HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-18 Planning and Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: April 11, 2018
TIME: 6:00 pm
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
3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
4) Discussion
a) Chainworks Planned Unit Development – Permitted Uses
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund – West Hill
b) Green Building Policy Report
c) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing
Requirement
6) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) Planning Board – Special Permits
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) March 2018
8) Adjournment
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of
Planning and Jennifer Kusznir,
Senior Planner
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability
Coordinator
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
JoAnn Cornish, Planning Director
6:00
6:05
6:20
6:25
7:00
7:10
7:40
8:10
8:25
8:30
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, April 10, 2018.
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning & Development
Date: April 6, 2018
RE: Chain Works District Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Review Process and Steps
Please find attached one new comment received since March 6, 2018 as well as the March 14, 2018 Public
Hearing comments on the draft legislation and design guidelines for the proposed Chainworks District
PUD.
As you are aware, the Planning Committee will be reviewing and revising the proposed Chainworks District
PUD over the next several months. It will be important to work on the proposed PUD in an organized
manner, providing ample time to give all sections thoughtful consideration.
To that end, staff is proposing to focus on one section (or subsection) and its associated comments at each
meeting. We would like to concentrate on the permitted use table at the April 11th PEDC and area
requirements (height, lot coverage, setbacks, buffers, etc) at the May 9th meeting.
Please contact me if you have questions of would like additional information. lnicholas@cityofithaca.org
607-274-6557.
Attachments:
New comments on the Chain Works District PUD and Design Guidelines
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
4/3/2018 r equest a restrictive declaration be placed on developm ent for Chain Works proper ty in City and Town
https://m ail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABmuq%2fS3BPFT5pLl%2fuHF0ZDBwBPJEJUk%2b1HRKUVyKboeHtkAAAAjkYyAABPJE…1/1
request a restrictive declaration be placed on development for Chain Works
property in City and Town
Cynthia Brock
Sent:M onday, April 02, 2018 5:13 PM
To:Li sa Ni cholas
Cc:JoAnn Cornish; Goodman, Bi ll [bgoodman@town.ithaca.ny .us] ; tdh12344 [tdh12344@hotmai l.com] ; D ePaolo, Rich
[RDePaolo@town.ithaca.ny .us] ; Nels Bohn; George McGonigal; Joseph Murtagh; Laura Lewi s; Donna Fleming; Stephen Smith
Attachments:2016.05.23 Chai n Works dGE~1.pdf (407 KB )
Hello Lisa and Town Representatives,
Wi th the DEC's issuance of their March 2018 Fact Sheet
http://www.dec.ny.gov/data/der/factsheet/755010rir.pdf outl ining recent investigati on resul ts for Morse
Industrial Corp/Emerson/Chain Works, I want to reiterate my request sent to the Planning Board in 2016
asking that both the City and Town institute a restri ctive declaration on the property prior to any change in
zoning, from industrial to commercial/residential.
Given the extensive contaminati on which continues to exi st on the site, I feel it is essential that protective
restrictions be placed on the property requiring that hazardous conditions be addressed before
contaminated areas are able to be developed.
I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this further, to explore the process by which a restrictive
declaration could be implemented for this site, and seek to ensure that the language is consistent for both
the City and the Town.
Many thanks,
Cynthia
Cynthia Brock
First Ward Alderperson
607 3980883 (text friendly)
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Special Joint Committee for Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment Plant Board Chair
Workf orce Diversity Advisory Committee Liaison
Tompkins County Water Resources Council
1 | P a g e
To: Lisa Nicholas
From: Cynthia Brock
Date: May 2016
3 page3
Please find below my comments on Public Impact on Health and the Environment and Related
Mitigation as outlined in the March 8, 2016 Chain Works dGEIS. I am sending this by email to Ms.
Nicholas, Ms. Karen Cahill and text online at https://chainworksdistrict.com/geis/.
Comment on proposed PUD and PDZ rezoning with regard to addressing extensive contamination on
site and protecting human health.
Without the Chain Works District Development, the Morse Chain/Emerson property is unlikely to see
environmental clean-up of the “multiple areas of concern where contaminants exist, exceeding their
cleanup standard for groundwater, soil and / or sediment, including barium, other heavy metals,
cyanide, petroleum, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). If not addressed, these contaminants can have impacts to public
health and the environment.” (ES-5)
In order to support the Chain Works District Development plan, while also providing both the City and
Town with the ability to ensure that all applicable environmental cleanup standards have been met
before legal changes in land use through a PDZ or PUD are granted, the City and Town should establish a
Restrictive Declaration on the property, such as is used in NY City and elsewhere, to ensure protection
public health before zoning changes are granted.
Please see the following citations for reference and context:
Use of Restrictive Declarations 1
As a condition of certain special permits and some zoning changes, the Commission may
require applicants to sign and record a restrictive declaration that places conditions on the
future use and development of their land. These conditions may be designated to control
building design or land use or to require that impacts caused by the development be
mitigated by the provision of a public space or facility.
The restrictive declaration can be useful as a way of "fine tuning" the use or bulk controls
of the standard district regulation where there are features of a site or proposed project
that appear to require specialized conditions or restrictions. It can also be useful as a way
of ensuring that such conditions and restrictions remain binding on the land even if the
proposed project presented in an application does not move forward to completion and
different development takes place.
1 http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/zoning/zonch10.html
2 | P a g e
The restrictive declaration is a covenant running with the land which binds the present
owners and all successors. It, therefore, gives notice to future owners of the conditions
and restrictions that are continuously binding on the land.
A Restrictive Declaration on the property will be protective of human health by allowing the property to
be developed in phases, enables site-specific requirements be established and met regarding known
Areas of Environmental Concern, retains municipal control over zoning changes that may take decades
to implement, and runs with the property so as to apply to any and all future property owners.
NYC Code § Section 43-1416: Definitions2
n. "Restrictive declaration hazardous material site" means a property with an
institutional control, arising from a city environmental quality review and recorded by the
property owner, which requires a potential hazardous material condition to be addressed
to the office's satisfaction before the property can be developed or an action involving
soil disturbance can be undertaken.
o. "Recognized environmental condition" means the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances into structures
on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. The
term includes hazardous substances even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term
does not include de minimus conditions that generally do not present material risk of harm to
public health or the environment.
Remediating Contaminated Sites in New York Under the E-Designation
Program 3
40 The E- Designation rules apply where one or more tax lots are in an area that is subject to a
zoning amendment and are not under the control or ownership of the person seeking the zoning
amendment and have been identified as likely to be developed as a direct consequence of the
rezoning action. 15 RCNY §24-02. Therefore, for those lots under the control or ownership of the
person seeking the zoning amendment DEP requires a Restrictive Declaration to ensure that
required sampling and remediation occur prior to issuance of any DOB permit and that
development otherwise proceeds in a manner that is protective of human health and the
environment. The Restrictive Declaration is recorded in the land records and is binding on all
future owners or lessees or assigns. Thus, the Restrictive Declaration can be an effective tool for
ensuring that the site use remains unchanged and that no alterations occur to the site without DEP
approval to ensure potential impacts from hazardous materials has been properly addressed.
2 https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/content/section -43-1416-definitions
3
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjavpnQuOvMAhUDbB4KH
WmnBwcQFggyMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environmental-law.net%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FNYCDEP-E-
Designation.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHh0VVO4l_ZuiCDSSEDo4MwkcLOJg&sig2=p2IX5Ms_0Cn6AIhylpQDeA&cad=rja
3 | P a g e
Although the below flowchart outlining the Australian rezoning guidelines is different from the
Restrictive Declaration program used by NYC, it is nonetheless informative in demonstrating how
needed pauses and checks are required before zoning decisions are made. Taken from Managing Land
Contamination Planning Guidelines, New South Wales Dept. of Urban Affairs and Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. P234
4
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwj
uyLWxiezMAhXD7R4KHfpTCl0QFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.planningportal.nsw.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefa
ult%2Ffiles%2Fmanaging_land_contamination_planning_guidelines_sepp_55.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHQihCywQUfSAaC
mHpnhHrdbK6ZZQ&sig2=vQFPJymhs-53-ybYdVOpaA
Public Hearing-Chainworks
3/14/18
John Graves-energy requirements, should be in compliance with Ithaca City Green Building Policy and go
beyond to be a zero energy development. Stormwater runoff should be incompliant with NYS DEC
stormwater. Should require rainwater to be stored on site. Should require a TCAT route on site.
Encourage housing for students not just market rate housing. Students should be part of the new
neighborhood demographic. Mixed income housing should be required. PUD zoning code should
encourage below market rate tenants and seniors and tenants with disabilities.
Teresa Alt-Affordable Housing Requirements-PUD zoning should be inclusionary zoning. 40% of rents
should be at or below market rent
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: April 5, 2018
RE: NIIF: IthacaWest Postcard Notification
Attached is an application for the Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund (NIIF) from Regi Teasley
and Pat Dutt, on behalf of IthacaWest, a community group on West Hill. IthacaWest is applying for NIIF
funding to create and distribute postcards to West Hill residents that provide information about the
group’s website and listserv. Their intent is to create a virtual connection to foster community cooperation
and fuel a spirit of camaraderie.
The intent of the NIIF is to supplement community efforts to strengthen Ithaca’s neighborhoods. In past
years, the fund has supported a wide range of projects, including neighborhood cleanups, plantings in
public spaces, neighborhood events (such as block parties and area-wide reuse events), and neighborhood
meetings. Funded projects or events must benefit the general neighborhood and should encourage
volunteerism and neighborhood solidarity.
