HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-11-12 Planning & EDC Meeting Agenda
MEETING NOTICE
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
NOTE NEW DATE AND EARLIER START TIME
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
A. Agenda Review
B. Special Order of Business
C. Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
D. Announcements, Updates and Reports
1. Workforce Diversity Report – Building Department
2. Update on Projects
a. Commons Upgrade and Repair
b. Comprehensive Plan
c. Dredging
3. Intermunicipal Planning Update
E. Action Items
1. Divesting of City Property – impacts on planning and non-public works needs
(memo and resolutions enclosed)
a. Parcel 93.-7-3 (213 West Spencer Street)
b. Parcel 93.-7-5.1 (215 West Spencer Street)
c. Parcel 122.-2-1 (321 Elmira Road)
d. Parcel 100.-2-1.2 (south end of Cherry Street)
2. Amendment to Landmarks Ordinance
(concept memo, lead agency resolution, SEAF, SEQR resolution, two (2) ordinances
(Chapter 73 and 272), and Tompkins County GML review response enclosed)
3. Response to Hydrofracking – Amendment to Industrial Zone – Approval to Circulate
(two (2) memos enclosed, one (1) to be distributed under separate cover)
F. Discussion Items
1. 2012 Planning Committee Priorities
(Aug. 9, 2011 version of Planning Dept. Workplan, to inform discussion)
G. Approval of Minutes
H. Adjournment
Questions about the agenda should be directed to Jennifer Dotson, Chairperson,
(jdotson@cityofithaca.org or 351-5458) or to the appropriate staff person at the Department of
Planning & Development (274-6550). Back-up material is available in the office of the Department of
Planning & Development. Please note that the order of agenda items is tentative and subject to
change.
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, January 10, 2012.
Resolution: Parcel 68.-2-9.2
Whereas, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 68.-2-9.2 located on the south side of the 700 block of
East Seneca Street, and
Whereas, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City as an opportunity to acquire
green space, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated the parcel is not currently used for
City public works functions or purposes, and that the Superintendent does not anticipate a
need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future, and
Whereas, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense for
maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes) from it,
now be it
Resolved, that the Board of Public Works hereby determines that the aforementioned property
is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes, and, be it further
Resolved, that the Board of Public works hereby recommends that the Common Council
consider sale of parcel 68.-2-9.2, unless its continued ownership by the City is needed in order
to serve a non-public works function or purpose.
700 block East Seneca Street, Tax parcel 68.-2-9.2
This 0.17 acre parcel was acquired by the
City in 1982. The parcel is zoned R-3A.
The assessed value of the land is $50,000.
The parcel has remnants of a sidewalk and
play structure once part of the school. The
sidewalk runs from the North West corner
of the property to the center of the property
where it ends in an abrupt drop. The
antiquated playground equipment
constitutes an attractive nuisance and has
not apparently been maintained in
decades. The East side of the property
has some mature trees. The West side of
the property is used for parking by the
neighboring property without permission.
The parcel is abutted by multi-unit
residential structures on similarly sized
parcels. 705 East Seneca Street has an
assessed value of $400,000 which
generates approximately $5000 in property
taxes.
Revised 11/17/11, tww
Resolution: Parcel 93.-7-3
Whereas, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 93.-7-3 located at 213 West Spencer Street, and
Whereas, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of widening
West Spencer Street to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated the remainder of the parcel is not
currently used for City public works functions or purposes, and that the Superintendent does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future, and
Whereas, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense for
maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes) from it,
now be it
Resolved, that the Board of Public Works hereby determines that the aforementioned property
is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes, and, be it further
Resolved, that the Board of Public works hereby recommends that the Common Council
consider sale of parcel 93.-7-3, unless its continued ownership by the City is needed in order
to serve a non-public works function or purpose.
Resolution: Parcel 93.-7-5.1
Whereas, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 93.-7-5.1 located at 215 West Spencer Street, and
Whereas, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of widening
West Spencer Street to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated the remainder of the parcel is not
currently used for City public works functions or purposes, and that the Superintendent does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future, and
Whereas, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense for
maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes) from it,
now be it
Resolved, that the Board of Public Works hereby determines that the aforementioned property
is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes, and, be it further
Resolved, that the Board of Public works hereby recommends that the Common Council
consider sale of parcel 93.-7-5.1, unless its continued ownership by the City is needed in order
to serve a non-public works function or purpose.
213 West Spencer Street, 215 West Spencer Street; Tax parcels 93.-7-3, 93.-7-5.1
These two properties are 0.47 acre
acquired by the City for widening West
Spencer Street to two lanes. The parcels
are zoned R-3b. The combined assessed
value is $124,000.
Prior to acquisition by the City the smaller
parcel had a single family wood frame
residence and the larger parcel had a 12
unit wood frame apartment building. The
parcels have street frontage on West
Spencer Street as well as South Cayuga
Street. Although the property has a
dramatic elevation difference from
Spencer to Cayuga this did not preclude
its earlier uses.
220 West Spencer has a multi-unit
residential structure on a 0.21 acre parcel.
It has an assessed value of $350,000
which generates approximately $4,000 in
property taxes.
Update:
The Board of Public Works determined that these properties are not needed for City of
Ithaca public works purposes on November 9, 2011. The City has already received
inquires regarding purchase of these properties.
Revised 11/17/11, tww
Resolution: Parcel 122.-2-1
Whereas, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 122.-2-1 located at 321 Elmira Road, and
Whereas, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of operating a
sewage pump station, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated the parcel is no longer used for
City public works functions or purposes, and that the Superintendent does not anticipate a
need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future, and
Whereas, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense for
maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes) from it,
now be it
Resolved, that the Board of Public Works hereby determines that the aforementioned property
is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes, and, be it further
Resolved, that the Board of Public works hereby recommends that the Common Council
consider sale of parcel 122.-2-1, unless its continued ownership by the City is needed in order
to serve a non-public works function or purpose.
321 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel 122.-2-1
This 0.4 acre parcel is situated on the south
side of Elmira Road between Friendly’s
Restaurant and the Honda dealership. The
parcel has an assessed value of $189,000.
The small brick sewage pump station on this
parcel was recently de-commissioned. The
parcel has a curb cut on Elmira Road. There
is a drainage ditch on the north side of the
property.
Update:
The Board of Public Works determined that this property is not needed for City of
Ithaca public works purposes on November 15, 2011.
Revised 11/17/11, tww
Resolution: Parcel 100.-2-1.2
Whereas, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 100.-2-1.2 located at the south end of Cherry Street,
and
Whereas, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of expanding
the Cherry Street Industrial Park, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works recommends reserving a 40 foot wide
temporary (construction) easement and a concurrent 20 foot wide permanent easement for
extension of utilities, and
Whereas, the southerly portion of parcel 100.-2-1.2 contains two designated wetlands of 0.45
acre and 0.32 acre, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works recommends reserving a twenty foot wide
easement for the purpose of extending a pedestrian path, concurrent with the aforementioned
utility easements, and
Whereas, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that, with the aforementioned
exceptions, the parcel is no longer used for City public works functions or purposes, and that
the Superintendent does not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the
foreseeable future, and
Whereas, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense for
maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes) from it,
now be it
Resolved, that the Board of Public Works hereby determines that the aforementioned property
is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes, and, be it further
Resolved, that the Board of Public works hereby recommends that the Common Council
consider sale of approximately 6 acres of the northerly portion of parcel 122.-2-1, unless its
continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works function or
purpose.
