HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-16 Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: May 11, 2016
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) Public Comment and Response from
Committee Members
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – 2016 HUD Entitlement
Action Plan
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Dredging Update
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) 2016 HUD Entitlement Action Plan
b) Amendment to Collegetown Area Form
Districts Street‐Level Active Use
c) Backyard Chickens
6) Discussion
a) Community Investment Incentive Tax
Abatement Program (CIITAP)
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) April 2016
8) Adjournment
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Lisa Nicholas, City Planner
Nels Bohn, IURA
Megan Wilson, City Planner
Various
Nels Bohn, IURA / Nick Goldsmith,
Sustainability Coordinator
6:00
6:05
6:10
6:15
6:30
6:40
6:50
7:10
7:40
7:45
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, May 10th, 2016.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
May 11, 2016
2016 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to address
community development needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Entitlement program from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funding sources, and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer,
implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable
regulations, and
WHEREAS, on an annual basis an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access HUD Entitlement
program funding allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development activities
to be funded from the 2016 HUD Entitlement program allocation and associated funds administered by
the IURA, and
WHEREAS, funding available to be allocated through the 2016 Action Plan funding process is anticipated
to include the following:
$661,371.00 CDBG 2016 allocation
$21,749.57 CDBG 2014 de‐obligated funds
$130,000.00 CDBG 2016 projected program income
$328,050.00 HOME 2016 allocation
$41,115.40 HOME 2015 carryover and de‐obligated funds
$273,869.00 HOME 2014 de‐obligated funds
$215,875.00 Neighborhood Housing Initiative bond funds
$1,671,829.97 Total, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for development of the
2015 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen Participation Plan, and
WHEREAS, at their April 14, 2016 meeting, the IURA adopted a recommended 2016 Action Plan; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the IURA‐recommended 2016
Action Plan, dated April 14, 2016 for allocation of the City’s 2016 HUD Entitlement Program award along
with additional funds listed above totaling $1,671,829.97, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the adopted 2016
Action Plan.
4/14/2016
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
M
a
t
c
h
2
0
1
6
C
D
B
G
2
0
1
6
H
O
M
E
2
0
1
6
C
D
B
G
P
I
2
0
14
H
O
M
E
2
0
1
5
H
O
M
E
2
0
1
4
C
D
B
G
N
H
I
B
o
n
d
s
T
o
t
a
l
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
D
e
s
c
ription
$6
6
1
,
3
7
1
$
3
2
8
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
3
,
8
6
9
.
0
0
$
4
1
,
1
1
5
.
4
0
$2
1
,
7
4
9
.
5
7
$
2
1
5
,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
2
,
0
2
9
.
9
7
#
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
T
B
R
A
I
U
R
A
$9
2
,
8
9
0
$0
$
7
7
,
1
0
4
.
4
0
$7
7
,
1
0
4
.
4
0
TBRA and case management for 3 homeless families with children at BJM
2
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
D
e
p
o
s
i
t
s
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$7
,
8
2
3
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
security deposit assistance for 75 LMI households
2a
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
$4
,
0
0
0
$0
$
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
professional contract for HQS inspection of non-HCV units
3
L
K
N
B
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
L
o
v
e
K
n
o
w
s
N
o
B
o
u
n
d
s
$5
1
,
0
0
0
$1
6
,
5
0
0
$
3
6
,
3
3
4
.
7
2
$3
6
,
3
3
4
.
7
2
homeowner rehab for 3 households with incomes below 60% AMI
4
3
0
4
H
e
c
t
o
r
S
t
IN
H
S
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
6
9
,
2
9
4
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
new construction first time homebuyer CLT home affordable at 80% AMI
5
2
0
2
H
a
n
c
o
c
k
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
I
N
H
S
$5
6
7
,
0
0
0
$1
,
7
9
2
,
0
1
3
$
4
0
,
2
5
6
.
0
0
$
2
7
3
,
8
6
9
.
0
0
$2
1
5
,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$5
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
new construction 7 first-time homebuyer CLT townhomes affordable at 80% AMI
6
M
i
n
i
R
e
p
a
i
r
IN
H
S
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$3
8
,
1
2
8
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
maintenance and very minor repair for 70 homeowners below 80% AMI
7
M
o
r
r
i
s
A
v
e
H
o
m
e
s
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
H
u
m
a
n
i
t
y
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
3
0
,
5
0
0
$
3
3
,
8
8
4
.
6
0
$4
1
,
1
1
5
.
4
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
new construction 2 for-sale homes affordable at 60% AMI
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
8
W
o
r
k
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
J
o
b
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
I
th
a
c
a
(
C
B
D
O
)
$6
7
,
5
0
0
$5
8
,
8
1
6
$
4
5
,
7
5
0
.
4
3
$2
1
,
7
4
9
.
5
7
$6
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
jo
b
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
4
L
M
I
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
th employment barriers
9
H
E
T
P
GI
A
C
(
C
B
D
O
)
$1
1
2
,
9
6
1
$2
2
,
4
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
jo
b
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
1
0
L
M
I
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
ith employment barriers
10
E
D
L
o
a
n
F
u
n
d
IU
R
A
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
creation of 3 part-time positions for LMI individuals
Pu
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
11
H
e
a
t
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
&
C
o
d
e
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
D
I
C
C
$2
2
,
4
8
9
$4
,
5
1
1
$
2
2
,
4
8
9
.
0
0
$2
2
,
4
8
9
.
0
0
replace heating system and correct interior door code violations
12
A
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
G
a
r
a
g
e
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
$1
0
,
3
1
7
$4
,
0
6
4
$
1
0
,
3
1
7
.
0
0
$1
0
,
3
1
7
.
0
0
renovate garage to provide storage for donated materials to help equip households leaving
th
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
13
W
a
d
i
n
g
P
o
o
l
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
G
I
A
C
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
8
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
expand existing wading pool
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1a
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
I
U
R
A
$1
1
,
5
8
0
$0
$
1
1
,
5
8
0
.
0
0
$1
1
,
5
8
0
.
0
0
case management related to project #1
14
A
P
l
a
c
e
t
o
S
t
a
y
c
a
s
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
$2
7
,
1
1
8
$0
$
1
7
,
6
2
5
.
6
5
$1
7
,
6
2
5
.
