HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PLED-2016-02-10Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, February 10, 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: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick (arrived at 6:15 p.m.)
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior
Planner; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner;
Addisu Gebre, City Bridge Engineer; Mike
Thorne, Superintendent of Public Works;
Debbie Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Delta Engineers
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no changes made to the agenda.
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Tom Schelley, 118 East Court Street, is a CAC member. Their group supports
Alternative 2 for the Brindley Street Project. He also stated again his support of the
backyard chicken pilot program. He also encouraged the City to allow those who
are already raising chickens in the City be allowed to keep doing so.
Alderperson Brock reported on a public meeting where the City will reveal results of
a traffic study on Spencer Road and surrounding streets that will take place on
Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at the Oasis Fellowship Church at 808
East Meadow Street Extension. The City’s Engineering Office will present a
number of sketches and ideas developed from findings of a public meeting a year
ago.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development for
the Waterfront
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
No one from the public spoke during the public hearing.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Kerslick
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
b) Public Hearing – Changes to Cell Tower Ordinance
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Martell
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
Chair Murtagh read into the record a letter submitted by David Lubin also
attached to these minutes.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Martell
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
c) Presentation – Brindley Street Bridge
Delta Engineers and the City Engineering Office presented the Brindley Street
Bridge project. The current bridge will be converted to a two-lane bridge with
sidewalks. The old bridge will remain for bicycles and walkers.
Two alternative approaches to the project were suggested in December 2015.
Alternative 1 uses the current route with a $2.43M price tag; Alternative 2
plans to extend Taughannock Boulevard and by pass Brindley Street entirely
and carries a price tag of $2.59M. This Alternative would require a longer
bridge with structured support and improvements to the intersection.
Alternative 2 will be carried forward for site-plan review. The environmental
review will be completed at the end of summer 2016. Construction will take
place in 2018.
Alderperson Kerslick recalled an Alternative III which is not being considered
this go round. The two alternatives are the two shortest in span of completion.
Alderperson Brock stated that Alternative 1 is $2.4M and Alternative 2 is
$2.6M. She asked whether any utilities, etc. will be replaced during this
project. Alternative 2 is highway-like which is not a favorite of many people.
The fear is this may be used as a buy pass to get around Buffalo St.
There is a change in funding source since the last time the project was
reviewed. 80% federal, some state money not yet determined, and some
from the City.
The current Brindley bridge will be changed to just a pedestrian bridge.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
CIITAP will be coming back to this committee next month.
Inclusionary zoning will also be brought forward next month.
There are a few vacancies on the Natural Areas Commission.
A community meeting for the Western MLK project will be coming soon as well
as a community meeting for the pedestrian walk way.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds – South Hill
Civic Association Website
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
Failed 5-0.
This is no longer a ‘funded’ program as in the past. The program is funded now
from the Planning and Development Department’s budget.
This request is not a typical funding request since in the past , funding was
provided for community events, etc., not hiring a consultant to design website.
Alderperson Brock stated that websites take a time commitment to keep up -to-
date and maintained. When neighborhoods change over time, this may not
remain active.
It was suggested that a social media page would provide exactly what a website
can without the cost involved.
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for the South Hill
Civic Association Website
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to
improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are
not limited to neighborhood clean ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood
events like neighborhood block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the Common Council has delegated authority to approve
applications to the Planning & Economic Development Committee, and
WHEREAS, each neighborhood group is eligible to receive up to $300 per year as a reimbursement
award payable on the submission of original receipts or invoices for approved activities,
and
WHEREAS, the City cannot reimburse residents for sales tax expenses, and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the South Hill Civic Association (SHCA), John Graves has submitted an
application for reimbursement funds to offset $300.00 in expenses from the creation of
the SHCA’s website, and
WHEREAS, the creation of the SHCA website will further the group’s efforts to communicate with
diverse groups of residents and encourage their involvement in neighborhood activities;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request
from John Graves in the amount of $300.00 for reimbursement upon presentation of
original invoices and/or receipts.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
b) Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development for the Waterfront
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Create a Temporary Mandatory
Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone in the Waterfront Study
Area – Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
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 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 proposal to Create a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit
Development (TMPUD) Zone in the Waterfront Study Area.
Draft Resolution
1/28/16
An Ordinance to Amend the Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Create a Temporary Mandatory
Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) Zone in the Waterfront Study
Area – Declaration of Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick.
Passed unanimously.