Cherry Street, Tax Parcel 100.-2-1.2
The parcel at the end of Cherry Street contains 8.25 acres and is assessed at
$825,000. The property is bounded on the east by railroad property and on the west
by lands abutting Cayuga Inlet. This wooded parcel is generally flat. The southerly
end of the property contains two designated wetlands of 0.45 acre and 0.32 acre.
The neighboring 2.88 acre parcel at 240 Cherry Street has a land assessment of
$253,000 with a total assessment of $1,290,000; this generates over $16,000 in
property tax annually.
The site could be sub-divided into two parcels. Approximately 6 acres at the north end
of the property would provide a very attractive development parcel consistent with the
current industrial zoning designation. By sub-dividing the north portion as a single
parcel the City would have no obligation to extend the street or utilities beyond the end
of the current street. The City can retain easements along one or more of the
development parcel boundaries to complete the loop of water mains in the southern
part of the City (this is an ongoing, funded capital project).
The remaining acrerage at the south end of the property could encompass the two
larger wetlands. The City could also establish easements along one or more of the
development parcel boundaries concurrent with the water main easements to provide
public access to the wetlands without reducing the useful area of the development
parcel.
Revised 11/18/11, tww
wetland
0.45
acre
wetland
0.32 acre
5.7 Acre Parcel
F L O O D C O N T R O L C H A N N E L N
050100100
2.6 Ac. Parcel
To: Jennifer Dotson
From: Tom West, Assistant City Engineer
Date: November 17, 2011
Re: Divestiture of City-owned land
______________________________________________________________________
Proposal to divest
As a partial, but significant, mitigation for the City’s financial crunch I have proposed that
the City divest of certain properties that are not utilized and have market value. The object
of this strategy is to reduce maintenance costs, generate income from the sale of the
property, return the property to the tax base and provide an opportunity to create jobs. On
October 19 I presented approximately a dozen such properties. At the suggestion of Mayor
Peterson, the Board was asked to consider five properties.
Process
As I understand the process divestiture can be initiated at the recommendation of the
Superintendent. Based upon the Superintendent’s recommendation, the Board of Public
Works considers whether there is a public works need for the property. If the BPW
determines that there is no public works need for the property the Board can recommend
divestiture to the Common Council. Council can then decide to divest of the property.
Disposal
Disposal of the property can happen in a number of ways. The property can be auctioned,
it can be sold to an individual at a negotiated price or it can be transferred to the Ithaca
Urban Renewal Agency for disposal. Each method has merits depending upon the
property and the end result that the City wishes to achieve. Each property should be
appraised and may require an updated survey or subdivision.
Properties considered by the BPW
The BPW is in the process of considering five properties; they are:
• 213 West Spencer Street
• 215 West Spencer Street
• 321 Elmira Road
• 700 block East Seneca Street
• Cherry Street extension
The total assessed value of these five properties exceeds $1,000,000. If simply returned
to the tax roll these properties would generate $12,600 per year after sale. In some cases I
believe the assessed value exceeds the market value and in others it underestimates the
market value. Given the development potential of these properties I think we could expect
a significantly greater property tax return that could make a significant dent in our financial
problem.
Public concern
There is no doubt that the public has deep concerns over the City’s financial well-being.
Our constituents have an equally strong concern that government be a good steward of
public assets. A big concern is that the property should be developed in the best interest of
the community. This is important but we can not let our concern prevent us from making
good decisions. We can control the development of a property in a number of different
ways.
Method of sale
Properties can be disposed of by public bid. Interested parties can submit sealed bids for a
property and the bids opened in public. The highest bidder wins. This process can require
a minimum bid based upon a current appraisal. In the case of the Cataract (Fall Creek)
Fire Station bidders were required to include a description of their intention with the bid as a
qualification to bid. We can include deed restrictions which preclude certain uses of the
property to be conveyed. We can also rely upon zoning to limit the kind of development
allowed.
We can negotiate directly with an individual in cases where there is a direct relationship
between the buyer and the property which is for sale. For instance, I understand that we
could negotiate with the owner of a property if we were selling the immediately abutting city
land. This would be useful in disposing of pieces of right of way that are of no use to the
public but which are being used (by license) by the abutting owner. Again, we would rely
upon a current appraisal to set the price.
We can work with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency to achieve the kind of use that the
City intends. IURA can issue a request for proposals that will include a variety of criteria for
the project. These may include type of development, job creation, disadvantaged business
enterprise opportunities, targeted housing needs, etc. This process has been utilized
successfully many times in Ithaca.
There are likely other methods of sale that Planning and Development could propose.
Proposed Resolutions
Planning and Economic Develop Committee, December 21, 2011
Recommendations to Divest Unused City Property
Resolution: Parcel 93.-7-3 – 213 West Spencer Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 93.-7-3 located at 213 West Spencer Street,
and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of
widening West Spencer Street to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic, and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that this parcel is not
currently used in any way for City public works functions or purposes, and that he does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future,
and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the Board of Public Works determined that the
aforementioned property is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and
recommended that the Common Council consider the sale of parcel 93.-7-3, unless its
continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works function
or purpose, and
WHEREAS, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense
for maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes)
from it, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby determines that the aforementioned
property is not needed in order to serve a non-public works function or purpose, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby recommends the sale of parcel 93.-7-3
located at 213 West Spencer Street in the City of Ithaca.
Resolution: Parcel 93.-7-5.1 – 215 West Spencer Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 93.-7-5.1 located at 215 West Spencer
Street, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of
widening West Spencer Street to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic, and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that this parcel is not
currently used in any way for City public works functions or purposes, and that he does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future,
and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the Board of Public Works determined that the
aforementioned property is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and
recommended that the Common Council consider the sale of parcel 93.-7-5.1 unless its
continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works function
or purpose, and
WHEREAS, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense
for maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes)
from it, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby determines that the aforementioned
property is not needed in order to serve a non-public works function or purpose, and be
it further
RESOLVED, That the Common Council hereby recommends the sale of parcel 93.-7-
5.1 located at 215 West Spencer Street in the City of Ithaca.
Resolution: Parcel 122.-2-1 – 321 Elmira Road
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 122.-2-1 located at 321 Elmira Road, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of
operating a sewage pump station, and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that this parcel is not
currently used in any way for City public works functions or purposes, and that he does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future,
and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the Board of Public Works determined that the
aforementioned property is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and
recommended that the Common Council consider the sale of parcel 122.-2-1 unless its
continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works function
or purpose, and
WHEREAS, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense
for maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes)
from it, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby determines that the aforementioned
property is not needed in order to serve a non-public works function or purpose, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby recommends the sale of parcel 122.-2-1
located at 321 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca.
Resolution Parcel 100.-2-1.2 – Cherry Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 100.-2-1.2 located at the south end of Cherry
Street, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City with the intention of
expanding the Cherry Street Industrial Park, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel has not yet been developed by the City, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends reserving a 40 foot wide temporary (construction)
easement and a concurrent 20 foot wide permanent easement for extension of utilities,
and
WHEREAS, staff recommends reserving a twenty foot wide easement for the purpose
of extending a pedestrian path, concurrent with the aforementioned utility easement,
and
WHEREAS, the southerly portion of parcel 100.-2-1.2 contains two designated wetlands
of 0.45 acre and 0.32 acre, and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the Board of Public Works determined that the
aforementioned property is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and
recommended that the Common Council consider the sale of parcel 100.-2-1.2 unless
its continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works
function or purpose, and
WHEREAS, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense
for maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes)
from it, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works recommended that the City divest of up to five
and six tenths acres of the northerly portion of parcel 100.-2-1.2 located at the south
end of Cherry Street exclusive of the aforementioned designated wetlands, now
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby determines that the aforementioned
property is not needed in order to serve a non-public works function or purpose, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby recommends the sale of up to five and
six tenths acres of the northerly portion of parcel 100.-2-1.2 located at the south end of
Cherry Street in the City of Ithaca, exclusive of the aforementioned designated
wetlands.