6
5
case management for 5 homeless women in transitional housing
9a
W
o
r
k
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
J
o
b
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
I
t
h
a
c
a
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$1
7
,
5
6
9
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
jo
b
r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
2
0
L
M
I
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
employment barriers related to project #12
15
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c
C
h
a
r
i
t
i
e
s
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$2
8
,
9
1
5
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
case management for 100 immigrants to access employment, services, etc
16
2
1
1
I
n
f
o
a
n
d
R
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
H
S
C
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
1
6
,
9
8
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
support for 2-1-1 call center
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
17
C
D
B
G
A
d
m
i
n
.
IU
R
A
$1
3
2
,
2
7
4
.
2
0
$1
3
2
,
2
7
4
.
2
0
$1
3
2
,
2
7
4
.
2
0
Planning, administration and monitoring for the CDBG program
18
H
O
M
E
A
d
m
i
n
.
IU
R
A
$3
2
,
8
0
5
.
0
0
$3
2
,
8
0
5
$3
2
,
8
0
5
.
0
0
Planning, administration and monitoring for the HOME program
To
t
a
l
s
:
$
1
,
6
1
5
,
0
4
4
$
2
,
8
0
0
,
6
9
0
$
6
6
1
,
3
7
1
.
0
0
$
3
2
8
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
00
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
3
,
8
6
9
.
0
0
$
4
1
,
1
1
5
.
4
0
$
2
1
,
7
4
9
.
5
7
$
2
1
5
,
8
7
5
.
0
0
$1
,
6
4
2
,
0
2
9
.
9
7
$0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
un
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
S
e
t
-
a
s
i
d
e
o
f
H
O
M
E
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
C
H
D
O
A
ct
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
:
$
4
9
,
2
0
7
.
5
0
CD
H
O
S
e
t
-
a
s
i
d
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
2
0
2
H
a
n
c
o
c
k
)
:
$
5
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
CH
D
O
S
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
:
Y
Pu
b
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
c
a
p
:
$
9
9
,
2
0
6
(1
5
%
o
f
2
0
1
6
C
D
B
G
a
w
a
r
d
)
pl
u
s
$
1
4
,
8
4
3
i
n
de
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
e
d
2
0
1
5
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
F
i
r
s
t
IU
R
A
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
20
1
6
H
U
D
E
n
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
I
t
h
a
c
a
,
N
Y
FU
N
D
I
N
G
A
V
A
I
L
A
B
L
E
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
un
e
x
p
e
n
d
e
d
2
0
1
4
HE
T
P
a
w
a
r
d
$2
6
,
2
7
2
.
4
0
un
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
20
1
5
r
o
u
n
d
re
t
u
r
n
e
d
f
u
n
d
s
20
1
4
4
0
2
S
.
Ca
y
u
g
a
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: May 5, 2016
RE: Proposed Amendment to Collegetown Area Form Districts
Since it was adopted in 2014, the Collegetown Area Form Districts has included a requirement for
active uses on the street-level of all buildings in portions of the MU-2 district. Allowed active uses
are defined in a list of seven possible categories, such as retail, restaurant, or hotel. As plans for
development in Collegetown have been presented, it has become clear that there are additional
active uses that may be desirable but are not included in the adopted list. The proposed amendment
would allow the Planning and Development Board to determine whether a use meets the intent of
the active use requirement, and such uses would be granted special approval by the Board. This
change would be consistent with the street-level active use requirement recently adopted for the
primary Commons.
In addition to the new provision allowing special approval of uses by the Planning Board, staff is
also recommending changes to the list of approved active uses. The proposed amendment would
remove “library” and “fire station” from the list and would add light hand fabrication as an active
use. These changes will make the list consistent with the list of active uses for the primary
Commons.
The draft ordinance is attached for your review. Staff will attend the May 11th Planning &
Economic Development Committee meeting to answer any questions. If you have any questions
prior to the meeting, please contact me at mwilson@cityofithaca.org or 274-6560.
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
5/4/2016
Page 1 of 2
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Amend the Street-Level Active
Use Requirement in the Collegetown Area Form Districts
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-45.3 (“Street-
Level Active Uses Required”) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows:
325-45.3B Street-Level Active Uses Required
(1) Within the MU-2 district, street-level active
uses are required on the entire street-level of
for the street-facing portions of all buildings
fronting on those portions sections of College
Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy Street designated
on the map below.
(2) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to
vitality of the Collegetown core area and are
defined as uses that encourage high levels of
pedestrian activity, enliven the streetscape, and
create well-lit space with ample visibility into
the storefront area. Active uses are defined as
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Retail store or service commercial facility
(b) Restaurant, fast food establishment, or
tavern
(c) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium, or other
similar places of public assembly
(d) Hotel
(e) Library or fire station
(e) (f) Public park or playground
(f) (g) Bank or monetary institution
(g) Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking, and
other activities involving light hand
fabrication as well as sales.
(3) Additional uses may be permitted if the Planning
and Development Board determines them to be an
active use and grants special approval for the
use. The Planning Board may also grant a special
approval of a non-active use if a property owner
is able to show that the physical structure is
5/4/2016
Page 2 of 2
not easily adaptable to be used as one of the
above listed active uses.
Section 2. Severability. Severability is intended throughout
and within the provisions of this local law. If any section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local
law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
To: Svante Myrick, Mayor Michael Thorne, Superintendent of Public
Common Council Conservation Advisory Council (CAC)
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA 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
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk Planning & Development Board
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Admin.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC)
Rental Housing Advisory Commission (RHAC)
JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning & Development
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement
Edward Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning
From: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Date: March 18, 2016
RE: Proposal to Establish Two-Year Pilot Program for Backyard Chickens
The City is considering a two-year pilot program that would allow backyard chickens to
be kept at 20 residences within the city. From time to time, the City receives requests
from residents to allow chickens in backyard coops. These requests are part of a
nationwide trend to allow chickens in urban areas for the purpose of producing fresh
eggs. People who keep chickens are typically concerned about the amount of time and
energy it takes to get eggs to the end consumer; they want eggs free of certain farm
chemicals and pesticides; or they simply enjoy the taste of fresh eggs, and keeping
chickens as part of a more active lifestyle.