1. WHEREAS, The Common Council is considering a proposal to
create a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development
(TMPUD) Zone in the Waterfront Study Area, and
2. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Full
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated January 26,
2016, and
3. WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “Unlisted” Action under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
4. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting
as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning
staff; now, therefore, be it
1. 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 Full Environmental
Assessment Form, dated January 26, 2016, and be it further
2. 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
3. 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.
ORDINANCE NO.
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed
Unanimously.
Any project first comes to the Planning Committee for approval of the concept.
Then the Planning Board will handle the site-plan view process with Common
Council having the final say.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca
that the City does hereby establish a Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit
Development (TMPUD) District for the Waterfront Study Area as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code is hereby amended to
add the following section:
§ 325-13. Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development (TMPUD) District
7) Declaration of Legislative Authority. This Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Ordinance is being enacted pursuant to the authority established in the
New York State General City Law § 81-f.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
8) Purpose and Intent.A Temporary Mandatory Planned Unit Development
District (TMPUD) is hereby established, for a period up to 18 months from
the effective date of this ordinance, it being the intent of the Common Council
that during that time the City will adopt land use regulations to implement a
waterfront plan, the adoption of which regulations shall repeal this ordinance,
or shall amend this ordinance to render the TMPUD non-mandatory.
The purpose of this TMPUD is to provide the Common Council with transitional
oversight for potential development projects in order to ensure that development
in the waterfront study area supports the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
which may differ from the pre-existing zoning in this area. This is intended to
allow the Common Council a reasonable period of time in which to establish a plan
for the waterfront study area and to adopt compatible zoning standards.
Under this ordinance, the Common Council intends to employ the recommendations
established in the Comprehensive Plan when determining whether to approve a
proposed development in the waterfront study area. The TMPUD will mandatorily
apply to proposals for new construction or for development proposals that will
change an existing building footprint by more than 50%, but shall not apply to any
other construction or development, which shall remain subject to otherwise-applicable
zoning ordinance.
9) Background.
1. In September of 2015, the Common Council adopted Plan Ithaca, as
Phase I of the City of Ithaca’s Comprehensive Plan. This plan identifies
the desired future land uses in the City, as well as areas where
development is anticipated and encouraged, identifying community
goals and recommendations for achieving these goals.
2. On August 17, 2015, the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan Committee
submitted a written recommendation to the City that included
developing a plan for the waterfront as a priority for the next phase of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
3. In November of 2015, the Planning and Economic Development
Committee of the Common Council directed Planning Staff to begin
working on a waterfront development plan as a part of the next phase
for the Comprehensive Plan. The existing developable land along the
City’s waterfront is currently zoned WF-1, WF-2, SW -2, P-1, and I-1.
The City Comprehensive Plan identifies the goals for the Waterfront Mixed Use
area as the creation of a mixed use district, including commercial, and housing,
with an emphasis on uses that create an active waterfront environment.
The City Comprehensive Plan further notes that “new development should protect
view sheds and allow public access to the waterfront. Pedestrian and bicycle
connections should be improved, particularly to adjacent mixed use areas.
Developable space in the waterfront area is at a premium and reducing the impacts of
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
parking in new development should be carefully considered.”
The City Comprehensive Plan also identifies the adjacent areas that are
currently zoned industrial as having potential for additional development and
employment opportunities. The waterfront study is intended to guide the City’s
decisions as to where and what type of development is appropriate, which will be
determined by the Waterfront Development Plan currently being undertaken.
4. In 2014, the City adopted a floating PUD that could be used in any I-1 Zoning
District. A PUD allows for flexibility in planning and design, while through the
process of review and discussion, ensures efficient investment in
development that, among others, forwards a City’s comprehensive plan.
Because the zoning in this area is in transition, the temporary mandatory
PUD will enable development to continue during the crafting of new land use
regulations, subject to Common Council’s oversight.
10) Effective Period
This TMPUD shall be in effect, within the boundaries described in Subsection E,
herein, for a period of eighteen (18) months from the effective date of this
ordinance, as described in Section 4, herein.
11) Affected Properties and Boundaries of the TMPUD
1. All new construction and any construction that enlarges the footprint or
total floor space of an existing building by 50% or more will be subject to
the TMPUD under this ordinance, and—absent compliance with the
TMPUD—shall not be entitled to proceed in reliance on pre-existing land
use regulations, which absent the TMPUD might or would have enabled
their construction. Any changes to existing structures that do not enlarge
the footprint or total floor space of an existing building by 50% are not
subject to the TMPUD and remain subject to the pre-existing underlying
zoning.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
2. The TMPUD shall be located in the waterfront study area, whose
boundaries can be seen on the map entitled Proposed Waterfront Study
Area-dated 12/9/2015.