Resolution: Parcel 68.-2-9.2 – 700 Block East Seneca Street
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca owns parcel 68.-2-9.2 located on the south side of the
700 block of East Seneca Street, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel was obtained by the City as an opportunity to
acquire green space, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned parcel has not been developed or maintained or
designated as park, and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Public Works has indicated that this parcel is not
currently used in any way for City public works functions or purposes, and that he does
not anticipate a need to use this parcel for any such purpose in the foreseeable future,
and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2011, the Board of Public Works determined that the
aforementioned property is not needed for City of Ithaca public works purposes and
recommended that the Common Council consider the sale of parcel 93.-7-3, unless its
continued ownership by the City is needed in order to serve a non-public works function
or purpose, and
WHEREAS, continued City ownership of this parcel requires that the City incur expense
for maintenance, without the generation of revenue (e.g., in the form of property taxes)
from it, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby determines that the aforementioned
property is not needed in order to serve a non-public works function or purpose, and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby recommends the sale of parcel 68.-2-
9.2, located on the 700 block of East Seneca Street in the City of Ithaca.
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: Lynn C. Truame, Historic Preservation Planner
Date: January 4, 2012
RE: Proposal to Amend City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the proposal to amend the City of
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. The proposed ordinance would revise the City’s
existing Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to better effectuate the goals of the ordinance, to
increase the clarity of the process for applicants, and to improve the efficiency of the process for
applicants and staff. It would repeal the existing Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, and
replace it with a new Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, within the City Municipal Code. It
would also amend Chapter 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission, to coordinate its content
with the new Chapter 228.
The proposed revisions to the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance include the following changes:
…to Better Effectuate the Goals of the Ordinance
• addition of a new requirement for, and detailed description of, an Early Design Guidance
process, affecting large projects; and
• addition of a new sub-section referencing the existing Property Maintenance Code of
New York State, which requires appropriate maintenance and repair of properties to
prevent their physical deterioration; and
• deletion of the current City Improvements sub-section and addition of the requirement
that all changes to City-owned property affecting a landmark or located within an historic
district be subject to the provisions of the landmarks ordinance; and
• addition of a new requirement that public notice of the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness be posted on the subject property for a period of ten days prior to the
public hearing at which the application will be considered.
…to Improve Efficiency
• replacement of the requirement for two members of the Commission to specifically
represent the cultural interests of the community and two members to specifically
represent the commercial interests of the community with the less stringent requirement
1
that those four members simply represent the community at large, with preference being
given to individuals representing the commercial interests of the community in filling
two of the four at-large seats; and
• broadening the permissible charge of Commission sub-committees to include any
assignment delegated by the full Commission, rather than restricting that charge solely to
review and action upon Certificates of Appropriateness.
…to Improve Clarity
• creation, and detailed explanation of the process for, an action titled Finding of Economic
Hardship that replaces the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness on Appeal as the
basis for permitting demolition or exterior alterations for which the Commission has
previously denied a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
• creation of a sub-section explicitly stating that in ruling on Certificates of
Appropriateness the Commission is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation; and
• insertion of new language extending the deadline for Commission action on Certificates
of Appropriateness when environmental review for a project is also required; and
• addition of a new sub-section creating an expiration date for Certificates of
Appropriateness and a process for extensions.
The Planning and Development Board considered the proposed changes to the Landmarks
Ordinance at their December 20, 2011, meeting, and provided suggested revisions, which have
been incorporated into the current version of the proposed Ordinance. Two changes that were
proposed by the Planning and Development Board have not been made. There was a suggestion
that the Ordinance specifically indicate that “designed landscapes” may be designated as historic
properties. This change has not been made because the Ordinance currently states that any
property that satisfies the applicable criteria for designation may be designated and this would
include designed landscapes. There was also a suggestion that the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation be included in their entirety in the Ordinance, rather than simply
being referenced. This change was not made for reasons of consistency. The State of New York
Property Maintenance Code is also referenced in the Ordinance, but is not included in its
entirety. The Secretary’s Standards are readily available online, where they are accompanied by
illustrated guidelines for their application.
Staff will attend the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday,
January 18, 2012, to answer any questions you may have. You may also contact me at 274-6555
or ltruame@cityofithaca.org.
2
J:\GROUPS\Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission\Ordinance Revisions\Docs for Planning Committee\for
January 2012\LeadAgencyRes_LandmarksOrd_1_4_2012.doc
01/04/12
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
January 18, 2012
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Amend Chapter 73,
“Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Repeal and Replace Chapter 228,
“Landmarks Preservation” – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
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 amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission”
and the proposed repeal and replacement of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”, is an
“Unlisted” Action pursuant to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance,
which requires environmental review under CEQR; 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 amendment of Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation
Commission” and the repeal and replacement of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”.
Proposed Resolution
Planning Committee
January 18, 2012
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca to Amend
Chapter 73, “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and Repeal and Replace
Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation” – Determination of Environmental
Significance
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code in
order to amend Chapter 73 “Landmarks Preservation Commission” and to repeal and
replace Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation,” and
WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review has been conducted including the
preparation of a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated November 1,
2011, and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed 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 reviewed by the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and the City of
Ithaca Planning and Development Board, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as lead agency, has
reviewed the SEAF 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 on the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, dated November 1, 2011, 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.
ILPC Meeting – 11/8/11
Resolution – RC
RESOLUTION: Moved by M. McGandy, seconded by N. Brcak
WHEREAS, Chapters 73 (“Landmarks Preservation Commission”) and 228 (“Landmarks
Preservation”) of the City Municipal code, collectively known as the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, were first enacted in 1975 and have since been
periodically amended, most recently in 1998, and
WHEREAS, substantial revisions to Chapter 228 and certain related changes to Chapter 73
have recently been suggested, including the following:
1. replacement of the requirement for two members of the Commission
to specifically represent the cultural interests of the community and
two members to specifically represent the commercial interests of the
community with the less stringent requirement that those four
members simply represent the community at large;
2. relocation of the sub-section that enumerates the powers and duties
of the commission from Chapter 228 to Chapter 73;
3. broadening the permissible charge of Commission sub-committees to
include any assignment delegated by the full Commission, rather than
restricting that charge solely to review and action upon Certificates of
Appropriateness;
4. relocation of the sub-section requiring the cooperation of city
departments from Chapter 228 to Chapter 73;
5. general reorganization of Chapter 228 to improve clarity;
6. elimination of a separate definitions sub-section and incorporation of
definitions, as needed, into the text of the ordinance itself;
7. creation, and detailed explanation of the process for, an action titled
Finding of Economic Hardship that will be the basis for permitting
demolition or exterior alterations for which the Commission has
previously denied a Certificate of Appropriateness;
8. deletion of the current City Improvements sub-section and addition
of the requirement that all changes to City-owned property affecting
a landmark or located within an historic district be subject to the
provisions of the landmarks ordinance;
9. creation of a sub-section explicitly stating that the basis for decisions
by the Commission in ruling on Certificates of Appropriateness is the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
10. insertion of new language extending the deadline for Commission
action on Certificates of Appropriateness when environmental review
for a project is also required;
11. addition of a new sub-section creating an expiration date for
Certificates of Appropriateness and a process for extensions;
12. addition of a new requirement for, and detailed description of, an
Early Design Guidance process, affecting large projects; and
ILPC Meeting –
Resolution – RB
13. addition of a new sub-section requiring appropriate maintenance and
repair of properties to prevent their physical deterioration; and
WHEREAS, these revisions are intended to better effectuate the goals of the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance, namely to:
1. Promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare of
the public through the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of
landmarks and districts of historic and cultural significance;
2. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage by
preserving landmarks and districts of historical and cultural
significance;
3. Stabilize and improve property values;
4. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and achievements of the
past;
5. Protect and enhance the city’s attractions to tourists and visitors and
the support and stimulus to business thereby provided;
6. Strengthen the economy of the city; and
7. Promote the use of landmarks and districts of historic and cultural
significance as sites for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the
people of the city; and
WHEREAS, the ILPC has reviewed the proposed revisions to the ordinances and finds that
said revisions will, in fact, better effectuate the goals of the Landmarks
Preservation Ordinance as stated above, now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the ILPC supports the proposed revisions to Chapters 73 and 228 of the
City Municipal Code, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ILPC recommends the adoption of said revisions by the Common
Council.