Keeping chickens is also part of a larger sustainability trend to allow citizens to grow
their own foods — including fruits, vegetables, and honey production — by reducing
barriers that restrict local food production. These sustainability trends are also
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals, like providing support for our
community gardens and active living initiatives. Also, conventional agricultural practices
since World War II have generally relied on pesticides and fertilizers to produce food for
the mass-consumer market; and they are typically petroleum-intensive operations. With
rising fuel and food prices, allowing local food production may improve the resiliency of
a particular city or region, allowing it to better adapt to current and future price swings, or
food shortages.
The pilot program would be limited to 20 residences within the City of Ithaca. The
Clerk’s Office would process applications and select registrants who meet the specific
criteria of the program, as established by the Common Council. The following criteria
are proposed:
A maximum of four hens is permitted per 3,000 square foot lot.
Roosters and guinea fowl are prohibited.
Chickens must always be contained within a coop or enclosure.
Chickens are not allowed to run at large.
Chicken coops must be at least 20 feet from a primary structure on an adjacent lot
and at least 5 feet from any abutting residential property line.
Chicken coops must be kept in a clean sanitary manner, free of insects and rodents,
offensive odors, excessive noise, or any other condition which could potentially
cause a nuisance (i.e., the coop should be cleaned frequently). Chicken feed must
be kept in rodent-resistant and weather-proof containers.
Applicants must complete a seminar regarding the care of backyard chickens
conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Applicants must pay a one-time $35 fee to register for the pilot program. The Clerk’s
Office may revoke a permit for a specific site via written notice to the registrant and
property owner, when the City finds any of the above criteria have not been met. If a
permit is revoked or an owner is unable to care for his/her hens, Cornell Cooperative
Extension will work with the owners to rehome the chickens. The Clerk’s Office shall
report to Common Council prior to the expiration of the pilot program. The Council will
then have the opportunity to extend the pilot program, direct staff to codify the program
into the City Code, or discontinue the program.
The draft ordinance to authorize the two-year pilot program is attached for your review.
The Planning & Economic Development Committee will consider the proposed
ordinance at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 13, 2016. Your comments are
respectfully requested prior to this meeting. If you have any questions, please contact
Josephine Martell at jmartell@cityofithaca.org or Megan Wilson at
mwilson@cityofithaca.org or 274-6560.
Backyard Chickens
The city of Ithaca is considering a two-year pilot program that would allow 20 City of
Ithaca residences to keep backyard chickens.
Regulation Summary
Maximum of four hens per 3,000 square foot lot
Roosters and Guinea Fowl are prohibited
Chickens must always be contained within a coop or enclosure
Chickens are not allowed to run at large
Chicken coops must be at least 20 feet from the primary lot structure and at least 5
feet from any abutting residential property line
Registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of backyard chickens
from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office
Registrants must sign an affidavit through the City Clerk’s office as part of the
registration
If at any time a permit is revoked, or the owner is unable to care for their hens, the
Cornell Cooperative Extension Office will work with the owners to rehome the
hens.
Additional information for residences in the pilot program:
Registration Process:
There is a one-time $35 registration fee, paid to the Ithaca City Clerk’s office
It is recommended to work with Cornell Cooperative Extension Office staff for
any questions or guidance related to coop construction and general chicken
keeping.
ORDINANCE __-2015
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
WHEREAS, Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code prohibits the keeping of
chickens in the City, and;
WHEREAS, the City has received requests from citizens to allow chickens in backyard
coops and there is an active backyard chicken movement within the City, and;
WHEREAS, chicken keeping is part of a larger sustainability trend to allow citizens to
grow their own foods – including fruits, vegetables and honey production – by reducing
barriers, which restrict local food production. These sustainability trends are congruent
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals, such as support for our community gardens
and active living initiatives, and;
WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to enable the keeping of backyard chickens in
the City; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as
follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that backyard chickens, if
properly maintained, can prove a positive initiative for the City, promoting food
sustainability, increasing animal welfare and providing fresh eggs free from pesticides
and chemicals, without presenting a nuisance to neighboring 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
Section 164-4 shall be amended to read as follows:
Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this article
constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with § 1-1 of the City of Ithaca
Municipal Code except that the unlawful keeping of chickens 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 4. Creation of Article III to Chapter 164
An Article III of Chapter 164 is hereby created as follows:
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, during a two-year pilot
program that shall expire on May 1, 2018, not apply to up to twenty pilot applicants
approved for the keeping of up to four female chickens (hens) per 3,000 Square Foot 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.
C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area,
either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following
prohibited areas:
1. Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located;
2. Within twenty feet of any adjacent Lot’s residential principal structure or
accessory structure that contains a residential unit, or within five feet of
any principal structure on the Lot housing the chickens; and
3. Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the
adjacent owner agrees in writing to a lesser setback.
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 chickenhouse, or a fenced and covered enclosure, that is at least 4 square
feet per chicken in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop
Commented [AL1]: Using PCC's here will be very exact‐
‐which is good‐‐but recognize that various PCC‐classified
single‐ and two‐family homes do house 3+ families (and
perfectly legally so).
Commented [AL2]: Using PCC's here will be very exact‐
‐which is good‐‐but recognize that note that various PCC‐
classified single‐ and two‐family homes do house
3+multiple families (and perfectly legally so).
Commented [AL3]: For definitions, see
http://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/manu
als/prclas.htm#residential.
Commented [AL4]: This means it must be their
primary residence…
and run combined shall be located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the
Rear Yard of the Lot.
F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets,
alleys or other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person.
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.
I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be
maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise
or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining Lots and the responsible domiciliary
and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition. The Lot owner
shall be responsible for the repair on any adjoining Lot of any damage caused by
the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, structures and
yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe condition.
J. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all Solid Waste Storage and
Collection standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, §331-7.
K. Roosters and Guinea Fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or
maturity of the bird.
L. Pilot registration pursuant to Section 164-24 is required for the keeping of
chickens.
M. Approved pilot registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of
chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office,
or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerks Office.
164-24: Pilot Registration Process and Parameters.
A. No more than twenty pilot registrations for the keeping of chickens shall be
approved under this Article III.
B. Registratio
n shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk’s Office upon submission of a $35
registration fee, and verification of a completed chicken-keeping seminar.
C. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the
property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole
discretion, that any requirements of this Article are not met, a rebuttable
presumption of which shall be created by (a) a record of three or more complaints
to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site’s chickens, (b) on the
recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension, or (c) on the recommendation
of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the
owner in writing of the same, in compliance with sub-section 164-25, and if the
revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in
coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell
Cooperative Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them.