Additional information about the NIIF and IthacaWest’s application are attached for your review. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 274-6550 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
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
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Planning & Economic Development Committee
April 11, 2018
RESOLUTION: Request for Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Funds for IthacaWest, April
2018
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council established the Neighborhood Improvement
Incentive Fund in 1995 to provide financial assistance to city residents seeking to
improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the fund is intended to support residents' interest in community improvement and to
encourage, not replace volunteerism, and
WHEREAS, the funds are intended to be used for projects or events that provide a general
neighborhood benefit and not for the limited benefit of individuals or a select few
residents, and
WHEREAS, activities specified by the Common Council as eligible for the funding include but are not
limited to neighborhood clean-ups, plantings in public places, and neighborhood events
like block parties or meetings, and
WHEREAS, neighborhood groups are required to submit a completed application specifying other
project donations, estimated volunteer hours, estimated costs to be covered by the fund
and signatures of residents in the immediate neighborhood, and
WHEREAS, to streamline the process the 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 IthacaWest, Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt have submitted an application for up
to $300 in reimbursement funds to off-set expenses related to the creation and
distribution of postcards to promote the group’s website and listserve, and
WHEREAS, the postcards will be distributed to 944 households in the City and Town of Ithaca; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee approves the funding request
from Regi Teasley and Pat Dutt in the amount of $300 for reimbursement upon
presentation of original invoices and/or receipts.
j:\planning\projects\neighborhood planning (includes niif applications)\neighborhood improvement incentive fund (niif)\application form\niif application.doc
CITY OF ITHACA
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT INCENTIVE FUND
The Neighborhood Improvement Incentive Fund has been established by the City of Ithaca to encourage
those who are concerned about the physical and social quality of our neighborhoods to think creatively
and practically about improvement projects. The fund was created to support a wide range of projects,
including but not limited to neighborhood cleanups, plantings in public spaces, neighborhood events
such as area-wide reuse events or block parties, and neighborhood meetings. The fund is not meant to
substitute for neighborhood fund raising or capital improvements to neighborhoods; instead, it is
intended to hasten completion of small projects and to stimulate, or “seed,” larger projects.
Requests for payment for event organizers or for hours spent making physical improvements are not
eligible under this program ― the aim is to encourage, not to replace, volunteerism. Funds will be
distributed in increments not to exceed $300 per year to any one group. Preference will be given to
neighborhoods not recently granted money from the fund. Political or partisan activities (e.g., a meet-
the-candidates night) will not be eligible unless all the candidates for the office are invited. Applications
will be reviewed by the Planning & Economic Development Committee of Common Council, which is
authorized to approve expenditures for projects that fall within the guidelines. The Committee meets on
the third Wednesday of each month. Applications should be submitted ten days in advance of the
meeting to Megan Wilson, Planner, Department of Planning & Development, City Hall, 108 East Green
Street, Ithaca, NY 14850. Please submit printed materials (flyers, newsletters, etc.) related to the
application when they are available, either with the application or upon later completion. For additional
information contact Megan Wilson, 274-6550.
The Neighborhood Incentive Fund award is a reimbursement grant. At the completion of an
event or project, applicants must submit a City voucher with original receipts attached, to the
Department of Planning & Development. Regretfully, the City can not reimburse the expense of
sales tax. If you need assistance with the reimbursement process, you may contact Megan Wilson
or Debbie Grunder at 274-6550 in the Department of Planning & Development.
Requirements:
1. The application requires a brief description of the proposed project, a project budget, including a
verifiable estimate of the cost of items for which the request is being made, and signatures of
neighborhood residents. For requests under $100, five signatures are required; for requests over
$100, twenty signatures are required.
2. The project must benefit the general neighborhood, not a select few residents. One competitive
basis for evaluating requests will be the number of residents who benefit from the project.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DESARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: planning@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
To:
Planning
and
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Date: April 6, 2018
RE: Green Building Policy Report Final Draft
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information for the upcoming Green Building
Policy discussion at the April 11, 2018 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting.
In 2016, the City of Ithaca was awarded a $100,000+ grant to study green building policies. In 2017
the City began working on the Green Building Policy project with a consultant team led by Stream
Collaborative and sub consultants Taitem Engineering and Randall + West Planners. The main
deliverable of this project is the Green Building Policy Report, which provides policy
recommendations for energy efficiency requirements and related incentives to substantially reduce
carbon emissions in all new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting affordability.
A steering committee made up of City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca elected officials and senior
staff members has guided the project since the grant was awarded. An advisory committee made
up of 13 community stakeholders met five times to provide feedback. In addition, extensive
outreach has been done to reach various stakeholder groups and municipal boards.
Feedback received after the completion of the first draft Green Building Policy report informed the
second draft report. The second draft was circulated for comments and the project team held a
public outreach meeting in late March, as well as dedicated outreach sessions with Cornell and
Ithaca College. Through this review process we received over 200 comments from several local
organizations and community members. Many comments expressed general support, others stated
that the policy recommendations are not strong enough to meet the city’s climate goals. Comments
from large institutions expressed concern with elements of the proposed policy and their ability to
comply with the requirements. All comments, along with responses from the project team, are
attached for your review. We propose several changes to be incorporated into the final report.
We hope to have a resolution considered at the May 02, 2018 Common Council meeting for
adopting the final report and directing staff to begin developing code language for a green
building policy. We recognize that there is much more work to be done before the City can
earnestly consider actual code changes. We anticipate that the next phase of this project would use
the GBP report as a starting point, and through additional research (possibly in conjunction with a
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
technical consultant) and stakeholder outreach, provide a level of detail sufficient to develop code
language. We have already started thinking about external funding resources for this work.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on my cell at
917-270-1683.
Attached:
1. Comments on Second Draft Green Building Policy Report (dated 03/09/18) and responses
from the project team
2. Resolution to Adopt Green Building Policy Report and to Direct Staff to Codify Policy
Recommendations for Review and Consideration of Adoption
April 11, 2018, Planning and Economic Development Committee
Resolution to Adopt Green Building Policy Report and to Direct Staff to Codify Policy
Recommendations for Review and Consideration of Adoption
WHEREAS the City has adopted a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and
nearly three quarters of the Ithaca community GHG emissions come from residential and
commercial buildings; and
WHEREAS the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan suggests “Enact more stringent local energy
codes based on standards for new and existing buildings and voluntary certification programs”
and The City’s Energy Action Plan recommends “Encourage sustainable and energy efficient
development (and re‐development) through green building policies and implementation of
advanced energy codes” and “Consider regulatory tools to encourage/require higher energy
efficiency standards for rental housing;” and
WHEREAS with the aid of a consultant team, as part of the Green Building Policy project, the
City has conducted a comprehensive examination of our existing and future building stock, as
well as green building standards for new construction and potential economic, social and
environmental impacts of policies which incentivize or mandate those standards; and
WHEREAS the Green Building Policy report provides policy recommendations for energy
efficiency requirements and related incentives to substantially reduce carbon emissions in all
new buildings, while emphasizing and supporting affordability; and
WHEREAS additional work, such as research (possibly in conjunction with a technical
consultant) and stakeholder outreach, is needed to provide a level of detail sufficient to
develop code language for a green building policy; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca adopts the Green Building Policy
report, dated April XX, 2018; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca directs staff to perform additional
research and stakeholder outreach and codify the policy recommendations contained in the
Green Building Policy report for review and consideration of adoption.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
1
Comments Received Regarding Green Building Policy Second Draft (date 03-09-18) and Responses from Project Team
Name Page #Comment Response
Milton Taam regarding the igbp, how was point value determined? If goal is
reducing ghg footprint it seems there is a need to quantitively
associate ghg footprint reduction with point assignment. the
current scheme seems to underated heat loss reduction using
design and insulation and overate HP hardware. the points
also seem to overrate biofuels significantly without regard to
health, climate and harvest consideration.
The point system did involve computer simulation to seek 6-
10% carbon emissions reduction per point. The point system
centers around affordability - most of the points either reduce
construction cost or add very little to it, with a few exceptions
(for example, renewables, without which we cannot reach net-
zero energy). Things like insulation, which add to a building's
cost, can be done in several ways: 1. The whole building path
2. The "improvement of your choice" in the points path 3. The
stretch code, also in the points path.
Milton Taam My concern with heat pumps is they become the dominate
source of residential heat. HP demand power when solar pv
output is low. Also HP could be hard to demand regulate, both
because lack capacity and large cycle time reguired.
Since New York State is a summer-peaking state for
electricity, it is not expected to be winter-peaking for some
time, even if there is large-scale conversion to heat pumps. By
the time it is winter-peaking, 24-hour renewables (such as
wind capacity) and/or storage (batteries, thermal, or chemical)
are anticipated to assist with winter peaking due to heat
pumps.
Milton Taam Discounts possibility of renewable methane. Overrated biofuel,
particurky if health effects added to equation.
Natural gas hot water better than resistance.
This comment is acknowledged.
Milton Taam Interesting number is what peak electric demand would be on
a very cold winter day in the nyiso region if most heating used
hp. Temp diff might be 70 - neg 10 or 80f in winter vs 110-75
or 35f in summer. it seems the winter demand delta could be
more the twice the summer demand delta, particularly
considering reduced hp performance on very cold days. my
understanding is the natural gas system spends the summer
storing gas to meet the winter heating demand.