RECORD OF VOTE: 5-0-0
Yes
M. McGandy
N. Brcak
E. Finegan
D. Kramer
S. Stein
No
Abstain
2
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to
Amend Chapter 73, Entitled “Landmarks Preservation Commission”
WHEREAS, Chapter 73 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
Landmarks Preservation Commission, was first enacted in 1975 and
was amended in 1984, and
WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 73 have been proposed, the purpose
of which are to coordinate the content of Chapter 73 with the
content of Chapter 228, “Landmarks Preservation”, now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 1. Chapter 73, Landmarks Preservation Commission, of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended, to read
as follows:
§73-1 Establishment.
To effectuate the goals of Chapter 228, Landmarks
Preservation, there is hereby established in and for
the City of Ithaca a Commission to be known as the
"Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission."
§73-2 Membership, Appointment, and Compensation.
A. Membership. The Commission shall consist of seven
members.
B. Appointment. Members of the Commission shall be
appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent
of the Common Council. Three members shall be
selected, each of whom shall possess professional
qualifications evidencing expertise in historic
preservation, architecture, city planning or
building construction. The four remaining members
shall be selected to represent the community at
large. In filling two of these four at-large
seats, preference will be given to individuals who
represent the commercial interests of the
community.
C. Terms. The original appointments of the members of
the Commission shall be three for one year, two for
two years and two for three years from January
following the year of such appointment, or until
their successor is named to serve out the unexpired
portion of their term of appointment, or until
their successor is appointed to serve for the term
of three years.
D. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring in the Commission
other than by expiration of term of office shall be
filled by appointment by the Mayor, but such
appointment shall be only for the unexpired portion
of the term of the member replaced.
1
E. Reappointment. Members may serve for more than one
term, and each member shall serve until the
appointment of a successor.
F. Method of selection to fill vacancies. Vacancies
shall be filled by the Mayor according to the
original selection as aforesaid.
G. Compensation. Members shall serve without
compensation.
H. Quorum. A majority of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business.
§73-3 Organization.
A. Officers. The Landmarks Preservation Commission
shall elect from its membership a Chairperson and a
Vice Chairperson, whose terms of office shall be
fixed by the Commission. The Chairperson shall
preside over the Commission and shall have the
right to vote. The Vice Chairperson shall, in cases
of absence or disability of the Chairperson,
perform the duties of the Chairperson.
B. Secretary. The Director of Planning and
Development or his/her designee shall serve as the
Secretary to the Commission. The Secretary shall
keep a record of all resolutions, proceedings, and
actions of the Landmarks Preservation Commission,
and shall have the authority to act as provided for
in §228-6C of the City Municipal Code.
§73-4 Powers and Duties.
The powers of the Commission shall include:
A. Adoption of criteria for the identification of
significant historic, architectural, and cultural
landmarks and for the delineation of historic
districts;
B. Conduct of surveys of significant historic,
architectural, and cultural landmarks and historic
districts within the city;
C. Designation of identified structures or resources
as landmarks and historic districts;
D. Adoption of criteria for the evaluation of
applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness;
E. Approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior
change resulting in applications for a Certificate
of Appropriateness pursuant to §228-4 and §228-5 of
the City Municipal Code;
F. Making recommendations to the City concerning the
acquisition of façade easements or other interests
in real property as necessary to carry out the
purposes of §228-2 of the City Municipal Code;
G. Increasing public awareness of the value of
historic, cultural, and architectural preservation
by developing and participating in public education
programs;
2
H. Making recommendations to the City concerning the
utilization of state, federal, or private funds to
promote the preservation of landmarks and historic
districts within the city;
I. Recommending acquisition of a landmark structure by
the City where its preservation is essential to the
purposes of §228-2 of the City Municipal Code and
where private preservation is not feasible;
J. Preparation of a report or recommendation to other
City boards and committees regarding plans and
proposals that could have an impact on locally
designated landmarks and/or historic districts.
§73-5 Promulgation of Rules; Meetings.
The Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction
of its business, which shall provide for the time and
place of holding regular meetings. Regular meetings
shall be held at least once each month. The
Commission’s rules shall provide for the calling of
special meetings by the Chairperson or by at least
three members of the Commission. All regular or
special meetings of the Commission shall be open to
the public, and any person shall be entitled to appear
and be heard on a matter before the Commission before
it reaches its decision.
§73-6 Records and Annual Report.
The Commission shall keep a record, which shall be
open to the public view, of its resolutions,
proceedings and actions. The vote or failure to vote
of each member shall be recorded. The concurring
affirmative vote of a majority of those members
present shall constitute approval of plans before it
for review or for the adoption of any resolution,
motion or other action of the Commission. The
Commission shall submit an annual report of its
activities to the Mayor and Common Council and make
such recommendations to the Common Council as it deems
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter
and Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation.
§73-7 Committees.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission may, by rule,
establish permanent or ad hoc committees for
assignments delegated by the full Commission.
§73-8 Cooperation of City Departments.
As an aid toward cooperation in matters which concern
the integrity of the designated landmarks and historic
districts, all City departments shall, upon request,
furnish to the Landmarks Preservation Commission,
within a reasonable time, the available maps, plans,
reports and statistical or other information the
Commission may require for its work.
3
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca to
Repeal and Replace Chapter 228, Entitled “Landmarks Preservation”
WHEREAS, Chapter 228 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
Landmarks Preservation, was first enacted in 1975 and has since
been periodically amended, most recently in 1998, and
WHEREAS, substantial revisions to, and reorganization of, Chapter
228 have been proposed, the purpose of which are to better
effectuate the goals of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, to
improve efficiency in carrying out such goals, and to improve the
clarity of the Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, given the extent of the changes proposed it would be
impractical to accomplish such revisions by amendment, now
therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca, as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 1. Chapter 228, Landmarks Preservation, of the Municipal
Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby repealed.
Section 2. A new chapter (Chapter 228), entitled “Landmarks
Preservation”, is hereby added to the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca, to read as follows:
§ 228-1. Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
“City of Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.”
§ 228-2. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Promote the educational, cultural, economic and
general welfare of the public through the
protection, enhancement and perpetuation of
landmarks and districts of historic and cultural
significance.
B. Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and
cultural heritage by preserving landmarks and
districts of historical and cultural significance.
C. Protect the value of historic properties and their
owners’ investment in them, and stabilize historic
neighborhoods.
D. Foster civic pride in the legacy of beauty and
achievements of the past.
E. Protect and enhance the city’s attractions to
tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus
to business thereby provided.