D. The City Clerk and Police Department shall, at least three months prior to the
expiration of the pilot program, report to a Committee of the Common Council on
the status of the pilot program.
Formatted: Tab stops: 5.25", Left
E. Should the pilot program not be extended after the two-year period, Cornell
Cooperative Extension Office may help rehome the hens in the program.
E. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the
property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole
discretion, that any requirements of this Article are not met, a rebuttable
presumption of which shall be created by (a) a record of three or more complaints
to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site’s chickens, (b) on the
recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension, or (c) on the recommendation
of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the
owner in writing of the same, in compliance with sub-section 164-25, and if the
revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in
coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell
Cooperative Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them.
F.
164-25: Remedies Not Exclusive.
The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are
in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any
other provision of law.
A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this Article shall be deemed a public
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 intends to
correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any chickens
present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violation, the City
Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the owner of the property
and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined
in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this chapter.
B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address
on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax 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 comply with this chapter and to abate the
nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that
the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk by making a written
request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly scheduled meeting
of the Board of Public Works.
C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally
delivered to the City Clerk 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.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of
violation of this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the
time limit stated in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works’ determination,
after such a hearing, that a violation exists), the City Clerk shall 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 shall charge the cost thereof to the
owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision and
administration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall be
$50.
E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected
a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works.
If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property,
added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as
delinquent City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written
notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing
of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of
Public Works.
Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of
this Ordinance. 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 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication
as provided for in the City Charter.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
MAYOR’S OFFICE
NICK GOLDSMITH, SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR
Telephone: 607-274-6562
Email: ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Date: May 5, 2016
RE: Energy standards for CIITAP program
Below are recommendations for the energy standards to be included in the CIITAP
program. These recommendations are informed by the work done by the CIITAP working
group, public comments received during and after the working group was active, and
research performed since the working group finished.
The recommendations below are consistent with my comments to Jennifer Kusznir
submitted January 6, 2016, but are more stringent than those developed in the CIITAP
working group, for a number of reasons:
Additional evidence of the financial feasibility of building more efficiently
Increased interest in 2030 District standards at the local, County, and national level
Additional evidence of other states and local governments adopting goals and policies
supporting net-zero construction by the year 2030 or earlier
Recognition that the City’s goal of 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the
year 2050 will not be attainable without dramatic changes to the commercial building
sector, which is responsible for 50% of City emissions
RECOMMENDATION
Basic Eligibility Criteria
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for tax abatement under CIITAP, a
project/developer must:
Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement
o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA Energy
Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the building is using
energy at the level designed.
o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA.
o The information would also be made available to the public.
Be designed and constructed to use at least 10% less energy than required by the
New York State Energy Code
o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is planned
to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC 2015).
o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain
site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table
below.
o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square foot.
o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a
NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate
compliance path.
Enhanced Eligibility Criteria
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement
under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 30% better than code. Specifically, the
project/developer must:
Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement
o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA Energy
Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the building is using
energy at the level designed.
o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA.
o The information would also be made available to the public.
Be designed and constructed to use at least 30% less energy than required by the
New York State Energy Code
o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is planned
to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015 International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC 2015).
o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain
site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table
below.
o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square foot.
o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a
NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate
compliance path.
TO CONSIDER – OPTION B FOR ENHANCED ABATEMENT
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement
under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 40% better than code. This is in line with
the 2030 District Standards, which has the goal of decreasing energy use in new
construction, with the ultimate goal of net zero energy construction by the year 2030.
NYS CODE
as of October
2016
(IECC 2015)
BASIC
ELIGIBILITY
10% better
than code
ENHANCED
ELIGIBILITY
30% better
than code
TO
CONSIDER
40% better
than code
Office
Small Office 30272118
Large Office 72655043
Lodging
Small Hotel 60544236
Large Hotel 88796253
Retail
Standalone Retail 47423328
Apartment
Mid-Rise Apartment 44403126
High-Rise Apartment 48433429
DRAFT Energy Use Standard for CIITAP tax abatement 05-05-16
Energy Use Index
(annual site energy use per square foot, measured in kBtu)
Source: Energy and Energy Cost Savings Analysis of the 2015 IECC for Commercial Buildings, U.S.
DOE, August 2015
Building Type
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on my
cell at 917-270-1683.
City of Ithaca Common Council
Re: Proposed Amendments to the City of Ithaca Community Investment
Incentive Tax Abatement Program
January 6. 2016
The Revised CIITAP Policy must be aligned with the more overarching city‐
wide policies. “Ithaca strives to become a CARBON – NEUTRAL community with
the initial goal of reducing community‐wide emissions to 80 percent below 2010
levels by 2050 (City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan)”. The City of Ithaca Energy
Action Plan 2012 – 2016 has identified several programs that were to be
implemented in this period to assist with the accomplishment of this goal (see
Appendix E – Implementation Guide). Tompkins County’s Comprehensive Plan
recommended that our community “should be a place where the energy system
meets community needs without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere”. The County has prepared a Draft Energy Road Map that has
identified various scenarios with a mix of energy efficiency, energy conservation,
and renewable energy projects that will assist us in reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Energy Road Map has identified as the most implementable and cost
effective near‐term action as Demand‐side Management policies. DSM
encourages end users to modify their level and pattern of energy use. The
objective of DSM is to provide cost‐effective energy and capacity resources to
help defer or avoid altogether the need for new sources of power, including
generating facilities, power purchases, and transmission and distribution capacity
additions. Newly constructed buildings can incorporate energy efficiency directly
in their design and construction. It is more technically feasible and economical to
design and build an energy efficient building than to retrofit that building at a
later point in time. Buildings can also be designed to be more suitable for
renewable energy integration. For example, siting a building to have a south‐
facing roof that is wide, sturdy and gradually pitched, will allow for easier solar PV
installation.
Much recent new construction in the City has been facilitated by the CIITAP
policy. The City has missed many opportunities to encourage the construction of
more highly energy efficient buildings. Such buildings could be constructed to be a
very well‐insulated, virtually air‐tight building that is primarily heated by passive
solar gain and by internal gains from occupants, lighting (compact fluorescent),
appliances, cooking, and other heat sources. Energy losses are minimized and
extraordinary reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved.