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
12) Permitted Principal and Accessory Uses.
In the TMPUD, buildings and land may be for uses which the Common Council
may pursuant to TMPUD application authorize, including Council’s consideration and
potential authorization of development restrictions such as yard size, height
restriction, building coverage, and lot size,. In addition, the Common Council may
impose any conditions or limitations that are determined to be necessary or
desirable to ensure that the development conforms with the City Comprehensive
Plan, including limiting the permitted uses, location and size of buildings and
structures, providing for open space and recreational areas, requiring acoustical or
visual screening, construction sequencing, and requiring bonds or other
assurances of completion of any infrastructure to be built as part of the
development.
13) Site Plan Approval.
No structure shall be erected or placed within the TMPUD, no building permit
shall be issued for a building or structure within the TMPUD, and no existing building,
structure, or use in the TMPUD shall be changed, unless the proposed building
and/or use is in accordance with a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 276 of the City of Ithaca Code.
14) Criteria.
Common Council will consider an application for any development within the
TMPUD on the following criteria, among others:
1. Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan, which
specifically lists the following:
i. Promoting mixed use development, including commercial
and housing
ii. Emphasizing waterfront activities
iii. Reducing impacts of parking
iv. Providing for additional employment opportunities
v. Promoting public access to the waterfront
vi. Enhancing and preserving any environmentally sensitive
areas
15) Application Process.
Any applicant seeking approval of a TMPUD, will be subject to the application
process established in Subsection 12(G) of this Chapter, without regard therein to
any references to underlying zoning or alternate processes.
16) Additional Requirements.
For any new construction in the TMPUD, the Common Council may impose
such conditions or limitations that the Council, in its legislative discretion, may
Approved at the
March 9, 2016 PEDC Meeting
determine to be necessary or desirable to ensure that the
development conforms with the City Comprehensive Plan, including limiting the
permitted uses, location and size of buildings and structures, providing for open space
and recreational areas, and requiring bonds or other assurances of completion of any
infrastructure to be built as part of the development.
17) Expiration.
A developer who receives PUD approval will have 24 months to begin construction of
their project. If construction on the property has not been developed in accordance with
the approved plan after 24 months, the PUD will automatically be revoked, unless
otherwise stated by the Common Council. In the case of extenuating circumstances the
developer may apply to the Common Council for an extension of PUD approval. If the
site plan changes significantly, said significance as determined by the Director of
Planning and Development, it may require re-consideration by the Common Council. The
Director of Planning and Development may determine that the changes are minor and do
not require re-approval.
18) Exemptions.
Construction, alterations or demolition authorized by building permits which were issued on
or before the effective date of this Section shall be exempt from the provisions of this
TMPUD.
Section 2.
Supersession.
This Section 325-13 is intended to supersede any provision of the City Code insofar as
said provision is inconsistent with Subsection 325-13(E)(1) herein.
Section 3.
Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Section 325-13 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 immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notice as provided in the Ithaca City Charter, and shall expire 18 months after the effective
date, except as to any application for any development within the TMPUD that is filed under
this ordinance prior to its expiration and not thereafter withdrawn by the applicant.
The Mayor left the meeting at 7:05 before this vote.
c) Street Level Active Uses
Chair Murtagh read into record the comments made by the Downtown Ithaca
Alliance which is also attached to these minutes.
JoAnn Cornish stated that the Commons and Collegetown should be handled in the
same way.
It was the consensus of the group to give examples that are considered a non-active
use such as residential use.
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen.
Passed Unanimously.
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Create a Requirement for Street
Level Active Uses on the Primary Commons
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 325-8D.(“Zoning
Regulations-Additional Restriction in the CBD Districts”) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to add a new
subsection 325-8D(3), that will establish a requirement for active
street level uses for any establishment that opens on to the
Primary Commons. Section 325-8D(3), shall read as follows:
325-8 D.
(3) All properties located in the CBD district that
contain a storefront that fronts on the Primary
Commons, must contain an active use on the street
level, for that portion of the building that fronts
onto the Primary Commons. Active uses are defined
as uses that encourage high levels of pedestrian
activity and enliven the streetscape, and create
well-lit spaces with ample visibility into the
storefront area. Active uses include, but are not
limited to the following:
Retail Store or Service Commercial Facility
Restaurant, Fast Food Establishment, or Tavern
Theater, Bowling Alley, Auditorium, or Other
Similar Public Place of Assembly
Hotel
Bank or Monetary Institution
Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking and
other activities involving light hand
fabrication as well as sales.
