). The family units contain a
range of bedroom sizes, from 2- to 4-bedrooms. The difference in IHA wait list times is likely
impacted by the number of existing units that are of a suitable size for the particular waiting
household. The federal government is no longer building new public housing.
• Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services reports that they have difficulty filling their three-
bedroom units; their wait-list for one-bedroom units is much longer than their wait list for large
family units.
• Ithaca’s topography is such that our most heavily student-oriented neighborhood, Collegetown,
is not particularly family-friendly. It is not conveniently located near shopping, schools, or
employment (other than employment at the University), is not highly walkable due to the
steepness of the terrain, and contains no public parks or green spaces. Both of the fair housing
tests that revealed evidence of discrimination were conducted in the Collegetown
neighborhood.
• One contributor to the high cost of housing locally is the very high property tax rate, which is
due in large part to the fact that over 60% of all property in the City is tax exempt. Encouraging
the construction of additional on-campus housing in lieu of private-market housing constructed
adjacent to the university will only worsen this problem.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. Year one: The City will conduct outreach and provide educational information to local landlords
concerning fair housing requirements. Specifically, the City will provide fair housing information in
annual Certificate of Compliance mailings, and to owners and property managers at Certificate of
Compliance inspections. Such information may include, but not be limited to, a listing of available on-
line fair housing training resources, fair housing pamphlets, and contact information and a description of
services for the Office of Human Rights. Specific information will be provided to help landlords
understand the distinction between steering and the provision of information about a neighborhood
that would be useful to a prospective resident in making an informed decision.
2. At a future date, when funding to undertake the activity can be secured , the City will conduct
additional testing to determine whether discrimination on the basis of familial status is prevalent in
areas of the city outside Collegetown.
9
Indirect Impediment #1
“The City’s high rental and homeownership prices, as well as limited land and public resources, have a
disparate impact on Ithaca residents in protected classes who have low incomes by limiting their housing
options.”
The City’s position: The City agrees with our consultant’s assessment of this impediment.
The City’s proposed actions:
1. The City will continue to oppose annual reductions in HOME/CDBG funding, which limit our ability to
undertake fair housing activities and to implement actions to address the local housing crisis.
2. The City will continue to advocate for increased public resources for housing development and
operations from HUD and other agencies.
3. The City will continue to explore every possible resource to create new and preserve existing supplies
of affordable housing.
4. The City will continue to actively participate in the local Housing Trust Fund, which combines the
resources of the City, County, and Cornell University, to support the development of affordable housing.
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%F
>
1 .-#/ .''+2
.+*), " */,*)- ) ." (&3-#-)
'* #' (.-.)#, )/-#(!")# A
B#-.)# (.# 3*, .# -(
)( #.#)(-#(." #.3)
." ."., #'* #(!")/-#(!)**),./(#.# - ),, -# (.- /- ) ." #,
, 6 )&),6, &#!#)(6- 26 #- #&#.36 '#&#&-../-6(.#)(&),#!#(),)." ,;*,). . &--<-../-9
" #.3#-, +/#, 3." #, )/-#(! ..); #,'.#0 &3/,." ,#, )/-#(!<( ),.".*/,*)- 6
."#-
# (.# # - #,")/-#(! ")# )(-.,#(.-( ) ,-*&((#(!-.,. !# -.". ( #( ),*),.
#(.))." , )''/(#.3*&((#(!( 0 &)*' (.*,) -- -( #-#)(-9/,." ,'), 6."#--./ 3#-
, +/#, 3." *,.' (.) )/-#(!( , ( 0 &)*' (.A B- )( #.#)( ),, #0#(!
,&")/-#(! /( -6( -")/& )'*& . #( )), #(.#)(1#."." #.3:- #0 >3 ,;)(-)&# .
&(<.". - ,# -")1.")- /( -1#&& -* (.6-).".." #.3 (-")1.".#./( ,-.( -."
0,#)/- #, .( #( #, .#'* #' (.-.) #,")/-#(! ")# ( #- .#0 &31),%#(!.) &#'#(.
#- ,#'#(.),3*, .# -( #-*,. )/. )' -9
/ +/# 0
) -. 2" #.3)
." )(., . 1#."." )'*%#(-)/(.3 # ) /'(#!".-.) )'*& . (
),."
#.39"
)' #( - .0#& & ,)'1# 0,# .3) -)/, -6#( &/ #(!*)*/&.#)(6 ')!,*"# 6
)()'# ( ")/-#(! . ,)'." #.3)
." 699 (-/-/, /6." ' ,# ()''/(#.3/,0 36
." 99 *,.' (.) )/-#(!( , ( 0 &)*' (.A B6." 1),%.. #0#-#)() /'(
#!".-A B6." ,&#(( #&
(-.#./.#)(-2'#(.#)()/( #&6( ." )'*%#(-)/(.3
*,.' (.-) &((#(!6) #& ,0# -6( ." # ),." !#(!9"#- ., 0# 1( (&3-#-1- )' #( 1#."#( ),'.#)(!." , /,#(!- ,# -) #,")/-#(!
")# #(#.#.#0 -?#( &/ #(! ) /-!,)/*-1#."")/-#(!( -) #&- ,0# *,) --#)(&-6.1) #,")/-#(!
")# -/,0 3-) , -# (.-( &) & #- ( ,( "#- *)*/&.#)(-6( #,")/-#(!. -.#(!*,)$ .9"
#( ),'.#)(.".1-!." , ( ." ..".1-(&34 *)#(..)- .) .>,#-%!,)/*-( *)--# &
#'* #' (.-9
"#-, *),.6")1 0 ,6'% - #-.#( .#)( .1 (#( #, .#'* #' (.-A.")- .". #, .&3#'* .
*,). . &--B( #( #, .#'* #' (.-A.")- .".'3 )( ,( /. ((). #, .&3&#(% .)
(3*,.# /&,*,). . !,)/*B9), 2'*& 6." & %) ), & ")/-#(!#-! ( ,&&3 ,,# , ),&&
&)1>#( )' * )*& 6, !, & --) *,). . &--7." , ), 6#(."#-
." ), #&#.3) ")/-#(!#(
."
#-0# 1 -(#( #, .#'* #' (..) #,")/-#(! ")# 9/,." ,'), 6 "# (.# # #'* #' (.#-
-/**),. 3(/' ,) ) - ,0.#)(-.".1" ( )(-# , )&& .#0 &36-/**),.." 2#-. ( ) ."