The Revised CIITAP policy provides for an enhanced abatement for those
applicants who meet the following criteria: “#5. Sustainable and Energy
Requirement. Provide documentation that certifies that their construction will
qualify for Base LEED Certification”. It may appear to be counter‐intuitive but such
a building may require a cost premium to construct that would exceed that of a
much more energy efficient building. A commercial building that meets rigorous
“passivhaus” standards for insulation and air sealing will reduce heat losses to an
absolute minimum. By designing a tight envelope with thick insulation, Passivhaus
designers work hard to whittle a building’s space heating load to a bare minimum.
Many European designers strive to get the heating load so low that all space heat
can be provided by raising the temperature of the ventilation air. The added cost
for the air sealing and insulation will be offset by reductions in the size of the
mechanical systems required.
Heat pump systems, including air‐source heat pumps (ASHP) and ground‐
source heat pumps (GSHP), are considered energy‐efficient alternatives to
furnaces and electric heaters. Heat pumps keep buildings warm in winter and cool
in summer by transferring heat between indoor and outdoor environments.
It has been argued that CIITAP is not the proper vehicle for instituting
policies of general application. Yet almost nothing has been done to apply the
policies of the Energy Action Plan and the Comprehensive Plan to the numerous
proposals for new construction in the City. I have raised these policy concerns in
comments on new construction proposals before the City’s Planning and
Development Board. I have received no response to this recommendation from
those charged with the decision‐ making on the projects. The CEQR Part 3
responses to the question of Impacts on Energy have been uniformly reported as
“None”. This question has been interpreted as directed at the sufficiency of utility
capacity to deliver the required natural gas and electricity. This provision should
be revised to ascertain the proposed building’s energy performance and its
consistency with elements of the City’s Energy Action Plan
On November 18, 2014 the New York State Fire Prevention and Building
Code Council voted to adopt an update to commercial provisions of the Energy
Conservation Construction Code of New York State (ECCCNYS). The ECCCNYS
establishes minimum requirements for energy‐efficient buildings using
prescriptive and performance‐related provisions, and makes possible the use of
new materials and innovative techniques that conserve energy. The ECCCNYS
2014, which will primarily effect Commercial building construction and
renovation, had an effective date of January 1, 2015. Unfortunately there is a long
lag time from advances in building science and their adoption into the Energy
Code.
For the past 2 years I have advocated that the City adopt advanced energy
codes. This is permissible under New York State law. “Nor shall anything in this
article be construed as abrogating or impairing the power of any municipality to
promulgate a local energy conservation construction code more stringent than
the code” (New York Energy Law, Chapter 17‐ A, Article 11, State Energy
Conservation Construction Code, Section 11‐109, Municipal Regulation). The
Implementation Guide for the City’s Energy Action Plan indicated that the City
would adopt green building ordinances by the end of 2016. Many other NYS
municipalities have adopted such measures. It is unfortunate that most of the
emphasis in the City has appeared to be on expediting approval of energy
inefficient projects in anticipation that more rigorous standards might soon be
adopted and thus reduce the likelihood of their construction.
The rationale for my above comments is to address the evidence of
increasingly rapid climate change. Recently it was warmer at the North Pole than
in parts of the United States. With temperatures in the Arctic rising 2‐3 times
faster than other locations on Earth the temperature differential with the tropics
is decreasing and thus weakening the jet stream with a concomitant shift away
from typical weather patterns.
Ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing annually with the
possibility that it will be ice free by the end of the century. A third of the Earth’s
soil carbon is found in the Arctic tundra soil, stored in frozen organic matter. If the
high northern latitudes warm significantly, permafrost will thaw, allowing the
organic matter in the permafrost to decompose. The decomposition will release
massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The affect this will have on the
rate of atmospheric warming could be irreversible.
Also the Greenland glaciers are rapidly melting discharging large amounts
of fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean. As a result the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation (the Gulf Stream) is slowing down. This will have a critical
impact on global weather patterns and result in increasing sea level rise along the
Eastern Seaboard.
Rising surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific
Ocean, a naturally occurring event, has resulted in this years’ Godzilla El Nino.
Soon this phenomenon will be supplemented by the Madden‐Julian Oscillation.
Several studies of historical data suggest that the recent El Niño variation is linked
to anthropogenic climate change in accordance with the larger consensus on
climate change. It has had a massive impact on the economies of the southern
United States. Fortunately our community has been spared the most severe
human and financial impacts of climate change.
Of the measures required to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the
above proposal in support of the adoption of Demand‐side management policies
is considered to be the “low hanging fruit”. If we are willing to stretch our
intellectual capacities and work in coordination with developers, architects,
engineers, and contractors, high performing energy efficient buildings may be
constructed at a relatively similar cost to conventional code compliant buildings
with a bonus of having substantially reduced operating costs over time.
Unfortunately the City does not yet employ a trusted consultant qualified to
provide advice on building science to assist in reducing the perceived barriers to
such action.
I realize that this is not a comfortable discussion topic for Common Council
members. The planet will soon, if it has not already, crossed critical thresholds.
Climate change will not be a linear process but one with feedback loops greatly
accelerating the pace of change. Our community needs to address these potential
problems before they become more acute. You can not “kick the can down the
road” to some yet unidentified future Common Council member. I urge everyone
to acknowledge the immediacy of the need to take action and to accept their
daunting responsibility to participate in the process of resolving this existential
challenge. Thank you.
Brian Eden
Chair, Energy Committee
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council
From: Ed Marx [emarx@tompkins-co.org]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 4:47 PM
To: Nick Goldsmith; Katie Borgella
Subject: Re: FW: Proposed Amendment: Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program
(CIITAP)
Nick,
This is what we suggest:
1. The Standard Abatement minimum requirement for Environmental Sustainability should
require both Energy Benchmarking and a LEED certified design. A LEED certified design
should be relatively easily achieved and cost effective in a downtown location.
2. The Environmental Sustainability Benefit requirements for standard and enhanced
abatements should be reviewed and revised, as appropriate, after completion of the IDA Green
Energy Incentive study. We expect to complete that in April or May and the purpose of that
study is to identify what level of energy efficiency/renewable energy can be achieved at a
reasonable ROI and what incentive may be warranted to achieve higher levels.