Since New York State is a summer-peaking state for
electricity, it is not expected to be winter-peaking for some
time, even if there is large-scale conversion to heat pumps. By
the time it is winter-peaking, 24-hour renewables (such as
wind capacity) and/or storage (batteries, thermal, or chemical)
are anticipated to assist with winter peaking due to heat
pumps.
Milton Taam my understanding is a telsa battery is about 100 kwh. that
would be enough energy for my hp for perhaps a cold winter
day. the idea of 30 to 100 tesla car battery resources
dedicated to a single home heat is undoubtly expensive and a
waste or resource. My guess is daily peaks will be filled by
batteries but seasonal peaks would use methane, either fossil
or renewable synthesized as i think germany is considering. i
recall i sent you a paper on the german study.
This comment is acknowledged.
Milton Taam I wonder if electric to hydrogen or renewable methane would
serve as a giant seasonal storage battery. For homeowners
like me, a small electric to hydrogen converter and storage
tank would be interesting. in europe i understand they are
testing blending 10% hydrogen into the natural gas system. i
think the idea that the natural gas system is eventually going
to be a stranded, outdated asset is likely wrong. the current
seasonal storage capacity of the natural gas system is
substantial; gas pipelines are more efficient than electricity for
long-distance power transmission, and finally creating new
right-of-ways for electric power is politically challenging.
This comment is acknowledged.
Buzz Dolph Please mention for me the issues of the (current) code making
it unfairly difficult for smaller buildings. Blower door,
clearances, and so on.
This policy doesn't change the current Energy Code
requirements for air infiltration but one of the benefits of the
Easy Path is that it acknowledges that smaller residential
buildings use less energy than larger buildings. In the context
of the proposed Green Building Policy small buildings will be
able to comply more easily than large buildings.
Joe Bowes As the City and County move forward with the heatpump/all
electric/Green initiatives I think it would make sense to check
in with our State funders. Below is an email that I sent to the
State Architect who oversee the LIHTC applications. He
basically says we cannot use heatpumps. I’m wondering if
there is some education around the issue that Tompkins
County could bring to HCR? This could be an issue for Tburg
which is where we were hoping to try out the technology.
The State Architect says that they have issued waivers for
heat pumps. If the local municipality essentially requires a
fossil-fuel free building then this will support an application for
the use of heat pumps. This is an example of where the local
policy should drive the choice and not give in to an older or
less informed policy at the state level. If it is mandated locally
then the state will have to address their own policy or issue
waivers.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
2
Joe Wilson The standards must be more rigorous. Either require more
points for a building permit, or shorter time lines to reach the
more rigorous 2030 and 2050 standards, or both.
The standards have been made more rigorous since the first
draft. For example, the points required were originally 5, and
are now 6. As another example, the building size
requirements were originally 10% and 20%, and are now 15%
and 30%. The standards as proposed are more rigorous than
the state Energy Code, the proposed state Energy Stretch
Code, and most codes in the nation. The standards then
transition to even higher levels in 2025 and 2030, at a pace
equal or faster than the some of the most progressive
standards in the nation. Incentives are proposed to encourage
design and construction at the higher levels starting
immediately. A brief transition period is believed to allow a
smoother adoption of the proposed policy.
Joe Wilson The Policy should include the recommendation that CEQR and
TEQR be amended to incorporate the DEC's “Guide for
Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an
Environmental Impact Statement, 2009.”
We agree that the DEC's guide is a strong document for
assessing GHG emissions, and that GHG should be
considered wholistically (including transportation related GHG)
in CEQR and TEQR.
Joe Wilson Fossil Fuel use should be directly discouraged as part of the
Policy when it is first implemented.
We feel it is already indirectly discouraged through the point
system, but agree that it is worth adding explicitly, and
propose to make a change by adding wording that states:
"Fossil fuels are indirectly discouraged by the policy, through
the point system. The City/Town actively urges
builders/developers to consider not using fossil fuels."
Joe Wilson The City and Town laws which are to be modified to put the
recommended Policy into effect should be specified.
Further review and suggested edits to Town and City codes
will be Phase 2 of the project.
Joe Wilson There should be a time line and process described for the
codification of all provisions of the Policy.
The Common Council and Town Board will consider a
resolution to direct staff to perform additional research and
stakeholder outreach, and to codify the policy
recommendations in May (subject to change). It is unclear how
long it will take to codify the chosen policy, or how long it will
take the governing bodies to discuss and consider adoption of
proposed legislation. We propose adding language similar to
this (above) to the report, as well as language stressing the
importance of balancing the need for thorough vetting of any
proposed legislation with the need to act quickly to addresss
climate change amidst a local building boom.
Ian Shapiro 1. New York Passive House (based in NY City) asked that we
add "Passive House International" to the approved paths.
Passive House International is similar to Passive House U.S.,
but there are some differences. The end result is regarded to
be similar. Both are approved by the New York Stretch Code,
for example. Both systems are used in the U.S.
We propose to add Passive House International as an
additional whole building compliance path.
Ian Shapiro 2. A mistake was identified in the building shape table. The
values are mistakenly low by about 10%.
We propose to correct this mistake.
Ian Shapiro 3. Since the NEW stretch code (20% better than code) is
moving faster than expected and may well be approved before
the FIRST stretch code (10% better than code) was approved
(which it hasn't been), we may want to reference the new
stretch code, and give 2 points (or even 3) for it.
We propose to change the points for the New York Stretch
Code to 2, if the new stretch code is adopted.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
1.What specific actions will be required during site plan review
and application process for building permit to ensure project
goals are implemented? What will be expected of the
developer/permit applicant to implement these requirements?
Applicants will need to submit sufficient documentation to
show compliance with either the speciffic points they choose
under the easy path, or the whole building path with 3rd party
verification. In most cases this is not expected to be
significantly more work than is already required for building
permits, however compliance with the policy would need to be
considered early in the design process as it is easiest to
achieve the points and goals if they are integrated into the
project from the most conceptual stages of planning and
design.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
2.What level of additional responsibility will be required of
Building Division staff during plan review prior to issuance of a
building permit?
The building division staff will need to verify documentation for
compliance with either the whole building path (which would
include documentation from a 3rd party reviewer) or the easy
path which can be checked with standard construction
documents and caluclations required to be submitted for a
building permit review.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
3.What specific actions will be required during construction to
ensure project goals are implemented? Will there be a third-
party certification? What level of additional responsibility will
be required of either the developer or the Building Division
staff to document the project goals are achieved?
In order to be feasible for implementation the proposed easy
path is entirely design focused, it does not involve verification
of performance, though it should be noted that for many
buildings the current enegy code already requires significant
commissioning.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
3
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
4.The proposed Easy Path is just that – it is too easy. No
developer will select the Whole Building Path if they can meet
the requirements of the Ithaca Green Building Policy by taking
these baby steps on the Easy Path. The Easy Path should
require achievement of a minimum of ten or twelve points
instead of the six.
The standards have been made more rigorous since the first
draft. For example, the points required were originally 5, and
are now 6. As another example, the building size
requirements were originally 10% and 20%, and are now 15%
and 30%. The standards as proposed are more rigorous than
the state Energy Code, the proposed state Energy Stretch
Code, and most codes in the nation. The standards then
transition to even higher levels in 2025 and 2030, at a pace
equal or faster than the some of the most progressive
standards in the nation. Incentives are proposed to encourage
design and construction at the higher levels starting
immediately. A brief transition period is believed to allow a
smoother adoption of the proposed policy.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
5.Make the New York Stretch Code a mandatory requirement
for all new construction and major renovations.
The New York Stretch Code generally adds to the cost of a
building. The proposed policy allows equal or greater
reductions in carbon without necessarily adding to the cost of
a building.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
6.Ithaca has a huge inventory of existing building stock – let’s
find a way to implement energy saving updates in all except
the minor renovation projects. Financial incentives, DIY clinics,
“Help Centers” where experienced technicians can be invited
to go to a home or business and provide minor energy
improvements.
The policy requires all renovations to implement energy
savings, even small renovations.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
7.Discouraging the use of fossil fuels is not the be-all and end-
all for green building policy.
a.Discouraging or prohibiting fossil fuels shifts the burden of
energy supply to power generation plants, many of which rely
on coal or natural gas to generate electricity.
b.There are inefficiencies and shortcomings with heat pump
systems that cannot provide satisfactory results for year-round
usage. Sometimes a well-design HVAC system, using forced-
air or hydronics, can be very efficient and reliable.
c.Switching the energy supply does not touch one of the root
causes of wasting energy – occupant behavior.
On a state-wide average basis, heat pumps result in lower
carbon emissions. This has been affirmed by all major policy-
makers (New York State, New York City, NEEP, the national
labs, and more). Heat pumps have been shown to operate
well, even at low outdoor temperatures, without any backup
heat, by the Canadian government (colder climate than Ithaca)
and others, when designed and installed correctly. Occupant
behavior is difficult to reach through building code
requirements. We propose to add a recommendation that
approaches to behavior, such as education and advocacy, be
considered.