),, -*)( #(! ,,# ,.) #,")/-#(! ")# 9
" )&&)1#(!#'* #' (.-"0 +/&1 #!".( , ().&#-. #((3*,.# /&,), ,9
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>=
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
)
*.
! ' $
# $ #
"! "$ "
& #
#" $
'" & #
%#
$
$ $"
"# $#*
5&) =;;@ =;<?-&
!$&+4?>"$ &4!$
!'% ! " &%
! " %!' &+)$%!
% &+.
5""$!* & +-A<"$ &!
$%"! $%&!0'$(+1
*"$%% &&&%'"" +
!%% !'% )% !&
& '$$ & %.
5$!'% &%& !' $ +
@;"$ &!% &+3$ &
&%&%%( 0( 1!
%$ &! - ' !'&$&
$ &! !"" &%)&
%$( %.
5""$!* & +-CB"$ &!
' &% &&+)$' &!$
<DC;-"$!$&! !&$
%% &+ &%.
5 ! &!'% '&!$&+
6 7 $ +' &%)$
! %&$'& &<DB;%
$ +<DC;%-"$!$&!
!&$%% &+ &%.
5&+! &/%=;<?3=;<C
! %! &
-"".@C3A<-BC-
<;>.
5
!" )&
% &%$
"$!&& %%' $
$!'% ).!
&*& &&&&+
!& !+$
!'% !%
#' &!&!%!
!&$$% &%!
% $ ! ( %-
$!'% $$$
%$&.
5 !'&($+"!%% $%!'$&!
$& ) "$%$(&
*%& %'"" +!%%
!'% .% '% !'$
%'$$!' ! " %!' &+
! ' &%&!!&% .
5! '&"' )$ %%
" &!"$! !&$!'%
)%$ &&!%% &+
%& $%-%%%& %-
!&$!$ %!$%!
! !&! 2 !&! .
5 !'&%!'$%!' $
!'% "$& $%"% !$$&!
! & '"$&%& $%$%!
& +! &!$
!$ & !'&$
"'$"!%%.
5 &"$!%%!$' &
!$ !'% 3$ &&(&+
( !" &-&&+%!'
! %$"$! !& ' ($% %
&%&&%$("!" !
&%.
*/
#
$ #
" $,
-
& % # (
% "#"&
($ $(
$ ( $#
#%+" ! $#
" % *
5&+! &!% !&
'$$ & +(
'
%%%&
- !$%&
!$! &! &%=;<>
.
5&+/%
! " + !' &%! !&
$$&!&&+/%! &! &!
"$!( ' &$"$&&!
&$ % &! %$(%&!
(' %$!$.
5&+$&$,%&%
! &! % ""
%! +&!&0! ! %"$
"$
$! &1!$)
&&+$('
=;<>.
5&+!% !&""$&!
&$"$&&%
! &! %%
"" + &! &+"$! &%-
%$(%-!$"$!$ %.
5?.>"$ &!"$%! % (
! " %!' &+%" %
0 %%& ($+) .1
5& !&(
&%&!<DA?
0$#'$%&&
$ 3%%%&
$" &%"$!(
'%%%&
&! (' %)&
& %
"$! +. '$
&! %'$&&
"$%! %)!$
&( +
"$&"& !$
&$!
$ +%%%&
"$!$ %(! &%
& 8%"$!&!
%& &!
$ %$ &! .
5&+%!' ! %$$(%& &%
!$&"'$"!%!
( !" (
)&&
! !"$!( $!$ !$
! "$ %( '%$(%&!
(' %% &!%% +
&+%$( 2!$"$!$ .
5&+%!' ! %$%'$(+
&%$ +3%%%&%'3
$" &%&! #'$)&$&+
$ ! " )&
&%- !&-&! !'$
$&& &!%!.
5! '&"' )$ %%
" &! "
(' %)$!&$ &+
&!$($ &$"$&&!
&$ % &! %%%& &!'$%
!%% &+"$!$ %.
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>>
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
+
,1
! % !
!$&.# " %$
! %*
-
& $%!
# % ' *
&#% # #
!&$ / 0
$ !%% ' *
! & %
*% %* !#
& #$%!!*
%$$&.
# " %$,
7&"! %" "(&
%"(# &(&& "!&!
'% ! !&&& "!&''!,
%#%&!'' )&"! &
% ) !% " %&%" '
',. ' &##%!''''&&(5
% # !'&"4
(!&
) ' !"* "('
' % " ' "!&!
'%"%)!"') "#
&'%' &"% ' !'"&
" ' "!&0
7 '"(&)% ',&(5
% # !'&"4
(! !
%#%"&& "! "(& !
) "# !'! &. !,%
!"'6) !& &'&!
#% %, && "!'' &!"'
!&&% ,"(& !"(&0
7 '
"' )
'&'">EBD
8' % "(& !'9
%$( %& % # !'&
!&(5% # !'&"
(! !'"
! &'% '&
#%"% & !*,
'' % ' ) ,
(%'%& %"(& !
8 9.' (%"
* %'&
%% %&"%
#%"'' &&&0
7 ',&"( "!& %%) * !
!(#' ! '&4
*%
#%"&&'" ! (8 ! ' "!'"
"!'%' !(9 %!"' ' "!
#%"&&&!% !"##"%'(! ' &
"%4
*%&
%% !' %" ' "!'" .
* && &' !* '&'%' &"%
" # !0
7 ',&"( "!& %#( - !
'& " ' "!&%$( % !'
'"% ) ! (!&.&* &
' ! '& &(%&!
" # !5&' ) ' &"! '&
*& '0
,2
) &$ ! #*
%% $ $%
!&$ ! $( !
# *! "&
"# '%
$&$ $!#
!&$ $
"#' % %
%* $
$"#%
"%!
"#!%%
$$$
% ,
7
'&"*''>A#%!'"
" # !&"(!',%& !'&)
& ' &.('!% ,@=#%!'
" " %&%"( !'
#%&"!&* ' & ' &0
7% !5 % !&"!&' '('"! ,
B0A#%!'"
'1&#"#( ' "!
")% .('%#%&!'")%?=
#%!'" % # !'&0
7 5"(&" &!
' !"&% &"")%5%#%&!'
!'#"" " (&%&0
7 %"(& !'&'%&( '&&"*
''>==#%!'" 5" !
'&'%&*%"('% '% '.
&'%'""'%#%"#%' &."%
%(&&"!'