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 not easily adaptable to be used as
one of the above listed active uses.
Section 3. The City Planning and Development Board, the City Clerk,
and the Planning and Economic Development Division shall amend the
District Regulations Chart to add street level active uses as a
requirement under the permitted primary uses, in accordance with
the amendments made by this ordinance.
Section 4. 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 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices
as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
6) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Backyard Chickens – Pilot Program
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
Roosters prohibited
Slaughtering of chickens 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
Applicants must complete a seminar regarding the care of backyard chickens from the
Cornell Cooperative Extension Office
A building permit must be obtained prior to constructing a chicken coop or enclosure
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:
Permit Process:
There is a one-time $70 permit application fee, paid at the time that the permit is issued to the
Building Department.
It is recommended to work with Cornell Cooperative Extension Office staff and the Building
Department to make sure ones’ property meets the minimum requirements. Owners are also
required to submit plans for their coop and enclosure construction.
Alderperson Martell requested that Guinea Hens be added as not prohibited. Those that
are already raising chickens would be able to be the first to apply for the permits.
Alderperson Brock stated that nuisance complaints are difficult to enforce because the
homeowner has the right not to allow access. Once a resident applies for a permit, it will
allow building inspectors to investigate any of these complaints.
Moved by Alderperson Martell; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed
unanimously to circulate.
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 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 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
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/manuals/prclas.htm#
residential.
Commented [JM4]: What is the right lot size or a fair size
within the City? This seems high.
Commented [AL5R4]: 5000 sq ft. is like a 50x100' lot, to state
the obvious. Certainly not huge, but also likely larger than many
lots in the City.
Commented [AL6]: This means it must be their primary
residence…
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. Chickens may not be butchered, slaughtered, or otherwise killed, for any reason or any
purpose, on any real property on which chickens are kept pursuant to this Article.
J. 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.
K. 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.
L. Roosters are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of the bird.
M. Pilot application approval pursuant to Section 164-24 is required for the keeping of chickens.
N. Approved pilot applicants 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 Planning Department.
164-24: Pilot Application Process and Parameters.
A. No more than twenty pilot applications for the keeping of chickens shall be approved under
this Article III.
B. Applications shall be made to, and approved or rejected by, the City of Ithaca Planning
Department upon submission of a $70 application fee, an application, site survey, verification
of a completed chicken keeping seminar and preliminary plans for a covered coop.
C. If electricity is provided to the coop, a separate electrical permit will be required.
D. A Planning Department representative will perform a site visit, review the application and
interview the applicant prior to Planning Department approval.
E. The Planning Department may revoke application approval for a specific si te via written
notice to the property owner when the Director of Planning or designee finds, at his or her
sole discretion, that any requirements of this Article are not met. Upon revocation, the owner
must remove the hens from the property in coordination with the Cornell Cooperative
Extension Office who will assist with rehoming them.
F. The Planning 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.
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 Director of Planning and Development or his/her designee shall
notify 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 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 Director of Planning and Development or
designee 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
Director of Planning and Development or designee within fourteen days of the service or mailing
of notice, and any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement
concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public
Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to
either the City or the property owner.
D. Upon the failure of a 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
Director of Planning and Development or designee 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.
b) Proposed Small Revisions to PUD Ordinance
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen.
Passed Unanimously.
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in
Order to Amend the Approval Process for the Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-____
The way the PUD process is written now, the developer would
come back to the Planning Board throughout the different phases of
the project. The proposed changes include allowing Common Council
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.
Alderperson Brock moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson
Nguyen. Passed unanimously. Since this a minor change, an
environmental review is not necessary.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City
of Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12G.(12) be
amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Article IV, section 325-
12G.(12) 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:
§325-12. G.(12)
“Common Council consideration of the PUD. When and if
the Planning Board has completed its environmental
review of the project to the extent required under
SEQRA and CEQRO and has issued a contingent site plan
approval or in the case of a multi-phase project has
issued a preliminary contingent site plan approval of
multiple phases along with a final contingent site
plan approval of at least one phase, the project will
return to the Common Council for final consideration
of the adoption of the PUD, which in Council’s
discretion may be authorized for one or all phases of
a multi-phase project. Final Council approval, if
any, shall be granted via ordinance.”
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.
7) Discussion
a) Changes to Cell Tower Ordinance
Alderperson Kerslick agrees with Phyllis Radke’s and Lisa Nicholas’ comments
that this cell tower be replaced with a new less intrusive tower.