F. Strengthen the economy of the city.
1
G. Promote the use of landmarks and districts of
historic and cultural significance as sites for the
education, pleasure and welfare of the people of
the city.
§ 228-3. Designation of Landmarks or Historic Districts.
A. As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission is responsible for the
designation of identified structures or resources
as landmarks and historic districts within the
city.
B. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may
designate an individual property as a landmark if
it:
1. Possesses special character or historic or
aesthetic interest or value as part of the
cultural, political, economic, or social
history of the locality, region, state, or
nation; or
2. Is identified with historically significant
person (s) or event(s); or
3. Embodies the distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural style; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has
significantly influenced an age; or
5. Represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the neighborhood by virtue of its
unique location or singular physical
characteristics.
C. The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission may
designate a group of properties as an historic
district if the group:
1. Contains primarily properties which meet one
or more of the criteria for designation of a
landmark; and
2. Constitutes a distinct section of the city by
reason of possessing those qualities that
would satisfy such criteria.
D. Notice of a proposed designation shall be sent to
the owner or owners of the property or properties
proposed for designation, describing the property
proposed, or if in a district, the proposed
district boundary, and announcing a public hearing
by the Commission to consider the designation.
Where the proposed designation involves so many
owners that individual notice is infeasible, notice
may instead be published at least once in the
City’s official newspaper at least 15 days prior to
the date of the public hearing. Once the
Commission has issued notice of a proposed
designation, no building permits or demolition
permits shall be issued by the Building
Commissioner until the Commission has made its
decision.
2
E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to
designation of any landmark or historic district.
Notice of the public hearing shall be published at
least once in the City’s official newspaper at
least 15 days prior to the date of the public
hearing. The notice shall specify the time and
place of the public hearing, a brief description of
the proposed designation, and the location where
the proposal may be reviewed prior the hearing.
The Commission, property owners, and any interested
parties may present testimony or documentary
evidence at the hearing which will become part of a
record regarding the historic, architectural, or
cultural importance of the proposed landmark or
historic district. The record may also contain
staff reports, public comments, expert testimony,
or other evidence offered outside of the hearing.
F. Within seven days after such designation of a
landmark or historic district, the Commission shall
file a copy of such designation with the Planning
and Development Board and with Common Council.
G. Within 60 days of designation by the Commission,
the Planning and Development Board shall file a
report with Common council with respect to the
relation of such designation to the Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning laws, projected public
improvements, and any plans for the renewal of the
site of area involved. The Council shall, within
90 days of said designation, approve, disapprove,
or refer back to the Commission for modification.
H. Any designation approved by the Council shall be in
effect on and after the date of approval by
Council. The Commission shall forward notice of
each property designated as a landmark and the
boundaries of each designated historic district to
the Building Commissioner and the City Clerk for
recordation.
§ 228-4. Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration,
Demolition, or New Construction Affecting Landmarks or
Historic Districts.
As set forth in §73-4, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission is responsible for the
approval or disapproval of proposals for exterior
changes to a designated historic property. No person
shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration,
reconstruction, demolition, new construction, or
moving of a landmark or property within an historic
district, nor shall any person make any change in the
exterior appearance of such property, its site, its
light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps,
paving, or other exterior elements, without first
obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness or Finding
of Economic Hardship from the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission, or obtaining approval by the
3
Commission’s Secretary pursuant to §228-6 C. All
changes to City-owned property affecting a landmark or
within an historic district shall be subject to the
provisions of this ordinance.
§228-5. Criteria for Approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
A. The Commission shall approve the issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness only if it
determines that the proposed work will not have a
substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic,
historical, or architectural significance and value
of either the landmark, or if the proposed work is
within an historic district, of the neighboring
properties in such district. In making this
determination, the Commission will be guided by the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation.
B. In passing upon an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the Landmarks Preservation
Commission shall not consider changes to interior
spaces or to exterior paint colors.
§228-6. Certificate of Appropriateness Application
Procedure.
A. Prior to the commencement of any work requiring a
Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner shall
file an application for a building permit with the
Building Department and an application for such
Certificate with the Commission. The application,
available on the City’s website and through the
Department of Planning & Development, shall
contain:
1. Building permit application number, as
assigned by the Building Department
2. Name, mailing address, email address, and
telephone number of the applicant;
3. Location and photographs of the property;
4. Elevation drawings of proposed changes, if
available;
5. Perspective drawings, including relationship
to adjacent properties, if available;
6. Samples of building materials to be used,
including their proposed color;
7. Where the proposal includes signs or
lettering, a scale drawing showing the type of
lettering to be used, all dimensions and
colors, a description of materials to be used,
method of illumination, and a plan showing the
sign’s location on the property;
8. Any other information that the Commission may
deem necessary in order to visualize the
proposed work.
B. No building permit shall be issued for the proposed
work until a Certificate of Appropriateness has
4
first been issued by the Commission. The
Certificate of Appropriateness required by this
chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of
any building or other permit that may be required
by any other ordinance of the City of Ithaca.
C. The Commission may delegate to the Commission’s
Secretary the authority to:
1. Determine whether proposed work requires a
Certificate of Appropriateness;
2. Determine whether proposed work constitutes
ordinary maintenance and repair for which a
Certificate of Appropriateness is not
required;
3. Approve work that is considered replacement-
in-kind.
D. Upon application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, a public notice of the proposal
shall be posted by the owner or owner’s
representative on the property for a minimum of 10
days. This notice must remain in place until a
decision to approve or deny the Certificate of
Appropriateness has been made. The notice shall
specify the proposed work, the time and place of
the public hearing, and to whom and by when any
public comments are to be communicated. The notice
must be placed at or near the property line in the
front yard so that it will be plainly visible from
the street, and, in cases where a property has
frontage on more than one street, an additional
sign must be placed at or near the property line on
any additional street frontage so that the sign
will be plainly visible from the street on which it
has such additional frontage.
E. The Commission shall hold a public hearing prior to
rendering a decision on any application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the
public hearing shall be published at least once in
the City’s official newspaper at least 5 days prior
to the public hearing. The notice shall specify
the time and place of the public hearing, a brief
description of the proposal, and the location where
the proposal may be reviewed prior to the hearing.
The property owner and any interested party may
present testimony or documentary evidence regarding
the proposal at the hearing, which will become a
part of the record. The record may also contain
staff reports, public comments, and other evidence
offered outside of the hearing.
F. The Commission shall approve, deny, or approve with
conditions or modifications the Certificate of
Appropriateness within 45 days from the completion
of the public hearing, except as noted below. The
failure of the Commission to act within 45 days
from the completion of the public hearing, unless
an extension is mutually agreed upon in writing by
5
the applicant and the Commission, shall be deemed
to constitute approval.
1. In the event, however, that the Commission
shall make a finding of fact that the
circumstances of a particular application
require further time for additional study and
information than can be obtained within the
aforesaid 45-day period, then the Commission
shall have a period of up to 90 days within
which to act upon such an application.
2. In the event, however, that environmental
review of an application is required, the
Commission shall approve, deny, or approve
with conditions or modifications the
Certificate of Appropriateness within 65 days
from the completion of environmental review.
The failure of the Commission to act within 65
days from the completion of the environmental
review, unless an extension is mutually agreed
upon in writing by the applicant and the
Commission, shall be deemed to constitute
approval.
G. All decisions of the Commission shall be in
writing. A copy shall be sent to the applicant by
mail, and a copy filed with the Building
Commissioner and City Clerk for public inspection,
within 30 days of the date of the decision. The
Commission’s decisions shall state the reasons for
denying or modifying any application.