!,1&&(% ',#"& '#" ,0
7##%"+ ' ,>C#%!'"
2(%),3%&#"!%&& ',
!! "(& ! !'
#&'&"!' %&"(%"
!" 0
7(&#%"''
! ) ( &%
!% ,
")%%#%&!' !
#"" &"#%&"!&
% ) !#( "%
#% )'"% &"
&& &'!"%
"(& !.'% ''"
+ (' %"
"(& !&"!
''&"(%" !"
& &#%'
#'"!#%"''
%"(#&0
7 &% !' "!&
"!2"(%"
!" 3 ,!"'
"! ,#"&!
&#%' #'"!
#%"'' &&
%&/'' &. '
, &"#%'+'
"% %'
&% !'"%,
'%' !'0
7 ',&"( "!& %%) & !
',":?>A'" ! (' )
" !"% !' ! & &"%
&% !' "!" # !'&''% &
%" '& (% & ' "!0
7 %) & ! ',":?>A.'
',&"( "!& % !
&% !' "!&"!2"(%"
!" 3&#%"'''"%,0
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>?
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
)
+.
%#
!" ## #,
! #*
!"$#*
' $
%# !$ #
"!" $$
###+
3 ""'* " 1 #
#! !# '<;
" #! # "!*
" #" " $ ,
3 ' ! "
! # "' "
#! !! ""!, !"*"'
. /! !*
" #"! #
# "! "%#"
*!""* %!
#! ,
3! . # $'/2485
$ % "'
! !4>7 "5
$ !"
" " ! #!
! " + 495 '
1
! # "'
! "! ""!$!!
$ .$ '""/ . /
% #" #! ,
3
$ 8> " #!
"!"! "# ! %
.$ / ! " *
# ! $ ' "
& ! #!
$ " !+,,* "
!" !%"
#!" ! "!
%"! $ !,
3! " '
# %# #!
"!"
#! !
"" # !,
3 #" #% !!
" " #!
%! !" "! ""
" "! ! !"!
" "!* !* "'
!* !* !""
"!* # ! $
$ !,
3 $ 0 #
#! " !
!* "' !*
!* !"" "!*
# ! $ $ !,
3
"'! # ! #!
#! "
" "!%!" "
# ! #" " "!
#' ! #" %"
#! " 0 %"
" #! # ! ,
3! " #
" # #"
!" " #! "'
% !*""'! # !
! #! " *
" " #" '!# !
' ! $"" !" #!
"" ! % ! !
$ " # "',
+/
" ###
" $$ $
#$"%$
%# '$
$$( (
$ %#
$$
& ! $
"
%# '$
$$(+
3
"'-!( !
" # '!#!! #"
#! "!!#!,
3!!" "* # "!
%" ! ""
#"! # !
#! ! # # ' $%
!!!! ! ""
#! $ "
" # !
" # !,
3
!" #! $ !!
!"' $"" ""
! #" !,
" " "
$ ! !:1;
' !* % !*
!* !'!'
#"#",
3"' "-!978;1978=
! " ,
3 #!
$ "
# ' !*
# ! "
!" "$* # "
! " "
#
#! # "! !"
' ""
!!!,
3
"'! # ! #
!#!! #" #! "!
( ,
3 1 #!#!! !
#! ! " # "
!" "! #
#! ,
3 #" #! # #!%"
!" !4 $" 1
"5*!#!$ !*
# "' # !*
!
$ " !!!,
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>@
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
)
*,
$(
$ # $
" &$#
"# $#'$
($&
#
('$"
" %#
"$#"
% (
"*
4&+! &0% ! &3
%$ &! )5&+!
7;:=6!% !&$ &!$ &+
%" !$ &"!)$%!$
!&$)%"$!(!$ +
' % +)
! " &%$% )& &&+
+"$!%%/
4! " %!' &+0% &3
%$ &! )5
!
)6
! +"$!&&%(& %!
%$ &! %! *'
$ &&! - $ &&+-
$*"$%%! /
4 $%& +!$ &
$% &&!' +
%&$&($!'%
! " &% &! 5=9
%)+6!$' !- )!$
5:>9 %)+6/
4%! 1'$(+1!($>=
"$ &!$% &%"$(
' $3$"!$& !!'%
%$ &! +(& %/
4 ($:?"$ &!$!'%
&%&%$&'$ %!) !
1( 2!%$ &! -
' %! ($+$&
* " %!$!'%
(! &! %/
4%$ &!$+
' )' !'%
"$&%
%'%& & + "&
"$!&&$!'"%+
& &$$
!'% !%/
4 !!$ &! )&&!' &+0%
$()!
!
)-&&+
%!' ! %$$(% &+!
7;:=&! ' &( !
!$ & % !$
%$ &! ! " &%&&$%
)& &&+0% '$%&! /
4&+%!' ! %$ &
! "$!&&&!$%&!&!%
'$$ & + !$+%&&
$ )-) 2!'$!
! 2 1! %&!
& &&'%2% ! "$!&&! %/
*-
"#
!%$
#% (
" (
# $"
$" #$
%# #"&#
# ( "
##
#'$
"
"# #'$
# $#*
4 ;9:=-&$)% $%
& ' $! ! %%
"$%! %!$!&&
!' & &! ' &+
!' &-$ & & $%
' $!"$%! %$#'$
$ +% &$%
&$ %&! !'% /
4 ;9:=-& ' $!% &$
"$%! %)&%($ & &
%%'% $%% & +/
4 ;9:=-&$)% $%
& ' $!! %% $ -
$ +$ & $% &
' $!! %% %/
4
$% !%&' &3! &
!'% $ &/
4!'% "$!($%0)%"$
"$&!$'% & &%%
! !'$! ! /
4!' & !!$
!'% &&+! &/
4 $ +
&$ %&! !'%
!&()%
( !'% !%
!$ +! . &$%
! %% %%'%
+!$ &+!$
! %%'% ! /
'&) !%&
'$ %
* '%! $+$ &
$ & &!$%
*%&-& &
%'"" +! $ +
% &$
&$ %&! !'%
$&%& "!$$+
$$$%!$ %
)& $
"$%! %)&
% &% &/
4$%%!'% %%'%&&
$ ,&! %%+
! & ' &!% &! '
%%%& &"$!(%! !%$(%
!$&! %%- '
$ +% &$%"-&$ %&!
!'% - !$$%"!