Robert M. Fell-
DeWalt
8.Under the Easy Path, there are some options listed under
the title “Affordability Improvements”.
a.Is this category meant to address the need for affordable
housing? How does the selection of these specific options
translate into providing more affordable housing?
b.Option A/1 advocates smaller room sizes. This must be
placed against the backdrop of the City of Ithaca Code
Housing Standards and the New York State Uniform Code,
both of which have minimum size requirements for specific
rooms.
a. Yes, these are intended to address affordable housing (as
well as affordability in general). For example, buildings that
are not overlit require fewer light fixtures and so lower
construction cost. As another example, buildings with simpler
shapes also reduce construction cost while also reducing heat
loss and so reducing energy and carbon emissions. All of the
improvements in the category called "Affordability
Improvements" should reduce both construction cost and
reduce carbon emissions. In addition, several of the other
points are expected to cost the same or cost less than their
comparable approaches. For example, heat pumps have
reduced in cost and currently cost about the same as the
combination of furnaces/boilers and air conditioning, and are
strongly expected to keep reducing in cost to well below the
cost of traditional systems. Also, other points, such as building
reuse, are expected to cost less. b. Smaller apartment and
house sizes have been checked and are comfortably larger
than the minimum required by the City of Ithaca and NY State
Uniform Code.
Carolyn Sarno
Goldthwaite,
Director of
Buildings &
Community
Solutions,
Northeast Energy
Efficiency
Partnerships
(NEEP)
Document is LEED heavy The policy does not require LEED at all, just the required
energy points in LEED. In addition, there is an entire non-
LEED compliance option.
Carolyn Sarno
Goldthwaite
For any publically funded schools why not look at NE CHPS?The focus of the green building policy is only energy (carbon
emissions) and water, not other green aspects. The
background for this is provided in the policy.
Carolyn Sarno
Goldthwaite
Outreach portion be mindful of the terminology that is used
with stakeholders
Comment is acknowledged.
Darren Port,
Buildings &
Community
Solutions
Manager, NEEP
3 Ithaca City and Town goals...[presumably replace "Local" with
"Ithaca City and Town"]
"Local" here refers more generally to the county, and City and
portion of the town: The city does have an 80-by-50 goal, but
the town's is limited to municipal operations. For simplicity, we
plan to leave the text as is.
Darren Port 3 If a key aspect of the initiative is affordability then LEED is
contradictory to the goal if actual certification is required.
Actual certification is not required. We propose to clarify this
here.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
4
Darren Port 3 Perhaps a few lines here that explain what this doc is and
what overall doc is trying to achieve.
We propose to make these edits.
Darren Port 4 It would be good to show the 2025 and zero-energy
requirements now for planning and if current buildings want to
exceed base requirements.
The 2025 requirements are in the document, and the net-zero
2030 requirements are recommended to be defined by
January 1, 2024. We propose to add a summary of these to
the beginning of the document.
Darren Port 4 Showing some of the maps would be interesting. Either here
or in an appendix.
We will consider adding some of these maps.
Darren Port 4 Perhaps existing buildings is covered in more detail, but as the
report stated above only modest growth is expected so
existing buildings seems where the savings need to occur.
We agree. The scope of the project was new buildings only.
We have included a recommendation that existing buildings be
subject to a similar study and policy development.
Darren Port 5 DOE Home Energy Score. At time of sale or a program that
requires buildings of a certain sq ft to get score with in a
certain time frame. So all buildings 5000-7500sq ft have till
2021 to get score, 2500-5000 by 2024 etc.
We propose to add here: "Examples of benchmarking policies
include a requirement that buildings be evaluated for their
energy use, either at the time of sale, or on a periodic basis.
This can either be applied for all buildings, or for types of
buildings or for buildings of a minimum size. The energy use
can be represented either with a full report of energy use, or
as some form of simplified score."
Darren Port 6 RESNET and WERS offer deeper water savings then Water
Sense, although Water Sense is a great start.
RESNET's HERSH2O index was just released in early 2018,
and feels too new/untested to try yet. WERS's requirements
(for example, 0.8 gallon toilets, 1.5 GPM shower heads, etc.)
still receive mixed responses from consumers, and feel like too
big a jump.
Darren Port 6 Is this [heat pump space heating requirement] being coupled
with renewables or a renewables requirement?
Renewables may be selected to contribute to compliance with
either the Easy Path or the Whole Building Path, but is not a
standalone requirement. The heat pump requirement is not
specifically coupled with a requirement for renewables.
Darren Port 6 This seems like it should be a requirement all systems and
duct work in conditioned space.
A foundation of the policy was established early on to include
flexibility. We also did not want to find ourselves in a situation
where some specific building type could not be built if we
overly restricted design options. And if we set this as a
requirement, it could bring construction of retail buildings (big
box) to a virtual halt, because those buildings are all designed
using rooftop heating/cooling equipment, which are by
definition outside the building.
Darren Port 6 Provide links to the programs. Was Enterprise Green
Communities Program considered? Why was NAHB ICC 700
included but not Green Globes? What about IGCC and
189.1?
The Enterprise Green Communities (EGC) program was
considered. The green building policy decided to focus only on
energy and water. EGC references EPA's Energy Star
programs, for example Energy Star for Homes. Energy Star for
Homes in turn references the HERS rating, which is one of the
proposed compliance paths. IGCC has reportedly only been
adopted by "a handful of buildings". And, as with EGC, LEED,
etc, the focus of the green building policy has also been limited
to energy/carbon and water, and so the non-energy aspects of
IGCC and 189.1 do not apply. IGCC and 189.1 are also
reportedly in flux as they seek to merge.
Darren Port 6 Smaller verse cost, seems more backstops need to be in place
to ensure affordability. If a developer makes a unit smaller but
feels it may be less marketable because of size, so puts in
granite counter tops, or fireplaces, a jacuzzi bath then is
smaller still affordable. Smaller units doesn't mean smaller
building.
Comment is acknowledged.
Darren Port 6 Is biomass defined? Is landfill gas permitted?A reference to biomass is provided. We propose to
additionally add a definition of biomass in the Glossary. We
do not believe there is landfill gas in the City of Ithaca or Town
of Ithaca.
Darren Port 6 Why nothing on IAQ, or toxicity?This report is focused on energy and reduction of GHG. Future
study of additional green building features are recommended.
Discussion of this is included in the FAQ at the beginning of
the document, and within the report itself.
Darren Port 6 There will be three levels of the stretch code 20 and 40
percent and zero energy, you may want to offer 1, 2 or 3
points accordingly.
We propose to adjust the points to the standard that ends up
being released by NYSERDA. We have a scheduled a
meeting to discuss with NYSERDA on 4/6/18.
Darren Port 6 Just build to the standard or be certified?Requirements are spelled out in the report. Certification is not
required. For each whole-building standard, different design
documentation is required.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
5
Darren Port 7 Thinking about Boulders approach, build what you want up to
5500 sq ft but must meet stringent energy requirements.
Seems simple and straight forward, no point counting. Code
official, plan review, buyers all know what to expect based on
year built.
We evaluated a wide number of programs, including those of
several other cities around the country. The project scope
precluded us from examining all emerging programs in the
country. The proposed policy covers all new buildings, not just
buildings up to 5500 SF. The point system has been tested on
a wide number of buildings, has been reviewed by many
stakeholders, and has been affirmed as being relatively
simple, feasible for compliance documentation and review,
and fairly unique in its promotion of affordable construction.
Darren Port 8 LEED certified and even silver is coming in a cost parity with
conventional construction as well as DOE ZERH. Again is
certification required or just built to the standard?
Requirements are spelled out in the report. Certification is not
required. For each whole-building standard, different design
documentation is required.
Darren Port 8 How will town/city know buildings are performing, is there a
monitoring component of the program, requiring utility data?
The policy recommends that the City and Town separately
consider developing a benchmarking program.
Darren Port 8 Is there a plan to create the existing building program within a
certain time frame of the new program? Seems it should come
very quickly after the new program if not before?
Development of the new-building policy was funded under a
grant. We are close to completing the work under the grant.
There is discussion of proceeding to an existing building policy
study and recommendations, but this will need to be funded
somehow before it can proceed.
Darren Port 8 An EE building is one part of EE, how the building is operated
is just as important. Perhaps requiring an O&M manual for all
buildings with operation info in English and Spanish, and list of
replacement components (filters, bulbs, etc) with a schedule
for maintenance.
New York State has relatively new commissioning
requirements as part of its Energy Conservation Construction
Code.
Darren Port 8 Perhaps an appendix of applicable programs can be included.
Who will approve the use of a program?
The full program requirements are spelled out in detail in the
policy. This portion of the policy is just an abbreviated FAQ.
Darren Port 10 We signed it but maybe withdrawing. However NYS is one of
14 states that intends to comply.
We propose to correct this to clarify that the U.S. is a signatory
to the Paris agreement, but may be withdrawing, but that NYS
is one of 14 states that intends to comply.
Darren Port 12 Green buildings reduces flame spread as they are tighter,
reduce mold and moisture which preserves health but also
building components.
We propose to make these edits.
Vivien Rose 1. Meeting Described Goals:
These goals were stated on the website: (www.
ithacagreenbuilding.com)
a. Lay the groundwork for increasing energy efficient
development by gaining an understanding of the energy
standards and policy tools available to and appropriate for
Ithaca
Energy standards and policy tools defined. Appropriateness
not defined or discussed
We propose to make the following edits, discussing Ithaca-
specific needs in the area of planning, design, and
consruction, including needs of a college town, climate-specific
needs (cold climate), geographic constraints of Ithaca
(bounded by the lake and three hills), and needs for affordable
housing and transportation.
Vivien Rose b. Understand potential positive and negative social impacts of
a green building policy
While I recall several small items being discussed in a pro-con
manner, I do not recall a definition of ‘social impacts’ or a
summary of positive or negative ones re: green building policy.