§228-7. Expiration of Approval; Extension of Approval
If the construction of a project approved for a
Certificate of Appropriateness has not commenced
within two years of the date of the approval, such
approval shall expire, unless an extension has been
granted by the Ithaca Landmarks Commission following a
written request by the applicant. An application for
an extension of Certificate of Appropriateness
approval shall not be considered a new Certificate of
Appropriateness application.
§228-8. Early Design Guidance.
A. Large projects that could potentially have a
significant impact on a local landmark or historic
district are required to participate in the Early
Design Guidance process. The purpose of this
process is to provide input from the Commission on
the design of the project as it relates to criteria
for the approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness at a time when such input may
readily be incorporated into the design without
adversely affecting design costs or the project
schedule.
6
B. For the purposes of this chapter, large projects
are defined as:
1. New construction of any primary structure, or
2. New construction of any accessory structure
with a gross square footage of 800 square feet
or more, or
3. New additions that will increase the existing
footprint of a building by 30% or more, or
4. Any renovation or reconstruction (excluding
projects that involve only the replacement of
roof coverings) that will affect 50% or more
of a building’s exterior.
C. Applicants subject to Early Design Guidance shall
submit materials for review by the Commission prior
to the completion of the schematic design phase.
The Commission will provide general feedback on the
design of the project as it relates to criteria for
the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness
and will provide an itemized list of any specific
concerns or areas that will require further
development of design prior to rendering an
opinion.
D. Upon receiving this list, the applicant will have
60 days to respond in writing, specifically stating
how each concern expressed by the Commission has
been, or will be, addressed in the design.
E. The Commission will review this response and any
revised project materials that are made available.
If concerns remain, or if new concerns have arisen
based on the revisions made, the Commission will
provide a second itemized list stating, or
restating, areas of concern. The applicant is
welcome to, but is not required to, respond in
writing to this second list prior to submitting a
complete application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
F. The Commission is not limited to considering issues
and concerns that were raised during the Early
Design Guidance process during the Certificate of
Appropriateness review; however, failure to address
to the satisfaction of the Commission all concerns
that were raised during the Early Design Guidance
process will result in the denial of a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
§228-9. Criteria for a Finding of Economic Hardship.
A. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness
for a proposed alteration has been denied may apply
for relief on the ground of economic hardship. In
order to prove the existence of economic hardship,
the applicant shall establish that the denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness will prevent the
owner from earning a reasonable return on
investment, regardless of whether that return
represents the most profitable return possible. In
7
the case of non-profit ownership, the applicant
shall establish that the denial of a Certificate of
Appropriateness will seriously interfere with, or
prevent, the owner from carrying out its chartered
purpose.
B. An applicant whose Certificate of Appropriateness
for a proposed demolition has been denied may apply
for relief on the ground of economic hardship. In
order to prove the existence of economic hardship,
the applicant shall establish to the satisfaction
of the Commission that:
1. The denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness
will prevent the owner from earning a
reasonable return on investment, regardless of
whether that return represents the most
profitable return possible; and
2. The property cannot be adapted for any other
use, whether by the current owner or by a
purchaser, which would result in a reasonable
return on investment; and
3. Diligent efforts to find a purchaser
interested in acquiring the property and
preserving it have failed.
§228-10. Finding of Economic Hardship Application Procedure.
A. After the Landmarks Preservation Commission has
denied a Certificate of Appropriateness, an
applicant may commence the economic hardship
process. No building permit or demolition permit
shall be issued unless the Commission determines
that an economic hardship exists and issues a
Finding of Economic Hardship.
B. The Commission may hold a public hearing on the
hardship application at which an opportunity will
be provided for proponents and opponents of the
application to present their views.
C. The applicant shall consult in good faith with the
Commission, local preservation groups, and
interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an
alternative that will result in preservation of the
property.
D. All decisions of the Commission shall be in writing
and shall state the reasons for granting or denying
the requested Finding of Economic Hardship. A copy
shall be sent to the applicant by mail and a copy
filed with the Building Commissioner and City Clerk
for public inspection within 30 days of the date of
the decision.
§228-11. Maintenance and Repair Required.
A. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
prevent the ordinary maintenance and repair of any
exterior architectural feature of a landmark or
property within a historic district that does not
8
involve a change in design, building materials,
color, or outward appearance; however, the
Commission’s Secretary shall determine whether
proposed work constitutes ordinary maintenance and
repair or requires a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
B. No owner or person with an interest in real
property designated as a landmark or included
within an historic district shall permit the
property to fall into a serious state of disrepair.
Maintenance shall be required, consistent with the
provisions of the Property Maintenance Code of New
York State, §304, Exterior Structure.
§228-12. Enforcement and Violations
A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of
Appropriateness issued under this chapter shall
conform to the requirements included therein. It
shall be the duty of the Building Commissioner to
inspect periodically any such work to assure
compliance. In the event work is found that is not
being performed in accordance with the Certificate
of Appropriateness, or upon notification of such
fact by the Commission, the Building Commissioner
shall issue a stop work order and all work shall
immediately cease. No further work shall be
undertaken on the project as long as a stop work
order is in effect.
B. If, in the judgment of the Commission, a violation
of §228-11 exists that will result in a detrimental
effect upon the life and character of a designated
historic property or on the character of a historic
district as a while, the Commission shall notify
the building Commissioner. If, upon investigation,
the Building Commissioner finds non-compliance with
the requirements of the Property Maintenance Code
of New York State, §304, Exterior Structure, or any
other applicable regulation, the Building
Commissioner shall order such remedies as are
necessary and consistent with this Chapter and
shall provide written notice thereof to the
Secretary of the Commission.
C. Any violation of any provision of this chapter
shall be deemed an offense and shall be punishable
as provided in Chapter 1, General Provisions,
Article I, Penalties. Each day’s continued breach
shall constitute a separate additional violation.
In addition, the City shall have such other
remedies as are provided by law to enforce the
provision of this chapter.
§228-13. Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any decision by the Commission
may apply to the Supreme Court in the State of New
York for review under Article 78 of the Civil Practice
9
Law and Rules within 60 days of publication of the
decision.
10
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Khandikile M. Sokoni, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney
Patricia M. O’Rourke, Assistant City Attorney
Krin Flaherty, Associate City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Common Council Members
From: Krin Flaherty
Date: September 7, 2011
Subject: Legislative Priorities to Address the Impacts of Gas Drilling & “Hydro-Fracking”
______________________________________________________________________________
The Planning and Economic Development Committee asked the City Attorney’s office to investigate
and report on options to address the potential impacts of proposed drilling for natural gas in the region
that includes the so-called Marcellus Shale formation (using a process typically referred to as “hydro-
fracking”).
Our office assembled materials from various sources, interviewed the City Attorneys for Buffalo and
Oneonta (to our knowledge, the only two cities in NYS that have adopted local regulations intended to
ban hydro-fracking), and met with Attorney Helen Slottje of the Community Environmental Defense
Council, Inc. Based on our review of these materials, there are many and various methods of
addressing the concerns about gas drilling impacts.
At the August 17, 2011 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, we submitted an
outline of the varied approaches and asked for input. The Committee members recommended that our
office focus on addressing the following areas:
1) City wide gas drilling ban;
2) Common Council resolution to not lease City-owned property for drilling purposes or
otherwise allow drilling on any City-owned property (e.g. Six Mile Creek Natural Area,
Southwest Natural Area);
3) Sewer and waste water effects - Mayor Peterson and Council Member McCollister are
members of the Joint Sewer Committee and will work with the committee and its attorney,
Susan Brock, to prohibit the Ithaca Area Wastewater Facility from accepting waste water from
hydro-fracking; and
4) Investigate Tompkin County’s Road Preservation Law for potential adoption by the City.