%'""!$&(%$(%-+$&
$ &%&!& %&&"$!(
&%%$(%/
4&+%!' ! %$!$&%&!5:6
$$'& !$%) &!)!$ )&
&!%)!$! %%&!&$ %&!
&!%& !'% .5;6"$!()$
$ !!'% !"&! %!$"!"
)& & %% %'%&
'%%%'%)&!'&! &$&
%'"!"' &! %. 5<6 !'$
%&&$%&!'% )&%'""!$&
%$(%( /
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>A
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
)
*/
$+##$% $,
$
" $ " $
#$ $
!"&
#" $ "(
!"$#(
%#
!" &"#'
#" %$
#'$
" -
$"!" $$
" %!#. & "
#
#$% $# "
%# *
0 " " #!
#" "'1 2")" %
76: #! ! "%" !"
# #!
'7569+
'!"!)"%"
! " " ' !+
! "!)"%" !"!
" " !& "!+
0"% 755; 7569)
" "! " . # .
# "! %<; "
:= ") ! "$'/
! % !"
' " !(# "+
0"% 755: 7569) $ 6<
" #! "!
!
! # "'
""#!
! " ) ""
! !" # "!!+
0 #! "!" !#"!
! %:5 "
""#!"!"!! $
,$ - ! " +
& )"!" !%"
% "'" ' "
"!"# ""'%
# #"%! '$
" !"# "!+
0! , # $'- ! !!)
" '"' #! "
! , " -'
!( "
!
# "' ! "!199 "2!
!"# " " #! +
0! " !
""#!!
$ "
!"" #!
%! "! "
"$' "!
#!
!%"
+
0 #" #% !!
" " #!
%! "" ""#!
"" !+
0 " #" ""
!" #" ! $"
#! "# "!
!%" ""'+
0 " #" %"
#" !""#" !!" %
!"# " #! ! "$'
"!%"
" "" # !%" "
"'+ & ) !
$
%"
! $ !"!""162
!" "! !"# "!" $
. #! #! "!"
"% ' !*172 # !"
# " . #!
#! !"# " #" !*
182& !"$"'
" " #! "!
"""" ! !"# "!)
!)! !) !
#" !+
(
&
2
,
#
,
)
'
*
#
'
(
-
,
-
)
#
+
)
.
,
#
(
!
"
)
#
#-2)
-" 8 0)+%>B
>
#,-)
'* #' (-,-)#+ ).,#(!")#
'
)+
"&*!
"
% !
!(!%!
"
#
! # !($
! "
" "
! "!
""
!!!%
$ %
!&
" "
#! " !)
3# $*$" "$
" $# $)% $#'$$'
%"" #&
"#) "$ =8
" $,
3
$# '$$ "$)
$0 # % $)" $"#
('$# #"
" $" # " $
# $ %# , "
( * " ( $ )>A
" $ " $"# ) "$
;8 " $ $"
" $,
3# .
%"&)*/" % )
$"1 %"$# $ ##%"&)
#)$"# $ %
" %# 4?@ " $5
# % $), $ *
"$ => " $#$$
" $)'#$ #$
"$ $ #"$ '
# $ &,
3 " )#$#*$'$
" # $ $")"#,
3 " $ $* "
%# $$)2 #$
#*# * #"#
" ) ## "" $"#
%# #$ #%",
3 " $ $:89< %#
%"&) "$ %$)$
% $)-# "$
4 5* ) "% $#&
#"$ . /2 )
& '$ $$) " '
$ %# $$#
" *## * #
"* '$#)##$
% $" # "$$
#"&#, '&"*$$)-#
%"" $ %# #$ # $
" "# "#%#$*
)##*"!%"#( #&
"$" $$ ""$ $
## " "% $##$)
,
3
%"&) "$ #
% $#$$$$
"# $#" $ "##$ $$
'& $%$ $"
# "$'$$ $
#$) %# ,
3 " $)# $*
$# *" %#
"""*%#
# $
" $$ ##,
'&"*%$ $
#$" "" $
$'
& " $$
" % #$$%#*#%
$$$# " $$
" % # %
# " "$ $ "$
$$)-# '1
% $ *
$ $#% )
" % $##
$$
"#$"$ %#
"$ #
" $$"# $#,
3& $" ) "'"
%# #$$ " $
%# & $ $
" $$" % #* %
%" " %#
& $# %$#$$)-#
%"#$ ,
3 $ %$ & $ " "#
% "# %"# " %#
& $ "$ #"
$"#$$ "
#,
3( "&") ## "# %"$
"$ ' "#"&(#$
#% # " %# ,
3 $ %$ '$
%$ #$$%$ ##$ '
#$% $ %# # $& )
$ #'$ "
$" " $$" % #'$ $
$), "( * #"
&
'$
# &"#$#$$495
"#$"$# " #$% $#$ &
1 %# %# "$ #$
$' )"#+4:5 %"#$
% $ 1 %#
%# "#$% $ % $ #+
4;5( "#$& $)
$" "$ %# " $#
$$ $$ # #$% $#*
#*# "#* #
% $ #,
3" $ # $' $$)*
% $)* $"
% $# #$
#$" $ ""$ $$"
"##$ %# " $)
" # $#"# $#, "
( *$$)# % #"
"$ " $ %# #
"$$" "# $# $$$)
% $),
3 ""$ "## " #" $
$ " $)*## $)* $
$)$ * $
"# $# $ "
"$ '$$ $
#$) %# "" "
& $$ %",
ORDINANCE __-2015
al Code
4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code prohibits the keeping of
City, and;
nd;
ard chickens in
ity; now therefore,
e City of Ithaca as
Section 1. Findings of Fact.
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municip
WHEREAS, Chapter 16
chickens in the
WHEREAS,, a
WHEREAS, , and;
WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to enable the keeping of backy
the C
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of th
follows:
The Common Council finds that backyard chickens, if
ive initiative for the City, promoting food
thout presenting a nuisance to neighboring
properly maintained, can prove a posit
sustainability, __________, and _______, wi
residents or properties.
Section 2. Amendments to Section 164-2(B).
Section 164-2(B) shall be amended to read as follows:
Exception. This section shall not apply to the keeping of chickens to the extent
authorized by Article III of this Chapter, nor to any educational, scientific or research
institution maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and
convenience, any animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research
purposes.