Hope these suggestions are helpful.
Ed
Ed Marx, AICP
Commissioner of Planning
Tompkins County
(607) 274-5560
emarx@tompkins-co.org
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Cynthia Brock, and
Josephine Martell
Committee Members Absent: Alderperson Graham Kerslick
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson George McGonigal; Mayor Svante
Myrick (arrived at 6:30 p.m.)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner;
Lynn Truame, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA); Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban
Renewal Agency (IURA); Deborah Grunder,
Executive Assistant
Others Attending:
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no changes made to the agenda.
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
David Nutter, 243 Cliff Street, spoke regarding the email he sent after the circulation
of the geese ordinance. He has several questions of which are attached to these
minutes. If the habitat remains the same, the geese will continue to be here. Most
people are pretty tolerant. More people should be. Don’t start a war.
Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on the 401 Lake Street property. He’s a
member of the Natural Areas Commission. It’s great to see the City acknowledging
that this property is part of the natural areas.
Ann Sullivan, spoke on the lack of representation from anyone in the ward she lives
in. She pointed out that both Council committees should have equal representation
of all wards. It’s not right, it’s not democratic, and it’s not fair.
Joanie Groome, 433 North Tioga, spoke on the backyard chickens. The language
has changed in this ordinance. It will also allow residents to slaughter chickens in
their back yards. She opposes the change in the wording permitting the slaughter of
chickens. The killing of any healthy animal should not be allowed.
Alderperson Brock thanked Ann Sullivan for coming forward. She supports her
comments. She also thanked Joanie Groome stating that the current ordinance
doesn’t have any prohibition of slaughter.
Alderperson Martell commented on David Nutter’s comments. She hasn’t had time
to review the questions but will do so and will respond.
Chair Murtagh responded to Ann Sullivan’s comments. The Mayor is responsible for
making the appointments. Appointing certain council members on certain
committees and not having an equal representation is not intentional, but were
distributed based on Council’s requests and expertise.
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing: Incentive Zoning for Affordable Housing
Alderperson Martell moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
Ann Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, stated this is a very complex problem and is of
concern to her. There is an item within the ordinance that would allow any single
family home to add an apartment and rent it at an affordable rate. This may lead
to neighborhoods being turned into student housing. The elimination of site-plan
review is bad idea. Developers can wait a month for public comment before they
start to build. Regarding the Collegetown Plan, she feels this might be
detrimental in the long run.
Nathan Lyman, 1322 East State Street, Ithaca, pointed out that this is a Type I
action and requires site-plan review. He submitted a document that further
states his thoughts on this subject.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Martell
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
b) Public Hearing: (TM)PUD Application – Cherry Street Arts Space
Alderperson Martell moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
No one from the public spoke on this topic.
Alderperson Martell moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) CIITAP – This will come back to this committee in May.
b) Backyard Chickens – This will come back to this committee in May.
c) Joint Committee Meeting on Chain Works – Lisa Nicholas stated there is no
meeting date set. There is still work to be done on the environmental review.
Mayor Myrick joined the group at 6:30 p.m.
5) Discussion
a) Incentive Zoning for Affordable Housing
Lynn Truame stated that a number of people responded to this. Everyone
agrees that this is flawed, but this is an attempt to do something. The intent is
there.
Alderperson Brock stated the time a developer has to spend to get his project
through is too long. We need to create a process that will accommodate
everyone involved. We can keep the integrity of the program and still move it
forward quicker. An affordable housing fee may be useful here in Ithaca. By
contributing a fee, developers will help to encourage affordable housing. Current
needs can be studied to determine the right fee to charge. It can be a
predictable fee. This will relieve some of the burden on City staff.
Nels Bohn stated he spoke with the City attorney, and he advised not to go that
route. A lot of legal research would need to done. It’s not clearly authorized in
State law.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see how other municipalities in the
New York State handle such a process as this.
Mayor Myrick stated that many young people want to live in the City areas not in
the suburbs.
A number of questions came up:
What happens to houses on the same block where one house adds an
apartment? Does it make those homes worth more or less?
Does it make sense to try to increase housing in the City? Do we consolidate
with another municipality?
Chair Murtagh stated that property taxes are also a big issue too.
Alderperson Brock pointed out that the biggest portion of property taxes are
school taxes.
The Committee agreed that they are interested in continuing review of the
incentive zoning. It was further decided that the City will meet with the Ithaca
Developer’s Roundtable as suggested by Nathan Lyman.
6) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Public Art Commission Mural
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the Water & Sewer
Workshop
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) was 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, Plan Ithaca, the City’s comprehensive plan, identifies public art as an
important cultural resource that contributes to quality of life and economic vitality and
calls for the City’s continued support of public art (see Cultural Resources), 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, including the Department of Public Works facilities on First Street, by
resolution on May 19, 2010
WHEREAS, Danielle Hodgins has submit her proposal for a mural titled “Beyond the
Dust” to be installed on the Route 13- facing façade of the Water & Sewer workshop
on First Street, 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 March 23, 2016 to gather input on the proposed installation, and all
of the responses to the proposal have been positive, and
WHEREAS, the mural will be funded through the Community Arts Partnership’s
Public Art Grant, and the installation will be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 23, 2016, the Public Art Commission voted to
recommend that the Common Council select Danielle Hodgins’s mural to be
installed on the Water & Sewer workshop; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Danielle Hodgins’s
mural “Beyond the Dust,” as recommended by the Public Art Commission, to be
installed on the Route 13-facing façade of the Water & Sewer workshop on First
Street 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.
b) (TM)PUD Application: Cherry Street Arts Space
Alderperson Martell moved the ordinance; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen.
Passed unanimously.
Alderperson Brock had several concerns one being noise. The footprint may be
small, but outdoor events may become much larger events; and become a
possible breach of the noise ordinance.