Who did the team want to understand? The team? Town/City
elected officials?
We propose to add the definition of social impact: "A
significant, positive change that addresses a pressing social
challenge. Having a social impact is the result of a deliberate
set of activities with a goal around this definition." University of
Michigan, Center for Social Impact, http://socialimpact.umich.
edu/about/what-is-social-impact/
Vivien Rose c. Advance greenhouse gas reduction efforts
Define how team wanted to do this and whether successful.
The policy reccomendations are designed to substantially
reduce carbon emissions from the building sector, which is the
biggest contributor to GHG emissions locally (and in many
other locations).
Vivien Rose d. Lay the groundwork for reducing energy costs and
improving public health
Perhaps define groundwork? Section 4 was very well done but
hidden.
"Lay the groundowork" was meant to indicate "prepare for" and
"enable." This phase of the project involved a comprehensive
examination of our existing and future building stock, as well
as green building standards for new construction and potential
economic, social and environmental impacts of policies which
incentivize or mandate those standards. The policy
recommendations, if implemented, will result in buildings with
markedly reduced energy costs and reduced emissions,
resulting in improved public health.
Vivien Rose e. Increase the diversity of active participants in Ithaca
sustainability efforts
This was not evaluated in the report
We proposed to address this briefly in the report. This goal
was acheived with moderate success. Through the steering
committee and advisory committee, many new voices were
incorporated into the local sustainability conversation. Going
forward, we would like to see even more broad-based
engagement. Progress towards this goal will continue in future
phases of the project.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
6
Vivien Rose f. Assess and build support for mandated and/or incentivized
energy standards for new construction
I did not see an assessment of support for mandated and/or
incentivized new construction standards. It is not clear to me
who is being asked to support new standards, or how the draft
policy built support—perhaps that could be called out
specifically in a section that surveyed various parties to find
out their support, report on any meetings, report on any stated
support or lack of support.
We propose to clarify that the proposed policy comprises a set
of mandated and incentivized new construction standards, in
the summary at the beginning of the report. We propose to
clarify that the draft built support through a series of open
meetings of an advisory panel, and a subsequent set of
outreach meetings, followed by a public comment period,
resulting in these comments, which are being reviewed and
responded to and many of which are being incorporated into
the report.
Vivien Rose 2. Use of Data:
The data in section 4 was necessary to understand the
proposals and discussion, but it was the last section so I did
not see it until after I’d tried to understand the prior sections.
On occasion it appeared that policy implications for the
reported data had not been analyzed carefully. One example
would be the presentation of anomalous demographic data
without a consideration of how and why the county had that
population or the long term implications of it.
Comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose 3. Reliance on Non-Local Technology without Consideration of
Lifecycle Cost
I realize this is a green building policy, but I don’t see how
buildings can be evaluated without understanding their place
in and interactions with the ecosystem/neighborhood. I hoped
to see more options for using local renewable materials that
grew in the area and could be returned to the earth at the end
of the building’s life cycle as well as an understanding of the
unique features of the two Ithacas’ ecosystem that have
potential for decreasing use of intensive mass-produced
mechanicals for passive air flow/lighting. One source:
Alexander Langlands, CRAEFT: An Inquiry into the Origins
and True Meaning of Traditional Crafts. NY: WW. Norton & Co.
2017.
Place and interactions with ecosystem/neighborhood are
recognized through points for density and walkability, based
on recognized green building approaches. We propose to add
text to recognize the benefits of local and renewable materials.
Vivien Rose 4. Consideration of relation between the project proposed to
be incentivized and the local setting. Throughout it seemed
that the team was describing cookie cutter responses to local
conditions, sometimes without a bigger picture of where the
water and electricity come from or how new construction could
complement, increase the value of, and benefit existing
common or adjacent site efficiencies i.e. sidewalks, common
areas, gardens, parks. An example would be no discussion of
whether new construction should receive an incentive or
abatement when the project makes adjacent properties’
energy efficiency measures obsolete or unworkable.
Comment is acknowledged. The consultant team had some
trouble understanding the comment.
Vivien Rose 5. Human Scale/Nature Scale vs. Auto/Industrial Scale
I think the draft missed an opportunity to reframe climate
change as an opportunity to learn to really be in and with the
living 3D world in community with other humans again. There
is room to develop human dedicated pathways throughout the
Ithaca basin, as well as other common outdoor places of play
and work like orchards, meeting spots, gardens. In my
experience, there is an intelligence about direct connection to
the planet that is not intellectual but is very able to work with
nature to meet human and nature’s needs.
The assumptions that building materials are all equal and
interchangeable, that bigger/higher is better, that the solution
for one lot will be the same for a different one seem to run
through this entire draft. There also seems to be an
assumption that developers and consultants know what is best
for a community without a whole lot of introspection on that
point.
Re: a sustainable and resilient maker/observer relationship
with a local ecosystem, Langlands gets at that. So does
Jacobson, Silverstein and Winslow, PATTERNS OF HOME:
Ten Essentials of Enduring Design. Taunton, 2002 and Philip
Ackerman-Leist, A PRECAUTIONARY TALE: How One Small
Town Banned Pesticides, Preserved its Food Heritage and
Started a Movement. Chelsea Green, 2017.
Comment is acknowledged.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
7
Vivien Rose 6. Friendliness of the Policy:
I have a Ph.D. in history and am used to reading reports. As
written this draft seemed unnecessarily dense, over-
descriptive and jargon-laden. I suggest it be edited by a non-
consultant non-planner non-bureaucrat to a standard of public
accessibility that does not require specialized knowledge of
planning and does speak simple and clear English.
Comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose p. 3 # 1.1: Who is covered by this policy? This appears to
apply only to developer driven projects and not to all new
construction, including new private residences or new
additions to existing homes.
As currently proposed this policy does apply to all new
buildings and major gut renovations of existing buildings.
Vivien Rose #1.2 As a public process with public funds all meetings with
stakeholders of all kinds should be documented in an
appendix. Holding a public meeting the last day of the public
comment period has the appearance of neither wanting or
seeking transparency or public dialogue. Thus the date, place,
name of group and # of people attending meetings alluded to
here should be documented in the appendix to this document
to demonstrate efforts to reach out to various constituencies
likely to be affected by this policy...which could be people not
in the development/architect/planner/landscape architect
community.
The project has included outreach to various stakeholder
groups as well guidance from both a steering committee and
an advisory committee. The public information session was
advertised in all major media outlets. It is difficult to get people
motivated to participate in policy discussions but we feel that
we have been successful which is evident by the number and
quality of thoughtful comments we have recieved since the
second draft of the report was made public. We fully
appreciate that more public input will be needed during the
second phase of the effort to write the actual policy language.
Information about the attendance and notes from meetings will
be included in the appendix of the report and/or on the project
website.
Vivien Rose pp. 5 #1.4: The recommendation to require owners to track
energy use is redundant to the metering and billing already
done by energy providers and to what is required to sell a
property. It would seem that energy providers could provide
this information in aggregate for the City and Town of Ithaca.
This is a good idea, but confidentiality laws limit what energy
providers can provide without permission of owners. Also,
multiple energy sources (gas, delivered fuels like oil and
propane, electricity, biomass like wood chips) makes
centralized reporting difficult, as each energy source needs to
be correlated to addresses and different meters at a single
address. Our recommendation is based on standard
approaches to tracking energy use, as implemented by NY
City and other cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, etc.).
Vivien Rose p. 6 Summary Table: The table includes water efficient fixtures
and heating but no rainwater harvesting or built in cistern or
other means of storing and using unmetered water. Why?
Gutters, cisterns, hand pumps, rain barrels installed at time of
construction provide alternative water sources for indoor and
outdoor use without additional electricity for transport. Suggest
if policy does not intend to address water beyond heating it
and low capacity fixtures state that somewhere.
All of the water efficiency requirements (fixtures) can be
achieved without adding cost to a building's design or
construction. Affordability was established as a prime goal of
the policy. Rainwater harvesting is typically fairly costly when it
accounts for freeze-proof water storage, provision for filtering
leaves and other debris, provision for water overflow, provision
for backup city water when rainwater is inadequate (including
float switch or float valve to open this water flow), piping from
the roof, piping to water fixtures, access to the storage for
cleaning. Storage typically cannot be located where it can be
used by gravity, so pumping is also required, including
electrical supply to the pump and controls. If the water is to be
used for anything other than toilets, disinfection is also
required in order to deal with bird feces and other
contaminants that are entrained on the roof. All by way of
saying that rainwater harvesting adds significantly to a
building's cost. The focus of the policy has been affirmed to
be: 1. Reducing carbon emissions 2. Affordability 3. Water
conservation. Rainwater harvesting does not support reducing
carbon emissions, and runs counter to the goal of affordability.
Vivien Rose p. 7: Reduction in energy use (green line) targets a goal, but
do not see a citation for measure of energy efficiency in
existing buildings.
Projections for existing buildings assume 25% reduction in
energy use by 2030 and 50% reduction by 2050. This is just
an assumption, to show (a) how important energy use in
existing buildings is, and (b) how significant the reductions
need to be in existing buildings in order to reduce overall
energy use.
Vivien Rose p. 9: As the focus of this report is energy and water,
recommend measures to retain and water that are best built in
new construction not a later retrofit be included now, not at a
later date. Also as biomass emits carbon in combustion and
requires water and fossil fuel use to grow, harvest and
transport, it should be explained how it qualifies to be included
in this plan.