Section 3. Amendments to Section 164-4
ended to read as follows:
d Markets Law, a violation of this article
constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with § 1-1 of the City of Ithaca
s in the City shall be
punishable as follows:
(a) $250 for the first violation:
(b) $500 for the second violation: and
(c) $750 for the third or subsequent violation.
These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law.
Section 164-4 shall be am
Except as provided in the Agriculture an
Municipal Code except that the unlawful keeping of chicken
Section 4. Creation of Article III to Chapter 164
is hereby created as follows: An Article III of Chapter 164
Article III: Backyard Chickens
164-21: Definitions
Lot: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Lot Square Footage: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Property Class Code: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Rear Yard: As defined in section 325-3 of the City Code.
164-22 Backyard Chickens
The prohibition against keeping chickens in this Chapter shall not apply to the keeping of
up to four female chickens (hens) per Lot while the animals are kept in such a manner
that all requirements of this Article are satisfied.
164-23: Requirements for Keeping Chickens
A. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots with a Property Class Code of 210, 215,
220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations.
B. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots possessing a Lot Square Footage of not
less than 3,000 square feet.
emporarily or
idence, or
ilding on a lot;
C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens, either t
permanently, shall be located within twenty feet of any adjacent res
within three feet of the chicken owner’s residence or any other bu
D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the Lot
on which the chickens are kept.
E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and constructed
coop or chicken house, or a fenced and covered enclosure, that is at least 4 square
feet per chicken in size, which may be located only in the Rear Yard of the Lot,
and shall comply with the setback requirements of the zone in whi
F. Each fenced and covered enclosure shall be designed with adequate yard s
bined shall not c
ch it is located;
pace for
se and the fenced and
covered enclosure com over more than 50% of the rear yard.
Enclosures must be clean and resistant to predators and rodents.
G. During daylight hours the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop
and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject
property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the
chickens by dogs and other predators.
H. Chicken feed must be in rodent resistant and weather proof containers.
each chicken, including a run, and the coop or chicken hou
or any reason
ny purpose, on any real property on which chickens are kept pursuant to this
d, shall be
roduce noise
le domiciliary
. The Lot owner
ining Lot of any damage caused by
ructures and
f the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, §331-7.
of the bird.
s Not Exclusive.
xclusive and are
ity under any
deemed a public
tends to
cating any chickens
ion, the
the owner of
ed responsibility
hapter.
il to the address
x roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such
notice but in no event less than thirty days from the service or mailing thereof, to
priate, to remove the
test the finding
ritten
led meeting
. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally
delivered to the Director of Planning and Development or designee within fourteen
days of the service or mailing of notice, and any such written request for a hearing
shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending
such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be
binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the
property owner.
I. Chickens may not be butchered, slaughtered, or otherwise killed, f
or a
Article.
J. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is locate
maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not p
or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining Lots and the responsib
and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition
shall be responsible for the repair on any adjo
the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, st
yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe condition.
K. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all Solid Waste Storage and
Collection standards o
L. Roosters are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity
164-24: Remedie
The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and not mutually e
in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the C
other provision of law.
A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this Article shall be
nuisance and the owner or custodian shall be given thirty days to rectify the
conditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City in
correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confis
present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violat
Director of Planning and Development or his/her designee shall notify
the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assum
as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this c
B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by ma
appearing on the City ta
comply with this chapter and to abate the nuisance and, as appro
chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may con
of the Director of Planning and Development or designee by making a w
request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly schedu
of the Board of Public Works.
C
tion of this
e limit stated
such a hearing,
esignee shall
all charge the
thereof to the owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision
inistration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall
arcel so corrected
f Public Works.
property,
anner as
City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written
er the mailing
Section 5. Severability.
D. Upon the failure of a property owner to comply with the notice of viola
chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the tim
in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works’ determination, after
that a violation exists), the Director of Planning and Development or d
refer the matter, by memorandum, to the Superintendent of Public Works, who shall
cause such premises to be put in such condition as will comply and sh
cost
and adm
be $50.
E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any p
a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent o
If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the
added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same m
delinquent
notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days aft
of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of
Public Works.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
on of this
urt of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date.
this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or porti
Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a co
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication
as provided for in the City Charter.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, July 8, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick,
Cynthia Brock, and Josephine Martell
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Ellen McCollister
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson George McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning,
Building, Zoning, and Economic Development;
Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Planner, Department
of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency; Debbie Grunder, Executive
Assistant, Department of Planning, Building,
Zoning, and Economic Development
Others Attending: Julie Holcomb, City Clerk; Addisu Gebre, Bridge
System Engineer; Form Ithaca
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:05p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
Other items added to agenda include:
a) Old County Library Site – Update and Discussion
b) Form Ithaca – Update
c) Construction Stage in Collegetown – Ellen McCollister
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Laurie Pattington, 204 East Corn Street, spoke on chickens/hens. If rabbits are
allowed, chickens should also be allowed. They are relatively the same in nature as to
their care. A flock of six hens will produce less feces per year than a large dog. They
are easily contained. Disease is kept to a minimum since hens eat their own fleas and
ticks.
Kirby Edmonds, 308 Hector Street, spoke on the Plan Ithaca as committee chair.
Committee meetings, public forums, etc. were well attended.
Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on the draft comprehensive plan namely the
community gardens. The area of the City where the community gardens currently are
is not zoned for this purpose in the new Plan Ithaca. Relocating several 100 garden
plots will be difficult. Where are they going to go? Where is there enough sun?
Relocating the gardens to the Southwest area is not a doable alternative. She
recommends adding a chapter entitled, Urban, and Agricultural Resources.
Joel Fredell, 208 Lake Avenue, spoke on the comprehensive plan and its proposed
changes to the location of the community gardens. If the gardens are moved from their
current site, it will kill the program. There is no more direct connection to CSAs if the
community gardens are moved since not all residents can afford a CSA membership.
Tom Shiele, a comprehensive plan committee member. He spoke on the proposed
changes to chickens in the City. The biggest issue is management. Local chicken
owners should and will collaborate together thus helping each other. Training will be
provided for anyone who is interested in raising chickens, inspection of the facilities to
house the chickens should be done, taking care of each other’s chickens such as
taking care of others dogs and cats could work.
Daniel Shedd, 402 East Buffalo Street spoke on the Inlet and development. He is a
holistic healer. We are making our lake sick. He hopes that the development will slow
down. We are not taking care of what we have. We need to protect it.