The Committee members asked us to submit this summary so that all Council members may consider
the proposed scheme. I will be working on these topic areas and will bring draft proposals to the next
Planning Committee meeting on September 21, 2011. Please feel free to contact me with your
questions as to any of these areas or other priorities that you believe should be part of the conversation.
1
1
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504
Khandikile M. Sokoni, Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507
Robert A. Sarachan, Assistant City Attorney
Patricia M. O’Rourke, Assistant City Attorney
Krin Flaherty, Associate City Attorney
Jody Andrew, Executive Assistant
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee Members
From: Daniel L. Hoffman & Krin Flaherty
Date: November 9, 2011
Subject: Proposed ordinance
______________________________________________________________________________
Attached please find a proposed ordinance to define Light Industrial in the City zoning code and
clarify that the I-1 Industrial district permits only light industrial uses as of right. Below is a chart to
demonstrate how this ordinance clarifies the primary use section of the I-1 Industrial district.
An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 325 – “Zoning” – of the City of Ithaca Municipal
Code to Add a Definition and Clarify Permitted Industrial Uses in the I-1 Industrial Use
District.
WHEREAS, Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, entitled “Zoning,” sets forth the
zoning districts within the City of Ithaca, and states that the permitted uses for each district are
codified in the District Regulations Chart, which Chart is a separate document but is
incorporated by reference into Section 325-8 of said chapter; and
WHEREAS, only the uses specifically set forth in the District Regulations Chart are permitted as
of right in a zoning district; and
WHEREAS, exploration for natural gas, the extraction of natural gas, the storage, transfer,
treatment or disposal of natural gas exploration and production wastes, and related natural gas
operations are not specifically set forth as permitted uses in any zoning district and are therefore
are not and have not been permitted uses as of right within the City of Ithaca; and
WHEREAS, the I-1 Industrial Use district allows uses not explicitly permitted elsewhere within
the City of Ithaca, but subject to the issuance of a special permit, upon a finding by the Board of
Zoning Appeals and concurrence by Common Council that the use will have “no negative impact
by reason of noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic releases or other conditions
injurious to the health or general welfare;” and
WHEREAS, the Common Council wishes to add one definition and to clarify the District
Regulations Chart so as to remove any possible interpretation of the City Code as allowing, as of
right, the establishment of heavy industrial uses within the City, including but not limited to the
exploration for or extraction of natural gas, the storage, transfer, treatment or disposal of natural
gas exploration and production wastes, or related natural gas operations; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council accepted and approved a Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Ithaca on May 6, 1970, and, since that approval, has continued to study and to amend the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan, on page 2, enumerates the following
among the City development objectives:
“2. A city which understands and does not abuse its nonreplaceable physical
resources,” by “…understand[ing] and make[ing] wise use of the soil, gorges,
water, air, and plants which are part of the community’s non-replaceable physical
resources;” and
2
“5. A city which encourages the diversity of its industrial base and makes every
effort to employ its labor force according to its skill and capacity… by
encouraging new light service and recreational industries to supplement our
existing service and educational industries.” [emphasis added]
WHEREAS, the introduction to the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan land identifies
education as the “basic industry” of the city, but also acknowledges “the value of diversifying
the industrial base by working to attract light service industry [emphasis added] and by
developing a viable recreation industry…” as “essential to a healthy, growing, future Ithaca.”1
The land use discussion also highlights the need for housing, adequate streets and the role of
parks and opens space in maintaining “the small city character” and reinforces the “recreational-
educational character” and ties the City’s developed areas to its “unique natural environment;”2
and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan as enacted in 1970 anticipated encouragement of light
industry, and subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have supported this approach,
rather than reliance upon heavy industry, which would serve to disrupt and jeopardize the City’s
recreational-educational, small-city character and its unique natural environment; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan since 1970, and various City planning
studies and projects, seek to promote mixed-use, walkable development within the City, and to
protect and maintain natural features unique to the City such as the Cayuga Lake waterfront,
gorges, creeks and natural areas, and to support the character of existing neighborhoods, but do
not promote land use that would harm or result in a negative environmental impact 3 ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has historically demonstrated and continues to support its
commitment to preserving the beauty, quality, use, and environmental integrity of all land within
the City, through establishment and passage of Code provisions supporting City programs such
as the Conservation Advisory Council, Parks Commission, Natural Areas Commission, City
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Council, and Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and the City’s urban
forestry program; and
1 P. 24-25
2 P. 25
3 See for example: 1997 Ithaca Bicycle Plan; 1997 Tompkins County Waterplan; 1998
Southwest Area Land Use Plan addendum and 1994 original; 1998 Inlet Island Urban
Development; 1999 West End Urban Design Plan; 2000 Southwest Natural Area Master Plan;
2000 Design Guidelines, Southwest Area and Elmira Road - Meadow Street Corridor; 1998 An
Economic Development Plan for the City of Ithaca: A Program For Action prepared by
Planning/Environmental Research Consultants (modified in 2003).
3
WHEREAS, all uses in the I-1 Industrial Use District must comply with the Special Performance
Standards set forth in Section 325-24, which standards support the light industrial interpretation
clarified herein, in that the purpose of such standards is “…to permit a broad range of uses in
certain Industrial Districts by establishing standards of performance to protect residential
districts from adverse effects of industrial activities and to promote a safe and healthy
environment in and near the Industrial District,” and to lessen environmental industrial impacts
so as to not be injurious or offensive to neighbors and the public; and
WHEREAS, the clarification provided by this ordinance, namely, that only light industrial use is
permitted as of right, is consistent with the purposes and intent of the I-1 Industrial Use District
and removes any possible ambiguity about whether “industrial” use could be interpreted to mean
or include heavy industrial operations of any kind, including but not limited to natural gas
exploration or extraction, or related operations; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council agrees it is important to make these clarifications to the City
Code, for the following reasons:
(1) The establishment of new, heavy industrial uses within the City of Ithaca,
including but not limited to the exploration for or extraction of natural gas, or
related operations, would pose a significant threat to the health, safety, and
welfare of its residents and visitors.
(2) Widespread negative environmental impacts have resulted from heavy
industrial uses carried out in urbanized areas, including impacts on
groundwater quality (such as has occurred on Ithaca’s South Hill and at or
near other industrialized sites such as the former Ithaca Gun factory), surface
water quality, air quality, traffic, scenic resources, neighborhood and
community character, vegetation and habitats.
(3) The regulation and limitation of land uses allowed in the various areas and
districts of the City falls within the City’s authority to regulate land use
through the zoning powers expressly delegated to cities in the New York State
Constitution, Article 9, §§1, and in Municipal Home Rule Law, §10.
Furthermore, the regulation and/or exclusion of heavy industrial uses from the
City is a reasonable exercise of the City’s police powers so as to prevent
damage to the rights of citizens who would otherwise be negatively affected
by such uses and to promote the interests of the community as a whole;
now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
4
ORDINANCE NO. ________
Section 1. In the District Regulations Chart that is part of Section 325-8 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Ithaca, Column 2 (Permitted Primary Uses) under the I-1 Industrial District, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Any use permitted in B-5, except that dwelling units are prohibited.
2. Light Iindustrial, warehousing, wholesaling, storage and handling of bulk goods (not
including rubbish as defined in § 196.1), lumberyards, and agriculture except that no
animals may be kept within 50 ft. of any property line.