We propose to add text to the summary at the beginning of the
report to recognize the value and cost-effectiveness of energy
and water efficiency measures at the time of new construction,
rather than at the time of a later retrofit. We propose to define
biomass in more detail, to address how it qualifies to be
included in the plan, and to promote healthier and carbon-
neutral biomass approaches.
Vivien Rose p. 11 #2.2: “Reachable” generally means that the strategies
the policy advocates adopting result in the intended change,
not that no additional work is required to achieve them.
Suggest this be reworked to be “operational” or some other
word that means what authors appear to intend.
Reachable is recognized as not perfect, although is close to
what we want, and we decided to go with it because it allowed
us to use the acronym "FAIR", which we feel is helpful.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
8
Vivien Rose “best practices in energy-efficient design and construction”:
From the study, it appears the only best practices to be
considered are in the actual build of a structure. The lifecycle
of the materials required under the policy is not considered,
either in terms of extraction and manufacture, transport,
maintenance, and disposal of units recommended, nor in
terms of as yet unknown effects of collective or mass use of
ground-source and air-source heat pumps on the environment.
Nor is the siting of a structure on land to take advantage of
solar gain, of rising winds or damps, or any of the ecological
functions that ecosystems have. At least not so far.
A complete green building policy will need to take all of these
items into account. The focus of this report is specifically on
operational energy and water use. More work will need to be
done to look at additional best practices for building green.
Vivien Rose pp. 11-13 #2.3: Given the deep study of existing build and new
construction permits in section 4, it would seem that authors
could draw some specific conclusions about actual data in the
study area rather than generic comments, for instance under
transportation equity how much carbon has been saved by the
new development in Ithaca near bus lines, or in jobs the # of
new green jobs anticipated by this policy. Also, some of these
generic comments are questionable; e.g. under maintenance
costs, the policy does not reward builders for not installing
excess wiring, only for using some kinds of equipment. Under
transportation equity, the policy incentivizes additional parking
for builders who install this equipment. Under security, motion
sensors also use electricity for squirrels, birds, and other
animals that would not be used if lights were not installed or
not turned on.
These are actually fairly complex calculations, some of which
may not even have adequate data to support.
Vivien Rose p. 13 #2.3.1 Figure 14 and a.: text references 2 points on
graph, but there are eight points on the graph. Please identify
all points and their relevance to the discussion.
The two points are identified in the text: One point is the only
one with an EUI of 9, the other point is the only one that costs
10% more.
Vivien Rose p. 14 Figure 15: given new tariffs on these technologies a
footnote on future potential costs would be helpful.
We propose to add such a footnote.
Vivien Rose Second paragraph reference to https://www.wbdg.org: who
does the lower life cycle cost benefit directly? Is this a social
justice issue or has the builder made the money up in rents?
Life cycle costing is a tool that highlights the benefit of energy
cost savings when contrasted with the first cost of a building,
encouraging builders/developers to recognize the benefits of
the energy savings. It does not comment on the social
impacts. Ostensibly, if the life cycle costs are lower, benefits
would accrue to all stakeholders.
Vivien Rose p. 15 #5: If certifications do not assure the carbon emission
reduction goals of this policy, how will those goals be assured?
We propose to reword this text to clarify that certifications ARE
intended to increase the chances of meeting carbon emission
goals, as follows: "Certifications can be used as a quality
control check and so help that project goals are delivered. It is
possible for a high-performance building that is not a certified
project to get off track and not meet goals, and so certifications
provides checkpoints, with third party verification." Separately,
we are recommending that the City and Town develop
benchmarking policy that will measure energy use, and so
allow evaluation of the policy's success, and allow revisions if
goals are not met.
Vivien Rose #6: Please explain how this is different than all the rest of
these eight points?
We propose to revise the wording to state "Environmental
stewardship through reduced carbon emissions, and reduced
impacts on the environment through the extraction,
development, and transportation of fossil fuels."
Vivien Rose p. 16 #2.4 “In choosing possible certifications”: Did the team
do this? On whose behalf? Does this mean the policy took
these into consideration as a means of enforcing the policy?
Or?
Yes, the team did review certifications. We propose to add text
to clarify that we reviewed a wide number of certifications,
compared them to the criteria listed, and chose certifications
that best met the program requirements.
Vivien Rose p. 17: Please give this a figure number and either change the
last column title to “Market Penetration/%New Construction” or
“Public Adoption” or something that says how successful the
measure is or move the descriptive text to above the figure so
the member of the general public understands.
We propose to make these edits.
Vivien Rose p. 19 #2.6: Please give all the Figures numbers and names.
Please explain why, before there are even designs, parking
waivers and added floors are offered as incentives? As a
member of the public, I want the benefit given AFTER the
builder proves the conditions were met, not BEFORE, with no
remedy if they are not.
The incentives such as parking waivers or added floors need
to be identified in the earliest stages of a design process in
order for the designers to know what they are going to design.
A building with additional stories or larger footprint is a
fundamentally different building so it needs to be known right
from the very first design meeting. The project would not
receive a building permit (last step of a complex and lengthy
design process) without demonstrating the building was
designed to meet the energy goals.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
9
Vivien Rose p. 19 #2.7.3 “There is an emerging consensus that we will
need to electrify our buildings.” What does this mean? To this
point in the report there is no indication that buildings are not
being electrified.
We propose clarifying this in the report. There is emerging
consensus that to meet GHG reduction goals we will need to
transition to high-efficiency electric space and water heating
systems (as opposed to natural gas or other fossil fuels). This
is addressed in the proposed point system in the "efficient
electrification" section (title may change to "strategic
electrification.")
Vivien Rose p. 20: Suggest consider benchmarking as a pre-condition for
additional permitting by same builder, like tax returns for
political candidates. Suggest a law requiring any entity owning
or operating more than 10% of City/Town building stock to
benchmark.
Evaluation of benchmarking is being recommended as a
separate program.
Vivien Rose p. 21: Suggest you place this data about INHS buildings in the
figure on p. 13.
We do not have incremental cost data with which to do this.
Vivien Rose p. 22 and following: I appreciate these summaries. Thank you.This comment has been acknowledged
Vivien Rose In addition to the bulleted list on p. 22, 1. Siting to take
advantage of rising or pooling air at dawn and dusk; 2. Exterior
colors that increase or decrease solar gain thus saving
heat/cooling costs; 3. Exterior thermal mass to increase solar
gain; 4. Exterior/attached structures for seasonal green cooling
(grape arbor; 5. No exterior lighting except over entry and on
an on/off not motion sensor switch (See Environmental
Management Council recommendation for limited lighting and
lighting types); 6. White or light roof membranes; 7. Stick
built/long pole wood construction.
This comment has been acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 23 #2.10.1: It is very disappointing to see you back away
from the conclusions you state in your first paragraph.
Acceptability of smaller buildings is not an “owner-specific
question” that a code or policy cannot address, and promoting
“smaller buildings” does not require a generic metric. Your
example of TREE (at an internationally recognized ecological
housing community) should be referenced here. Here is
another example: https://www.nytimes.
com/2018/03/04/technology/dorm-living-grown-ups-san-
francisco.html. Foreign nationals live in less sq ft because
they live outside much more than US citizens do in buildings
that are linked by walking trails to gardens, outdoor drying
lines, grape arbors, swimming holes, skiing, hiking, the local p.
o., grocery store, church and school so they do not have to
drive.
We encourage smaller room and building size by providing a
point in the Easy Path (AI 1)
Vivien Rose p. 24 #2.10.5: This should be incentivized more heavily, and
also pertain to site lighting. Light pollution from Ithaca can be
seen all the way to Newfield and Cayuga Medical Center; an
indication that the City and Town of Ithaca have prioritized
night lighting over energy efficiency. The Environmental
Management Council of Tompkins County has identified
lighting as interfering with bird migration. I know it interferes
with being able to see the stars and for people over 45 (like
me) whose pupils do not narrow as quickly after seeing bright
lights at eye level, they can be a positive traffic hazard.
This comment has been acknowledged.
Vivien Rose This also should apply to lights on all night long in an entire
building while under construction or under operation and to
stadium lights. Cornell’s unshielded stadium lights are visible
from the Cayuga Medical Center on Rt. 96 and from Rt. 13
coming out of Newfield.
This comment has been acknowledged. Unfortunately this
policy does not address existing buildings or temporary
construction of buildings. Both temporary and permanent site
lighting can be addressed during the environmental review and
site plan approval process.
Vivien Rose This discussion does not take into consideration the
considerable light available on many lights when the moon is
more than half full.
This comment has been acknowledged. Site lighting is outside
the scope of this report and requires a separate study and
policy.
Vivien Rose p. 25 #2.10.6: There is a difference between “daylighting” and
using windows to provide light rather than electrical lighting, for
instance in staircases that are not used at night.
Not clear what this comment is referring to. The low window to
wall ratio is specifically concerned with energy loss through the
windows. Daylighting and views can be achieved in buildings
with less than 20%.
Vivien Rose p. 26: include in description southern orientation for light and
solar gain.
This comment has been acknowledged.
Vivien Rose p. 28 #2.11: Are you going to account for the carbon emissions
related to manufacture, transport, maintenance and disposal of
renewable energy system?
We are indirectly accounting for it, by limiting the number of
points possible for renewables. Fully accounting for it likely
would be too complicated.
Vivien Rose p. 29 Please number and title all figures. If the figure on this
page was created for this report, say so; if not give source.