Nancy Brawn, 703 East Tompkins Street, spoke on the possible changes to the
community gardens. A tremendous amount of work and effort from many people helps
to make the community gardens work. Having local downtown compost would greatly
help the City. She thinks the community gardens are crucial. She agrees that the
Urban and Agricultural Resources chapter should be included.
Chair Murtagh informed the group that the Comp Plan is not being voted on tonight, but
rather approval to circulate is being requesting.
3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) EPMO - JoAnn Cornish reported that we are still working on a new fee structure and
the City is working with the Landlords Association to help with this. Cornish stated if
anything is done, the fine on trash can tops be minimized if not eliminate it.
b) M-1 Zoning – Liz Cameron from the Health Department was present to provide
information as to what is allowed and what will be allowed.
JoAnn Cornish asked what the permitted allowance on for Nate’s Floral Estates is. Liz
stated that 115 lots is the limit.
Expanding the estates will include digging up ground and may create problems for
existing tenants. Water and sewer is connected with the City’s facilities. The
Department of Health doesn’t regulate that since the City does this. Cornish stated
there is a back flow moderator that is maintained by the City
Alderperson Kerslick stated he attended the tour and found it to be very well
maintained. It was apparent that there are hook ups are already there. If these hook
ups could be used, would it be permitted to hook up to?
Cameron stated that the 115 lots are approved and if these two hook ups mentioned
are part of the 115, there would not be a problem hooking them up.
Alderperson Brock stated that it is her understanding that if the City changes the
zoning, it’s up to the property owner to request the expansion and work with the
Department of Health.
Cameron stated that there were plans for these additional sites that were approved, but
nothing was done at that time.
Mayor Svante Myrick joined the group at 6:50 p.m.
c) Ithaca Falls Natural Area – Signs have been erected at the site starting that lead
has been found. The sign continues to state that anyone with questions can
contact the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). There will be a press release
to be held soon with the updated information.
d) Lake Street Park (Plaza?) Enhancements – The Engineering Office attended the
Natural Areas Commission meeting. It was decided that the project will begin in the
spring not this fall.
e) Incentive Zoning – Lynn Truame will be attending a conference in August on this
topic. Once attended, she will report back to this committee.
4) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Public Art Mural – This was not voted on because the Natural Areas
Commission stated that although they like the art, they don’t feel the area in
which the mural will be located is the right area.
Megan Wilson stated that this project has received Public Arts Commission
recommendation. They do like the mural itself, but doesn’t necessarily agree
with the Natural Areas Commission.
Alderperson Martell stated the Natural Areas Commission liked the art. It just
didn’t agree with the area in which they want to locate it. To this group it
looked a lot like graffiti with the bright colors. The Public Arts Commission will
work with the artist for a different location.
b) Taxi Regulations – Julie Holcomb, City Clerk, distributed the proposed
changes to the taxi regulations. Since the committee received this proposal at
the meeting, it needed more time to read and digest it before voting.
Alderperson Brock asked about the meter rates that were brought up last
month. Holcomb thought it would be a good idea to eliminate the meter rate
but stick with a flat rate. With meter rates, nothing is left up to chance. Some
fares may end up being much more than anticipated since the cab may either
pick up other fares or take a different and possibly longer route which would
just add to the cost of the fare.
Alderperson Kerslick moved to circulate as written; seconded by Alderperson
Martell. Carried unanimously.
5) Approval to Circulate
a) Comprehensive Plan
Megan Wilson provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan Ithaca)
Alderperson Kerslick thanked Megan for all the work she has done on this Plan.
He asked for clarification of the land use categories.
JoAnn Cornish commented on the community gardens site. The City has waited
almost two years for a developer to come in and suggest something for this site.
No one has come forward.
Chair Murtagh stated he is fully commented to keep the community gardens as
is. We are all committed to this, but stated that the community gardens site
should not be part of this Comprehensive Plan.
Alderperson Kerslick moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Martell.
Carried Unanimously.
6) Discussion
a) Backyard Chickens
Alderperson Kerslick would like to see this researched more. If we go with this,
we need to know what to expect. We need more information as to the
guidelines -- Coops, free range, etc. It would be ideal to discuss this with
Cooperative Extension.
Alderperson Brock admitted that she was at first not interested. There are
people who will take very good care of their chickens, and those that will not just
like there are good dog/cat owners. If we take on this pursuit, regulations as to
size of lot, weather, etc. need to be considered and not to burden City staff.
Alderperson McGonigal likes the idea to reach out to Cooperative Extension.
We must be mindful that not only humans enjoy chickens for the meat and eggs,
but other predators do too such as skunks, coyotes, etc.
McGonigal stated that there are people who would love to raise chickens but
do not want to break the law.
It was suggested we reach out to Cornell Coop Extension and Tom Schiele to
assist us with a list of guidelines.
Other questions raised were whether the City had a contract with the SPCA?
Do we have complaints on the existing chickens in the City?
Alderperson McGonigal stated there is one way to handle it – just remove any
reference to chickens in the Code.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) May and June 2015
Both sets of minutes with suggested edits from Alderperson Brock were moved
by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded it by Alderperson Martell. Carried
Unanimously.
8) Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham Kerslick,
Ellen McCollister, Cynthia Brock, and Josephine
Martell
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson George McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of Planning,
Building, Zoning, and Economic Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency; Ari Lavine, City Attorney;
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant, Department
of Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development
Others Attending: Joe Bowes and Chris Mozzarella, INHS
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
No changes were made to the agenda.
2) Special Order of Business – Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan
Alderperson McCollister motioned to open the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded it. Passed Unanimously.
David Kay, 205 Hook Avenue, urges the City to take the Comprehensive Plan
seriously. Treat it with respect that it really deserves. Many people have worked very
hard on this.
Alderperson Brock motioned to close the public hearing; Alderperson McCollister
seconded it. Passed Unanimously
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Amanda Zerilli, 117 Pearsall Place, spoke on their experience of raising chickens which
they currently do within the City limits. It has been a completely positive experience. It
has brought our neighborhood together. We have a very clean coup. People are in awe of
how clean the whole set up is.
William Skipper, spouse of Amanda, 117 Pearsall Place, stated he doesn’t understand why
the City of Ithaca can’t wrap their head around the raising of chickens similar to New York
City has.
Peggy Tully, 329 West Buffalo Street, administrator of Backyard Chickens NOW, an Ithaca
based group with 300 local members. She totally supports the raising of chickens. She
realizes it isn’t for everyone. It is very economical for families. They eat their own ticks;
peck the ground to help the lawns, and are a pleasant small animal as a pet.