The group agreed to research on how to move forward with this. It will be brought
back to this committee in April.
b) Cayuga Watershed Restoration and Protection Plan
Alderperson Brock is asking the committee and municipalities for their input on this
project. Her hope is to get all the input back by March 15th to consolidate into one
report to be submitted.
8) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January 2016
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Passed
unanimously.
9) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Brock. All agreed to
adjourn at 8:15 p.m.
February 5, 2016
TO: Seph Murtagh, Joann Cornish, Jennifer Kusznir, Phyllisa DeSarno
FROM: Gary Ferguson
RE: STREET –LEVEL ACTIVE USE PROPOSAL FOR THE PRIMARY COMMONS: SUGGESTIONS
AND FEEDBACK FROM THE BUSINESS RETENTION & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The city of Ithaca’s proposal to require street-level active uses on the primary Commons was addressed at a recent
meeting of the Business Retention & Development Committee of the Downtown Ithaca Allia nce (DIA). This standing
committee of the DIA consists of downtown landlords, developers, and businesses, along with a representative from the
City.
This DIA Committee offered the following observations and suggestions to the City’s Planning and Economic
Development Committee:
(1) The Committee argued that the proposal was too broad in scope and would not successfully address the
concerns about preserving active street-level use.
(2) The retail landscape is changing nationally, regionally, and locally. This proposal does not reflect or
adequately consider these changes to the retail marketplace that landlords must navigate as they seek
to fill vacancies.
(3) Further restricting use was deemed problematic. The proposal has too many contradictions, among
them:
a. Bars— They now open at 5:00 pm; They generally closed all day. They qualify as active use but
are detriments to active use during peak shopping hours.
b. Churches- They are allowed in the proposal, but again are only open 1-2 days a week for very
limited times. Otherwise, they are detriments to active use.
c. The current IC art gallery is an example of a qualifying use that is only open 1-2 days/month and
otherwise is a detriment to active street-level use.
d. What constitutes active use? How many people need to go in and out a doorway? Some stores
may only get 1 customer a day.
e. A leasing office/mgt. office for a housing project would have much more traffic but is not
permitted.
The Committee worried that there were so many inconsistencies that the proposal would not be
effective and would only create hardship and confusion for property owners and the City.
(4) The Committee suggested that office tenants will tend to self-select to other upper level or off-
Commons spaces, due to cost and other practical concerns.
(5) The Committee worried that the Planning Board is best constituted to deal with design and site planning
issues, not economic and business issues raised by this proposal. Any question about eligibility or any
request for variance is to be adjudicated by the Planning Board.
(6) The Committee further worried that leasing decisions cannot be stretched over extended periods of
time and often need to be made quickly. By referring requests to the Planning Board, this will put
Commons property owners at a competitive disadvantage in negotiating with and leasing to prospective
tenants.
(7) The Committee also wanted to understand the underlying need for the ordinance. The principal reasons
for the proposal relate to preserving ground floor space for active uses that are compatible with retail
pedestrian traffic. In particular the proposal would help by
a. Prohibiting residential on ground floor.
b. Prohibit window shades that block seeing in or seeing out.
c. Promote night time lights from storefronts that would illuminate the pedestrian way
(8) Suggestions from the Committee:
a. The market should accomplish the desired result without regulation.
b. If revisions are desired, they should directly address the reasons listed in (5).
- Mandate that residential use on the ground floor is prohibited;
- Mandate that businesses cannot have window shades that block seeing in and seeing out.
- Fix broken street light around the Commons that are already deterring pedestrian traffic,
particularly the broken lights on the 100 South Cayuga Street block.
- Ask business tenants to voluntarily leave lights on overnight to create more light for the
streetscape. Recognize that leaving lights on overnight is a cost borne by the tenant and not
the building owner or the City.
Cc: Chris Hyde, Business Retention & Development Committee Chair
February 3, 2016
JoAnn Cornish
Dir. Of Planning and Development
City of Ithaca
Ms. Cornish,
Please consider this a letter of support for revising the City Zoning Ordinance Article VA, Telecommunication
Facilities to lower the required fall zone.
I believe that restricting development around a cell tower limits the property development rights of the
owners and decreases their property value as well as the City’s tax revenues.
I believe that cell towers are a reality of today’s world. I may agree that they do not improve the landscape,
but they do offer public services and are depended on by the public at large.
I believe that the size of these towers will be reduced in the future as innovation continues to increase the
range while minimizing the size of these towers. In the near future I believe that cellular towers will be
hidden in flag poles and street lights and will not be as noticeable as they are today.
I support the revision of the required fall zone to 120% of its height.
David Lubin
Managing Member
Unchained Properties, LLC