3. Any use not permitted as of right 4 in the I-1 Use District or in any other zoning
district, subject to the issuance of a special permit of the Board of Zoning Appeals in
accordance with§325-9 and concurrence by the Common Council.
4. All uses must conform to special performance standards governing establishment of
industrial uses (See: §325-24).
5. Transfer station for recyclable materials. See § 181-13, Fire Limits
Section 2. The Definitions and Word Usage Section 325-3 of the Municipal Zoning Code of the
City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a definition of “Light Industrial,” in alphabetical order,
and to read as follows:
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Fabrication, processing, converting, altering, assembling or other handling of products that:
A. Is conducted solely within a building or group of buildings; and
B. Does not result in 5 :
(1) Dissemination of noise, vibration, odor, dust, smoke, detectable gas or fumes or their
atmospheric pollutant beyond the boundaries of the immediate site of the building(s) in
which such use is conducted;
(2) Unusual hazard of fire, explosion or other physical danger to any person, building or
vegetation;
(3) Radiation or interference with radio or television reception beyond the boundary of
the property;
(4) A harmful discharge of waste material or any other means of disposal of waste
material other than by delivery to an authorized, off-site treatment facility; or
(5) Unusual traffic hazards or congestion due to the type of vehicles required.
4Tracks language of 325-9 (C)(o)
5 These conditions are similar to our § 325-24, Special Performance Standards in Industrial
District. The definition proposed here contains less specific language plus a restriction against
“no unusual traffic hazards or congestion due to type of vehicles required.”
5
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2012, and in accordance
with law, upon publication of notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
6
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLISSA DESARNO, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607/274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607/274-
6559
Fax: 607/274-6558
TO: Planning and Development Board
Planning Committee of Common Council
FROM: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: August 9, 2011
RE: Department of Planning and Development 2011- 2012 Priority Projects and Work Plan
The Department of Planning & Development's 2011 – 2012 Priority Projects and Work Plan are listed below for
your information.
A. Priority Projects - Planning
1. Conclude work on Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines: including Form
Based Code, Design Standards, Design Review, Streetscape Improvements for the 400 Block of
College Ave., Complete On Street Parking Study including a Pay Station Program – Megan Wilson,
Project Manager
2. Dredging – Complete Environmental Impact Statement and Construction Drawings, Construct
Sedimentation Basins and Begin Dredging – Lisa Nicholas, Project Manager
3. Commons Redesign Phase II – Complete Design Development, Final Design, Construction
Drawings and Bid Documents – Jennifer Kusznir, Project Manager; Sasaki Associated, Consultant
4. Southwest Area – Hire Consultant to review and synopsize all completed studies and recommend
if/then scenarios for use of the City-owned 60 acres - Lisa Nicholas, Project Manager, Consultant to
be determined
5. Oversee Implementation of NYSERDA Grant Funding to oversee the City’s climate change and
energy sustainability initiatives - Dennise Belmaker, Energy Sustainability Project Manager
6. City Comprehensive Plan – Phase 1, Umbrella Plan (Phase 2 being detailed neighborhood
and thematic plans). Work with Clarion Associates to complete Phase 1 by fall of 2012 –
Megan Wilson, Project Manager
7. NYS DOT Site Acquisition – Continue working with the County to relocate the NYSDOT facility
on Third Street Extension allow for waterfront development.
JoannC Page 1 1/6/2012
B. Priority Projects – Development
1. Inlet Island Development
• Continue working with the selected preferred developer and Common Council toward
development of Inlet Island.
• Continue efforts to acquire the parcel owned by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (“NYSDEC”) and once acquired, begin a Phase II Environmental Investigation and
cleanup if necessary.
2. Development of the Ithaca Gun Factory Site and the Adjacent Ithaca Falls Natural Area
• Continue work with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and
Fall Creek Redevelopment, LLC, to remediate the former Ithaca Gun Factory Site.
• Administer Grant Funding for remediation.
• Start planning process for a park that includes the area at the base of the falls, the rim
trail, and the overlook area.
3. Completion of Cayuga Green and Associated Projects
• Work with Bloomfield + Schon Partners on the 20-30 unit luxury apartments and future
condominiums, known as Cayuga Green 3.
• Continue to seek tenants for the remaining commercial space in Cayuga Garage and at
Cayuga Place.
• Continue working with Jeffrey Rimland to complete plans for the Hotel Ithaca project
4. Complete review for Challenge Industries building and site
5. Continue to work with interested parties on collective vision for Emerson site.
6. Continue review of the new City of Ithaca Water Treatment Plant
7. Continue review of means restriction on area bridges
8. Begin Review of the Cornell University Gates Building
9. Continue working towards establishing the Neighborhood Pride Grocery Store to
replace the P&C on Hancock Street in the City’s North side
C. Grants
TIGER III – County Transportation Improvements and Commons Reconstruction to serve as transportation
hub and county center.
National Endowment for The Humanities (NEH), Planning Grant for the MLK Freedom Walkway –
Refinement of design concepts and walkway elements, cost estimates, design drawings and specifications.
JoannC Page 2 1/6/2012
PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED AS STAFF TIME ALLOWS
and in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan
D. Projects of Interest:
1. Revise the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance to include climate change considerations
(greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, energy efficiency, solid waste management practices,
etc.).
2. Revise the Community Incentive Investment Program Application/City Density Policy.
3. Work towards approval and implementation of the Stewart Park Rehabilitation Action Plan.
4. Create a Conservation Zone(s).
5. Create a Stream Corridor Protection Zone(s).
6. Work on policy for development in Unique Natural Areas
7. Investigate extending Cherry Street for additional development
E. Projects identified by the Planning Committee to be done in cooperation with Engineering, Streets and
Facilities, the Building Department, and the Board of Public Works:
8. Complete revisions to the City’s Sidewalk Ordinance.
9. Create a City wide approach to parking.
10. Continue discussions on how to deal with backyard parking lots in multi-family residential zones.
11. Assist in the development of a City Transportation Plan.
12. Coordinate with the City, Cornell University, and Delta Phi Fraternity to assess and correct damage to
both the street and sidewalk on Cornell Avenue, the limestone retaining wall on Cornell Avenue, and
the stone walls on the Baldwin Staircase.
F. Additional Projects identified by various sources:
13. Assist Common Council in determining natural gas drilling impacts on and in the City of Ithaca and
draft legislation if required.
14. Consider creating a critical environmental area for the City-owned land in Six Mile Creek.
15. Address undesirable loss of urban and natural forms by rezoning certain areas of the City.
16. Work with property owners and business owners (and potential property and business owners) to
invest in and improve properties in the West End.
17. Implement Martin Luther King Freedom Walkway.
18. Investigate legislation to regulate wood smoke emissions
19. Investigate legislation to allow raising chickens in the city.
20. Investigate use of City owned land for community urban gardens.
G. Projects Identified by the Planning Department to be managed or completed:
21. Ongoing issues related to the NYSEG Coal Tar Remediation Site and the future of the Markles Flats
building.
22. Continue working with the Community Advisory Group (CAG) to monitor progress of the Ithaca
Falls area and associated contamination.
23. Develop Revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance.
24. Revise Design Review Ordinance and Develop Citywide Design Guidelines.
25. Revise Site Plan Review Ordinance to include new stormwater regulations, pedestrian and bicycle
standards, planting and landscaping standards, increased public notification times, sustainability and
green building standards.
26. Revise Subdivision Ordinance to be more in line with revisions to the Site Plan Review Ordinance
and the Environmental Review Ordinance.
27. Complete City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
JoannC Page 3 1/6/2012