Thomas Shelley, 118 East Court Street, provided information on upcoming events of the
raising of chickens.
Thomas Shelley also asked about the likelihood of beginning the discussion of chickens
sooner than the 8:20 planned discussion.
Jane-Marie Law, 404 Cayuga Street, stated that the property was once allowed to raise
chickens back in the 1950s. Many people enjoy the chickens. She and many others are
willing to help those wanting to raise chickens but don’t know how to go about it.
Alderperson McCollister responded on the chicken topic. She is encouraged to hear the
amount of people who already raise chickens or want to do so.
Chair Murtagh suggested that any of those in the room has anything to provide on the
raising of chickens to send it along to Council members.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see a clear understanding of animal control or
nuisance issues, odor, etc. The neighborhood quality of life is crucial.
Alderperson Kerslick agreed with Alderperson Brock. It is important to look into the
enforcement of this.
Alderperson McCollister expressed her concerns as to what will happen if some of these
chickens go “feral”, i.e., whether it be a fraternity house wanting to raise.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) EPMO Fines -- Alderperson Martell stated the City and the Landlord Association
will meet tomorrow, August 13, 2015.
b) CIITAP Revision – a committee has been formed with Alderperson McCollister
serving as chair. This committee met for the first time today. Tax abatements still
have a role in the City. The committee is looking at more incentives to be provided.
The committee will meet a few more times; their recommendation will be brought to
this committee, then on to Council. There is a union representative on the
committee, a developer – a real diverse group.
Alderperson Brock asked whether there was anyone on this committee that is
looking at the diversity needs. The concerns regarding CIITAP when created were
a diversified work force and a living wage. She feels it’s essential for someone on
this committee looks at this specifically.
c) Taxi Regulations – Chair Murtagh stated this is something we’ve wanted to
address for some time. Julie Holcomb, City Clerk, wanted to reach out to more
groups for further information before making any changes to the current process.
d) Downtown Ithaca Alliance (DIA) MOU – Chair Murtagh stated that he forwarded
information on this to the group. Alderperson Brock is very alarmed as to the
financing and budget.
Chair Murtagh suggested she state her concerns in writing to Gary Ferguson. The
MOU is to show what is currently stated in this MOU.
Alderperson Kerslick asked if this will be part of the current budget process.
JoAnn Cornish stated it will be included in the 2016 budget so it is very important to
understand this MOU.
e) MH-1 Zoning
Alderperson Brock stated the DEC reached out to her and requested the
information she had gathered on this site. They concurred that there needs to be
more insight into this and will work with the Health Department.
5) Action Items – Voting to Send on to Council
a) Comprehensive Plan
Megan Wilson explained that many of the comments made since the last planning
committee were not substantive changes.
Adoption of Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead
Agency for Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried Unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency be established for
conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of the comprehensive plan is a “Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead agency for the
environmental review of the adoption of Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Adoption of Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Determination of
Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Carried Unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering the adoption of Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the preparation of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated July 16, 2015, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and Tompkins County Planning Department
have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan, and all comments received to date have
been considered, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Type I” Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF
prepared by planning staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings
and conclusions more fully set forth in the Full Environmental Assessment Form, dated July 16, 2015, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby determines that the proposed
action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is
unnecessary, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is
hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and
forward the same to any other parties as required by law.
Adoption of Plan Ithaca as Phase I of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried Unanimously.
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a vision for the city’s future and serves as a guide for future
decision-making, policies, and funding, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s existing Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1971 and has since been
amended fourteen times by various targeted neighborhood and strategic plans, and
WHEREAS, while some objectives of the 1971 plan and its amendments are still applicable, many are not,
and both local conditions and broader national and world-wide trends that affect Ithaca have changed
dramatically since then, resulting in a need for an updated comprehensive plan that addresses present-day
issues and anticipates future ones, and
WHEREAS, the City decided to pursue a two-phased approach to its new Comprehensive Plan, where
Phase I entails the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals and principles to guide future
policies throughout the city and where Phase II will include the preparation of specific neighborhood and
thematic plans, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State General City Law, the
Planning and Development Board is responsible for preparing and recommending a new Comprehensive
Plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board established the Comprehensive Plan Committee (“the
Committee”) by resolution in July 2008 and charged the Committee with the following responsibilities
regarding the preparation of a proposed, new comprehensive plan:
a) Preparing and approving a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) for a consultant team to assist
with Phase I of the development of the proposed, new City of Ithaca comprehensive plan;
b) Reviewing the responses to the RFQ, conducting interviews of consultant teams, and
making a recommendation of a consultant team to the Planning Board, Mayor, and Common
Council for their respective approvals;
c) Overseeing the preparation of a draft of Phase I of the proposed, new comprehensive plan,
by coordinating the work of staff and the selected consultant team, ensuring the level of
public outreach and engagement necessary to reflect community goals, and making
progress reports to the Planning Board and Common Council (periodically and as
requested); and
d) Approving a draft of Phase I of the proposed, new comprehensive plan for review and
acceptance (with possible modification) by the Planning Board, recommendation by the
Planning Board to Common Council, review and approval (with possible modification) by
Common Council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee, and adoption by
Common Council, and
WHEREAS, public input has been a priority for the Committee throughout the planning process, and the
Committee made efforts to gather community input at various stages of the plan’s development, and
WHEREAS, the Committee worked with a consultant on the initial phase of public outreach and on the
preparation of two background reports that would inform the preparation of the new plan, but following the
completion of these tasks, the City decided to move forward without the consultant team; the remaining work
on the draft plan was completed by the Committee and staff, and
WHEREAS, using comments from the initial public outreach, as well as data on existing conditions and
trends, subcommittees of the Committee (known as “chapter groups”) and staff created an overall vision for
the City and goals for the sections of each chapter, and
WHEREAS, a series of focus group meetings were held to get comments on the goals for each section of
the plan, as well as ideas for implementation, and the chapter groups and staff used this feedback to draft
each of the plan’s chapters, and
WHEREAS, at the same time, the full Committee prepared the plan’s land use chapter and held public
workshops in April 2014, and
WHEREAS, the complete draft Phase I plan, Plan Ithaca, was made available for public review in April 2015,
and the Committee held eight open houses to get public comments on the draft plan, and
WHEREAS, the Committee revised the draft plan to incorporate new public input, and at its meeting on June
15, 2015, the Comprehensive Plan Committee voted to recommend the draft Plan Ithaca for review and
consideration by the Planning and Development Board as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board held public comment on the draft Plan Ithaca at its
meeting on June 23, 2015 and reviewed the draft at a special meeting on June 30, 2015, where it
recommended it for adoption by the Common Council as Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, following the July 2015 Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, the draft Plan
Ithaca was circulated for additional comment, and a new draft, dated August 6, 2015, was prepared that
incorporates many of the submitted comments, and
WHEREAS, the draft Plan Ithaca was submitted for review by the Tompkins County Planning Department
pursuant to §239-l-m of the New York State General Municipal Law, which requires that all actions within 500
feet of a county or state facility, including county and state highways, be reviewed by the County Planning
Department, and has also been distributed for review by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council,
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of the plan was held on August 12, 2015, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council has considered the draft Plan Ithaca as recommended by the
Comprehensive Plan Committee and the Planning and Development Board; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts Plan Ithaca, dated August 6, 2015, as Phase I of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Alderperson Kerslick thanked Megan for all the work she did on the plan. What is the plan
to incorporate the comments provided? Gilbert stated all but two of the comments prior to
the August draft were not included as they were not substantive.