This comment has been acknowledged. The final report will
have all figures and tables numbered and titled.
Vivien Rose Nyserda link leads to ‘file not found.’This comment has been acknowledged. URL will be updated.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
10
Vivien Rose p. 30: Having explained the necessity for code for widespread
acceptance of energy efficiency and described means of low
or no cost compliance with the proposed Policy, which I hope
will be encoded into law, what is the logic in giving still more
incentives to builders for doing the right thing?
The low or no cost compliance only applies to the mandated 6
points. In order to push developers to "do the right thing" it will
take more money in a market that already has an extremely
high cost for land and construction. The incentives only apply
to buildings that achieve 12 or more points (effectively net zero
energy) until 2025.
Vivien Rose p. 31: Does not answer third question about what types of
renewable energy will be allowed. Suggest tighten up
discussion of whether/when net-zero required.
We propose to answer the third question. Whether/when net-
zero is required is covered separately in a subsequent section.
Vivien Rose p. 33 “where possible”: Who decides where it is not possible to
design a ‘solar ready’ roof?
The design professional will identify the practicality of including
solar on the roof based on the orientation of the parcel, impact
of adjacent buildings and mature trees, etc. Generally
speaking small footprint buildings with more than 3 stories will
not provide a large enough roof to generate enough power for
the building.
Vivien Rose p. 34: Explanation of justification for biomass being
allowed/incentivized?
We propose to add more detail on biomass (both justification
and specifics of requirements).
Vivien Rose Are other forms of electricity generation incentivized? For
instance treadmill or pedal power?
Yes. The OP5 Energy improvement of choice allows for
complete flexibility for creative alternatives as long as they can
be measured and documented.
Vivien Rose p. 36 right-lighting: Is all of this required? Or is only the “25%
lower lighting power density than the energy code”?
Specifically, why are motion sensors required on all exterior
lighting, which animals/ birds/bats can trigger? Is it possible to
require an off switch as well? Don’t motion detectors use
electricity?
We will clarify that all of this is required. Motion sensors save
significant energy, far more than is currently required by code.
We propose to add a requiremenet that an off-switch is also
required. Motion detectors use very little electricity, far less
energy than they save.
Vivien Rose p. 37 adaptive reuse: “Maintain at least 50%...of the existing
building structure and envelope.” Does what half is saved
matter? Does this point reward maintenance of embodied
energy of prior construction? What happens if the envelope
exceeds the window restriction?
The 50% would be a measurement of floor area and/or surface
area of the exterior envelope. Which half doesn't matter
because this is meant to be an estimate of mebodied energy
but more importantly an incentive to property owners to
choose to adaptively reuse rather than tear down. The window
point is not a restriction. All of the points are optional and
would only apply if they are relevant so existing windows
would not need to be changed if other points can be achieved.
Vivien Rose p. 39 #2.14.4: Significant Elements has taught use of historic
windows that matches or exceeds vinyl replacement windows.
Does this policy encourage that too?
This policy does not include the potential bennefits of well
maintained historic windows.
Vivien Rose p. 40 #2.16: “The high bar for incentives and the strong
municipal priority for meeting energy goals should result in a
broad and attractive package of incentives. Projects meeting
these ambitious goals are providing a significant community
benefit and deserve recognition and municipal support.” Why
is this? Your report states that net zero is mandatory for
reasons that are quite clear. It also documents that even with
incentives few developers invested in energy efficiency in their
buildings. Recognition, sure. Support: do they not already
have tax abatements and are these programs not currently
expanding?
This comment is acknowledged, currently the availability of
and requirements for tax abatements and other incentives is
under consideration, the consultant team believes that strong
energy performance would be a good metric for determining
whether or not a development should recieve incentives.
Vivien Rose I am opposed to more tax dollars being paid for developers to
do the right thing, either in waived or reduced fees or in a tax
exemption. I am opposed to a lesser standard of
environmental review, and adamantly opposed to a height
bonus or area requirement reduction for doing the right thing.
This comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose p. 42 “100% compliance should not be expected”: What
penalties are proposed for those who break the law? Codify
penalties for non-compliance that can be enforced.
This comment is acknowledged. Penalties will need to be
addressed in the next phase of codying the policy.
Vivien Rose Developers who game the system should not be allowed to
build anything new until they have corrected or completed the
actions they proposed in exchange for being allowed to build.
This comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose p. 43 #2.21.1: Not clear what is being “examined”—does this
mean scope? Evaluate usefulness of?
We propose to clarify that what will be examined will be the
benefits and costs of a benchmarking policy, referencing
experience in other cities.
Vivien Rose p. 44 #2.22: It seems to me that with concern about ‘gaming
the system’ it is important that the points scored are verifiable
by a third and disinterested party and that procedures are in
place to determine liability for/legality of scoring.
Points in the whole building path are based on third party
verification, points in the easy path are based on city/town
building department verification of credit compliance before
building permits are issued.
Vivien Rose Suggest remove “if that” or “likely” wherever occurs in
discussion of ‘stress test’.
These words are used because we cannot be certain of the
statements we surmise, without having additional details on
the buildings involved.
Vivien Rose p. 47 and following: define high-performing, not very high-
performing
We propose to add definitions of high-performance buildings
(net-zero or near-net-zero), "somewhat high performing" (for
example, LEED certified), and "not high performing" (not net-
zero, not near-net-zero, not LEED certified).
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
11
Vivien Rose p. 49 #3.2: Target groups seem to not have involved
renters/low income, Friends of Stewart Park/Ithaca Gardens
and other local booster groups, parks staff, Cornell Coop
Extension garden, compost, tree, primitive pursuits staff, or
business owners of the types of businesses called out in the
‘walkable’ point. These are all groups actively involved in
making Ithaca a more enjoyable place to live. Why were they
not considered, if one of the goals was to reach to people not
usually involved?
The stakeholder groups did include renters and advocates for
low income tennants, including INHS, as well as local business
owners, it did not involve parks staff or groups as parks were
not a focus of the policy.
Vivien Rose This section is a report out of what was planned for
infrastructure rather than a description of the actual education
and outreach performed. Was any education or outreach
performed?
Several outreach meetings were held over the course of the
proejct and these will be documented in the final report.
Vivien Rose p. 53 #4: This is a very important section. The prior
recommendations don’t really make sense without this review.
Suggest you move the “Education and Outreach” part to here
and put the overview at the front.
This comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose p. 53 “where workers, and population in general, is
increasingly mobile”: This would seem to indicate the need for
a green building policy that prioritized housing that could move
with workers/population rather than outbuild for temporary
population.
An adequate supply of housing can proved the opportunity for
mobility of workers without the housing itself being movable.
Vivien Rose p. 54 #4.3.1 Figure 1: shows 13% of combined Town of
Ithaca/City of Ithaca land vacant or in forest reserve, which
does not appear to match the sq. ft. measures in Figure 4.
The first two figures show land area for a given use, the latter
two figures show building area (square footage).
Vivien Rose p. 58 #4.3.3: Does not include campus dorms = cannot assess
student need for housing
This comment is acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 62 #4.3.4: These charts are of limited value because the
size of the project for each permit is not clear. Percentages of
types of permits to total permits issued annually or over the
study period would be more helpful in comparing building
types as well.
This comment is acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 63 #4.4.1: This section appears to assume that 1-2 person
units must increase in size due to ADA requirements for
bathrooms. Yet boarding houses with shared facilities are not
considered as a potential building type, nor are dorms which
would reduce, not increase size/person.
1-2 person units MAY increase in size per person relative to a
4-5 person family in a modest apartment, due in part to ADA
requirements. Boarding houses and dorms have the potential
to reduce or increase area per person depending on design.
Vivien Rose p. 64 Figures 7-9: The 15-24 year demographics in these
charts should be compared to other counties of similar size.
Perhaps such analysis would reveal that the City and Town of
Ithaca’s housing crisis is a class-driven age-related boom.
Given the net-zero goal of this policy, projecting continuing
development of outsized apartments for one-two person
households through 2050 seems unwise. Far better would be
to incentivize the two institutions of higher learning to build
dorms for their undergraduates and require them to live on
campus. These could be built to net zero standards while
cutting down on vehicular traffic through Ithaca, encouraging
walking on the two hills, and preserving the 13% of Town/City
of Ithaca lands that are vacant or forest for future habitat.
This comment is acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 65 #4.4.2.1: same point to last three sentences of first
paragraph.
This comment is acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 66 “We want to encourage more people to live within the
city, closer to jobs and services.” This appears to be outside
the scope of the study and the purpose of the policy. Cornell
and Ithaca College have failed to house their students; the
poor and lower middle-class have lost housing share because
of it; development pressure in and around the colleges is
driven by their refusal to house their students; and in general
students do not pay taxes. Both Cornell and Ithaca College
had major anniversaries in the last three years, successfully
fundraised for multiple buildings and their endowments yet still
will not house their students. Perhaps focus on what Ithaca
can do to meet its net zero goals, including not artificially
inflating projected building by looking for 13,000 more
residents, not proposing buildings for all Cornell and Ithaca
College students, and preserving habitat and carbon capture
by not developing everywhere in the two Ithacas’ footprint?
This comment is acknowledged
Vivien Rose p. 67 “The residential building area…is expected to increase
by 13%...” Would this be the 13% of lands that are forests or
vacant? Does the plan recognized the carbon capture of the
13% of the two Ithacas that is vacant or in forest lands?