JoAnn Cornish stated she would hate to see the development of the waterfront
be deterred due to the possible noise.
c) Resolution to New York State Concerning Property Taxes on Resale Restricted
Homes
Resolution Urging New York State to Amend the Real Property Tax Law to
Allow Tompkins County the Option to Provide a Partial Exemption to
Residential Properties Subject to Resale Restrictions
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, there is a demonstrable and critical shortage of affordable housing
within the City of Ithaca and Tompkins County; and
WHEREAS, this Common Council has attempted to address that shortage
through a number of measures, including financial participation with Tompkins
County and Cornell University to create the Community Housing Development
Fund that provides subsidies for creation of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code allows for the
creation of nonprofit entities that have as one of their purposes the acquisition of
land to be held for the primary purpose of providing affordable homeownership
through the implementation of deed or ground lease restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the nonprofit agency is subject to an initial regulatory agreement
restricting purchase of these properties in accordance with an income test; and
WHEREAS, such programs are known generically as community land trusts, and
WHEREAS, with the support and encouragement of the members of the
Community Housing Development Fund, the community land trust model is being
utilized in Tompkins County as a means to develop affordable housing that
remains affordable throughout its existence by means of limitations on future re-
sale prices; and
WHEREAS, while the limitation on resale prices promotes long-term affordability,
New York State’s Real Property Tax Law does not allow consideration of such
limitations when determining the assessed valuation of property participating in a
community land trust, resulting in assessed values that can far exceed the
restricted re-sale value of the property and a property tax burden well in excess
of that borne by properties that have similar re-sale values in the marketplace;
and
WHEREAS, this adverse element of the Real Property Tax Law is deterring the
development and purchase of homes through the community land trust program
and is therefore exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing in Tompkins
County; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of City of Ithaca to address that deterrent to the
development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency recommends the Common
Council adopt a resolution supporting a change in Real Property Tax law so
owner-occupied, resale-restricted affordable residences incur a property tax bill
similar to residential properties with similar resale values in the City; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca urges the New York
State Legislature to amend the Real Property Tax Law by creating a new section
of law that would allow Tompkins County, by local law, to grant a partial
exemption equal to the difference between the full resale value absent any
restriction and the maximum resale value of said property established by said
ground lease to residential properties located on land owned by a nonprofit entity
and subject to a ground lease or deed restrictions which restrict the resale price
of the property for at least 30 years, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this resolution be delivered to appropriate elected officials and
the County Assessor.
d) 401 Lake Street: Consideration of NAC Recommendation
Consideration of Natural Areas Commission Recommendations Regarding 401
Lake Street - Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Alderperson; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the Natural Area
Commission’s (NAC) recommendations regarding the city-owned 401 Lake Street
property (tax parcel #12.-1-2), and
WHEREAS, the City is considering the following action:
1. Retain 401 Lake Street for public use and designate it for inclusion in the Ithaca
Falls Natural Area;
2. Fund demolition and removal of the vacant house at 401 Lake Street;
3. Direct staff to circulate a concept memo to rezone 401 Lake Street and tax parcel
#12.-1-1 from R-3b to P-1;
4. Authorize submission of a grant application to fund management plans, and
WHEREAS, items #1 and #2 above are Type I action under the City Environmental
Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) due to the site’s close proximity to Fall Creek
and the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, which requires environmental review, and
WHEREAS, items #3 and #4 above are Type II actions that require no further
environmental review at this time, and
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEQRO require that a Lead Agency be
established for conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance
with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that the Lead Agency shall be that local agency
which has primary responsibility for approving, funding or carrying out the action,
and
WHEREAS, no other agency has jurisdiction to fund, approve or undertake the
proposed action; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby declare itself
Lead Agency for the environmental review of the above listed action.
Consideration of Natural Areas Commission Recommendations Regarding 401
Lake Street – Environmental Determination
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council has reviewed the Natural Area
Commission’s (NAC) recommendations regarding the city-owned 401 Lake Street
property (tax parcel #12.-1-2), and
WHEREAS, the City is considering the following action:
1. Retain 401 Lake Street for public use and designate it for inclusion in the Ithaca
Falls Natural Area;
2. Fund demolition and removal of the vacant house at 401 Lake Street;
3. Direct staff to circulate a concept memo to rezone 401 Lake Street and tax parcel
#12.-1-1 from R-3b to P-1;
4. Authorize submission of a grant application to fund management plans, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for the
environmental review of this proposed action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is categorized as a Type I action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), which requires environmental
review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council, acting as Lead Agency for the
environmental review, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, Part 1, and Part 2, prepared by Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
staff; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council hereby determines that the
proposed action listed above generally regarding 401 Lake Street (tax parcel #12.-1-
2) will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative
Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed
in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
Consideration of the Natural Area Commission’s Recommendations regarding
401 Lake Street – Action
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca acquired property located at 401 Lake Street (tax
parcel #12.-1-2) and vacant tax parcel #12.-1-1 through tax foreclosure proceedings
in 2015, and
WHEREAS, the 401 Lake Street property contains a vacant, boarded-up 840 square
foot single family dwelling located immediately adjacent to Fall Creek, and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2015, the Common Council took action to:
retain ownership of the 401 Lake Street and tax parcel #12.-1-1;
direct staff to consider rezoning 401 Lake Street and tax parcel #12.-1-1 from R-3b
to a P-1 zoning district designation
designate tax parcel #12.-1-1 for inclusion in the Ithaca Falls Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2015, a decision whether to retain 401 Lake Street for public
use and designate it for inclusion in the Ithaca Falls Natural Area was postponed
pending review by the Natural Areas Commission (NAC), and
WHEREAS, the NAC recommends the following actions:
1. Retain 401 Lake Street for public use and designate it for inclusion in the Ithaca
Falls Natural Area;
2. Rezone 401 Lake Street and the adjacent tax parcel #12.-1-1 from R-3b to P-1;
3. Demolish and remove the vacant house at 401 Lake Street;
4. Undertake a management plan for the Ithaca Falls Natural Area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca, recommends that
land use decisions be made in accordance with the Future Land Use Map, which
designates both parcels in an Environmentally Sensitive land use category, and
WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca also includes a goal that “[g]orges throughout the city will be
protected to ensure their continuation as critical natural assets for current and future
use”, and
WHEREAS, the proposed P-1 zoning district allows public recreation and municipal
uses and facilities, but prohibits residential uses, and
WHEREAS, the City Administration will consider NAC recommendations requiring
funding, such as demolition of the structure at 401 Lake Street, and
WHEREAS, Under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), the
NAC recommendations are classified as follows:
Type I (due to proximity to Fall Creek) - Designation of city-owned parcels into the
Ithaca Falls Natural Area
Type I - Rezoning to P-1
Type I (due to proximity to Fall Creek) - Demolition of structure at 401 Lake Street
Type II - Development of management plans, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action under consideration by the PEDC is designation of
401 Lake Street and tax parcel #12.-1-2 into the Ithaca Falls Natural Area and
circulation of a concept memo to rezone the above properties, which are classified
under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO) as a Type I
action and an Exempt action, respectively, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action under consideration by the City Administration
Committee to fund demolition of the vacant structure at 401 Lake Street is a Type I
action, and
WHEREAS, environmental review has been completed for proposed actions; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee for the City
of Ithaca hereby directs staff to prepare and circulate a concept memo to rezone
property located at 401 Lake Street and the adjacent City-owned tax parcel #12.-1-1
from R-3b to P-1, and be it further,
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby designates the property located at
401 Lake Street for inclusion in the Ithaca Falls Natural Area, and be it further
Alderperson Brock amended the resolution to add a third Resolved, seconded by
Alderperson Martell. Passed Unanimously.