Alderperson McCollister stated her discouragement of the fact that a lot of the property
within the City is tax exempt and the lack of collaboration with the County and the Town of
Ithaca.
Some suggestions made by the committee members include:
Alderperson Brock suggested changing the naming of the inlet as Cayuga Inlet.
Changing the routing of Route 13 and how it impacted the one-way pairs.
Added the phrase of livable wage.
Cornell made several comments on water and gorge safety.
Alderperson McCollister suggested that any change in gorge safety should be reviewed by
the City attorney to accurately reflect the liability issues involved.
Alderperson Brock suggested that environmental sensitive land use should be further
addressed.
She further stated that Spencer Road is of concern as to how this area’s density is
classified.
Alderperson McGonigal praised Megan on the work she did on this plan. He doesn’t agree
that higher density or increasing the population is the answer. The outlying areas are still
needed and are important.
David Kay, a comp plan committee member, interjected that is not the committee’s intent
to claim that surveys show that the trend is that people are moving into the City because
there are many surveys that suggest otherwise. He pointed out that where you live doesn’t
matter when it comes to paying school taxes. More people in the City increases sales tax
revenue and property tax revenue.
We can’t control who comes to the City to live, work, or go to school, but we can try to help
those people.
b) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds from the Ithaca
Housing Authority Tenant Council and the Family Sites Tenant Council for
National Night Out, August 2015.
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried Unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to improve the
quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Council as eligible for the funding include but are not limited
to items such as neighborhood clean-ups, planting in public places, and organizing
neighborhood events like block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Council has delegated authority to approve applications
to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a
reimbursement award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved
activities, and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Housing Authority Tenant Council and the Family Sites Tenant Council
have submitted completed applications for reimbursement funds to off-set expenses that in past
years have generally ranged from $500 – $1,000 for their annual National Night Out events, held
this year on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, and
WHEREAS, this annual event is sponsored by the Ithaca Housing Authority Tenant Council at
Titus Towers and by the Family Sites Tenant Council at Conway Park, and the events provide
opportunities for socializing with diverse groups of both south of the Creek and Northside
residents; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the request from
the Ithaca Housing Authority Tenant Council and the Family Sites Tenant Council in an
amount up to $600.00 ($300.00 per neighborhood group) for reimbursement upon presentation of
original invoices and/or receipts.
c) Resolution Authorizing Agreement with INHS for Future Improvements to Lake
Avenue and Eastern Portion of Adams Street
Moved by Alderperson McCollister; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Carried Unanimously.
WHEREAS, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) in 2014 purchased the parcel known as 210
Hancock Street and began seeking community and Planning Board input; and
WHEREAS, based on this input, INHS has proposed a development plan of the 210 Hancock parcel that
includes improvements to Lake Avenue for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway and incorporation of a
playground structure in the eastern section of Adams Street; and
WHEREAS, City staff is generally supportive of the development plans proposed by INHS, and INHS is in
the process of obtaining site plan approval; and
WHEREAS, INHS has agreed to construct and maintain such improvements at its cost in accordance with
City specifications affording City vehicles the ability to continue to access the creek through the improved site
as needed for public works or safety purposes; and
WHEREAS, the improvements and land underneath such improvements shall be the property of the City, and
will be open to the public; and
WHEREAS, INHS has agreed to be responsible for maintenance and liabilities resulting from use of the
improved site, except for any liabilities which are caused by the City’s negligence or willful misconduct, which
shall be the City’s responsibility; and
WHEREAS, in consideration for these agreements, the City has agreed to seek discontinuance of Lake
Avenue and the eastern portion of Adams Street; and
WHEREAS, the discontinuance process will require environmental review, public comment, and
discretionary approval (or denial) by the Board of Public Works; and
WHEREAS, INHS has asked for an agreement from the City that it commits to seek discontinuance in order
to satisfy certain requirements related to the Low Income Housing Tax Credits that INHS is seeking; now,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized execute an agreement with INHS substantially similar to that
included herewith, and for a term not to exceed fifty (50) years, concerning the use of Lake Avenue and the
eastern portion of Adams Street.
Alderperson Brock asked whether this has been seen by the Board of Public Works
(BPW). City Attorney Ari Lavine stated it is scheduled for the next BPW meeting which will
be held prior to the next Council meeting in September.
INHS pointed out the area in question is on the chart.
Alderperson Brock stated there is no term date. What happens then?
Ari referred to page ??. The City would be able to make changes at their own expense.
The City has a great deal of flexibility.
Alderperson Brock would like to see a term date just as a matter of principal not that she
feels there isn’t any other use of this property.
Alderperson Brock suggested a change to No. 18 of the agreement, Alderperson Kerslick
seconded it. Failed 4-1.
Lavine further stated that this will not be termed a park. It may look like a park, but it won’t
be classified as such.
Alderperson McGonigal asked whether these back yards are big enough to house typical
outdoor items. The answer is yes.
6) Discussion
a) Ithaca Falls Natural Area –
I don’t have any notes for this item.
b) Backyard Chickens
I don’t have any notes for this item.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) July 2015 – Minutes were not ready for review and approval
8) Adjournment
All agreed to adjourn 8:50 p.m.