RESOLVED, the Planning and Economic Development Committee hereby directs
the staff to prepare and circulate a standby proposed resolution and environmental
review for an alternative action to sell 401 Lake Street for full market price in the
event that the resolution to retain to demolish the structure at 401 Lake Street fails to
be adopted.
e) Cell Tower Ordinance Changes
Adoption of Revisions to the City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, Article VA,
“Telecommunications Facilities and Services”, § 325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback
Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to Lower the Required Fall Zone to 120% of
the height of the tower.
The Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental Review
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
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 zoning amendment is an "Unlisted" Action pursuant to the
City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR), §176-4 which requires
review under CEQR; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself lead
agency for the environmental review for the adoption of revisions to City Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 325, Article VA, “Telecommunications Facilities and Services”,
§ 325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to Lower the
Required Fall Zone to 120% of the height of the tower.
Adoption of Revisions to the City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 325, Article VA,
“Telecommunications Facilities and Services”, § 325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback
Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to Lower the Required Fall Zone to 120% of
the height of the tower.
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is considering a proposal to revise the City Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 325, Article VA, “Telecommunications Facilities and Services”,
§ 325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to lower the
required fall zone to 120% of the height of the tower, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted" Action pursuant to the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, (CEQR), §176-4 which requires review under
CEQR, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca did, on April 13, 2016, declare
itself lead agency for this action, and
WHEREAS, upon direction from the Planning and Economic Development Committee
of Common Council, the proposed revision was circulated to various boards and
committees in a memo dated January 21, 2016, and
WHEREAS, the proposed revision 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
WHEREAS, the proposed revision has also been reviewed by the City of Ithaca
Conservation Advisory Council, and the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the proposed revision was held on February 10, 2016,
at the meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has
reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2, and 3, prepared by
Planning Staff and has determined that the adoption of the proposed zoning revision will
not have a significant effect on the environment; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby adopts as
its own, the finding and conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Assessment Form, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this matter, hereby
determines that the proposed action at issue; Adoption of Revisions to the City Zoning
Ordinance, Chapter 325, Article VA, “Telecommunications Facilities and Services”,
§325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to Lower the
Required Fall Zone to 120% of the height of the tower, 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.
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter 325, Article
VA, Entitled “Zoning,”, “Telecommunications Facilities and Services”, § 325-29.9,
Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three PWSF's, to Lower the
Required Fall Zone to 120% of the height of the tower.
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 325, Article VA, Section 325-29.9, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Article VA, Section 325-29.9 is hereby amended to
change the approval process for a Planned Unit Development Zone to allow the
Common Council to approve a PUD for a multi phased project based on the final site
plan approval of the first phase of the project and preliminary site plan approval of
subsequent phases of the project, and shall read as follows:
§ 325-29.9 Fall zone and setback requirements for Tier Three PWSF’s
Tier Three applications shall meet the following standards:
A. Fall zone.
(1) No habitable structure or outdoor area where people congregate shall be within
a fall zone of 120% of the height of the PWSF or its mount.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
f) Waterfowl Ordinance
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 164,
Entitled “Dogs and Other Animals” To Prohibit the Feeding of Waterfowl on
City Property
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City has been struggling with considerable human-wildlife conflict
resulting from a burgeoning geese population on habitable lands, and
WHEREAS, the conflict between people and waterfowl is particularly pronounced on
the City’s playing fields and parklands where people like to recreate, and
WHEREAS, feeding of waterfowl contributes to the concentration of such birds in
areas frequented by the public by encouraging birds to congregate for food, and
WHEREAS, feeding of waterfowl can be detrimental to their health as waterfowl can
suffer from nutritional disorders, such as calcium deficiencies and bone disease, as
a result of the poor quality of food like bread and corn that is typically fed to geese in
public settings, and
WHEREAS, feeding of waterfowl causes behavioral changes in the geese by
decreasing their fear of humans and encouraging to remain in locations where public
feeding is taking place, and
WHEREAS, the concentration of waterfowl can be destructive to lawns and can
interfere with the planned use of parklands, and the resultant quantities of feces can
create public health concerns and reduce the aesthetic and recreational value of
parks and other public property; now, therefore,
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that Chapter 164 of the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 164 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new
Article to be inserted as Article III, Waterfowl.
Section 2. Chapter 164, Article III is hereby created to read as follows:
Article III: Waterfowl
§164-21 Applicability.
This article shall apply to all areas of the City of Ithaca.
§164-22 Definitions.
As used in this article, the following words shall have the meanings
indicated:
WATERFOWL
Members of any and all species of wild and domestic aquatic birds,
including but not limited to ducks, geese, and swan.
§164-23 Feeding prohibited.
It shall be unlawful to provide feed, including, but not limited to, bread,
corn, and other grains, to any waterfowl on public property. It shall be
unlawful to provide feed, including, but not limited to, bread, corn, and
other grains, to any waterfowl on private property without the prior
approval of the owner of such property.
§164-24 Enforcement; appearance ticket.
All police officers in the City shall administer and enforce the provisions of
this article and for such purpose shall have the authority to issue
appearance tickets.
§164-25 Penalties for offenses.
Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this
article constitutes a civil offense punishable in accordance with §1-1 of the
City of Ithaca Municipal Code. These penalties shall be in addition to any
other penalties provided by law.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in
accordance with law upon publication of notices as provided in the Ithaca City
Charter.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) March 2016 – Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Martell.
Passed unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Nguyen; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.