Where development will happen is based largely on zoning,
this policy gives some priority to development in areas where
there is already significant development rather than greenfield
sites, but it does not require any particular placement. A 13%
increase in building area does not need to equate to 13%
increase in developed land, in fact it should not require any
increase in developed land area.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
12
Vivien Rose p. 68 “We expect development to be spread more evenly
across the county”: In Pulitzer Prize winner E.O. Wilson’s most
recent book HALF-EARTH: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, he puts
the cause of the Sixth Extinction in which the planet is now
living to HIPPO: Habitat destruction, Invasive Species,
Pollution including pesticides, Population (that would be
humans) and Overhunting. His proposal to save the earth?
Half of all landmass back to inviolable reserves. When habitats
are overrun with invasives and are cut off from each other,
biodiversity drops. It seems to me that in a policy to come to
net zero, development should be centrally located and not
spread evenly around the county, if carbon capture,
reforestation, and habitat preservation are part of the two
Ithaca’s net zero strategy.
The policy does encourage density in several ways. As a
policy directed to reducing carbon emissions in buildings, it is
beyond its scope to address reforestation. We propose to add
a recommendation to assess the encouragement of
reforestation as another strategy to mitigate carbon emissions.
Vivien Rose p. 71 #4.5.1 second paragraph: “energy demand also depends
on user behaviour.” This is not standard US spelling.
Corrected.
Vivien Rose p. 74 #4.5.1 after Figure 19: Please either provide a
cumulative chart for all projected energy use for all sectors in
the two Ithacas through 2050 or a narrative summary. This
was a lot of data to go through and it is unclear how much
energy demand will increase and whether the new policy will
adequately address the proposed increase to achieve net zero
by 2050.
We propose copying the graph on page 7 to the section you
referenced.
Vivien Rose p. 75 first full paragraph: What is in the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan that would lead to the conclusion that
development in the Town will be more like the City between
now and 2050 than prior years?
The Town's goal is to focus growth in new mixed-use
traditional neighborhood developments (TND) rather than
encouraging continued suburban sprawl.
Vivien Rose p. 77 after community services water section: Please provide a
cumulative projected water use chart or a narrative summary
and explanation of implications. It would be useful to know
where this water is going to come from.
We don't believe that a cumulative chart will provide more
useful information than the three already included on the
preceding two pages. The question of where the water will
come from is outside the scope of this project.
Vivien Rose Last sentence over to p. 78 quite awkward.We propose changing to "Data collection should be improved
in the areas of building characteristics and individual building
energy use benchmarking, particularly the latter, as it is a
foundational element of energy management strategy."
Vivien Rose p. 79 2nd paragraph: several awkward word/phrase/dependent
clause constructions.
This comment is acknowledged.
Vivien Rose Suggest a grand wrap up/summary after this section. It is
arguably the most important section for understanding how the
team came to its conclusions.
We propose adding a concluding paragraph sufficient to
provide closure to the document.
Public Info
session
Developers have considered LEED an expensive undertaking
and few tackle it for these reasons. WHy would developers
now move to go the LEED route?
The policy does not require LEED. It specifically allows you to
choose to document the energy points from LEED, not the
whole LEED system. And it provides for an affordable
alternative to LEED (the Easy Path). It is worth noting that
almost all LEED Certified housing in Ithaca has been built by
affordable housing developer INHS.
Public Info
session
If this policy slows or deters development, it will exascerbate
the housing shortage. How will we determine ahead of time
this will not happen?
We do not anticipate that the policy will slow or deter
development, due to the Easy Path for compliance.
Public Info
session
What about mixed-use building that both commercial and
residential? How do points work?
This is a good point, the final policy will need to spell out a
method for allocating points in mixed use buildings that have
residential and commercial space. In a typical 3-4+ story main-
street mixed use building with apartments over retail it would
be reasonable for all of the residential easy path points to
apply, bypassing the limitations on point numbers that apply to
commercial only buildings.
Public Info
session
How do restaurants deal with the no gas requirement? Stoves
almost always want gas.
There is not a "no-gas" requirement, until 2030. The
requirements for 2030 will be established by 2024, and will
consider special needs such as gas for restaurant stoves (and
industrial uses of gases).
Dan Tasman 1) Simple building shape
* It could incentivize monolithic building form. This would
make larger buildings -- inherently more energy-efficient per
cubic foot than a number of smaller buildings -- seem
physically overbearing. A larger building with some wall
articulation, projections, and recesses, appear smaller and
more human-scaled, and is more likely to win over skeptical
neighbors than a "box". Compare some human-scaled INHS
projects and Maplewood to West Village and Ithaca East
apartments.
The exterior lines do not need to be simple, just the lines of the
thermal envelope. So, it would be possible to add character to
buildings through elements that are not part of the thermal
envelope: attached unheated spaces, attics and associated
rooflines of any kind, canopies, and more. And, with any of
the points in the point system, it is not required.
Simple building shape is also a bit of a misnomer and we are
considering changing the title of this credit, the actual metric is
the ratio of the exterior wall area to the building floor area.
Using this metric a long thin rectangular building without any
articulation would likely not get the point, while a building with
the same floor area but laid out in more of a cube shape would
be likely to pass, even with some protruding elements like a
touret or other facade articulation.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
13
1) Simple building shape
* How would wings outside the heated building envelope, like
attached garages or solarium/Florida rooms, be treated?
The details of the requirements are spelled out in the policy.
For example, attached spaces, if unheated and outside the
thermal envelope, are not part of the shape requirements. If
still unclear, please let us know.
1) Simple building shape
* It could greatly limit use of stock building plans, and standard
plans used by larger regional and national homebuilders.
Most houses in the area are built by small mom & pop and
boutique builders. It's one of the reasons why new housing in
Ithaca is more expensive than in peer communities - custom
build is about 8% more expensive per square foot than the
production-built equivalent (Ben Moselle, National Building
Cost Manual). Production homebuilding is one way to
decrease construction and housing costs in the area.
While there are certainly many stock building plans that would
be ineligable for this point, there are a great many that would
qualify for the point. Encouraging the use of building plans that
make use of this simple and free way of saving energy is a
goal of the policy.
1) Simple building shape
* It could consider a duplex or townhouse row with offsets
between units less efficient than boxier single family
equivalents. Even if there are wings or offsets, shared walls
make a duplex or townhouse -- and just about every other
form of multi-family housing -- inherently more energy efficient
than a single family house of similar construction.
We propose to assess added points for use of party walls.
1) Simple building shape
* It doesn't account for additions. Historically, one method of
making housing affordable was to build for future
expandability. You start off with a small house, and then add
on to it over time. In the 1950s, homebuilders throughout
Upstate New York marketed small Cape Cod and ranch
houses as "expandables", promoting their affordability and
expansion potential.
The base building could meet the building shape requirement
and still be able to have an addition added in the future. The
future addition does not impact the base building's ability to
obtain the building shape point. The addition itself would be
eligible for the building shape point, on its own. We propose to
make this even more feasible by not counting the party wall (or
floor above existing heated space) of a new addition as art of
the exposed above-ground wall/roof area.
Dan Tasman 2) Window coverage of 20% or less
* The policy treats all window coverage equally, regardless of
their location or energy efficiency. Cheap single pane or
external flange (mobile home-style) windows are much less
energy efficient than double- or triple-pane windows, or
windows with southern exposure. This could disincentivize the
use of more energy-efficient windows.
Single pane windows are not allowed by the New York State
Energy Code. The newest energy code (2016) requires fairly
highly efficient windows already. We also do not understand
how the policy disincentivizes more efficient windows.
2) Window coverage of 20% or less
* There are many environmental and physiological benefits to
increasing window coverage -- solar heat gain, the potential for
natural cross-ventilation, and more natural light. Upstate New
York is one of the cloudiest areas in the United States (http:
//www.newyorkupstate.
com/weather/2016/11/upstate_ny_cities_among_cloudiest_in_
the_us.html), and natural light is at a premium.
The 20% allows meeting multiple green building standard
requirements for views and natural light. The policy gives a
point for less than 20% overall, so some spaces (let's say
living rooms and other regularly occupied spaces) can have
more than 20% if offset by spaces with less than 20% (for
example, stairways, landings, mechanical/electrical/utility
spaces, laundry spaces, corridors, etc.). Also, this point is
optional, so for those seeking more natural light, it is not
mandatory.
2) Window coverage of 20% or less
* It could incentivize "bunker architecture", where buildings
have limited window coverage or windowless walls. A
"perverse incentive", as an economist would call it -- the policy
could consider a prefab or mobile home with little glazing area,
cheap single-pane windows, and limited insulation, as
"greener" than a site-built house with a larger glazing area, but
tighter low-e windows and better insulation.
Single pane windows are not allowed by the New York State
Energy Code. The newest energy code (2016) requires fairly
highly efficient windows already, indirectly requiring low-e
windows by law due to the efficient requirement, and this
energy code will still be required with the proposed green
building policy. The proposed policy allows further energy
savings, beyond the energy code, while maintaining views and
natural light to meet green building standards. And, as
mentioned above, this strategy is not a mandatory
requirement.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
14
2) Window coverage of 20% or less
* Traditional neighborhood development, with vibrant, active
Main Streets as a neighborhood focal point, is a major goal of
the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Building facades and street-
facing storefronts with high window coverage is a critical
element in creating interesting streetscapes, and good
walkable urbanism. It also enables more "eyes on the street",
the result being a safer neighborhood.
Individual facades can have more than 20% window coverage,
as long as the overall building coverage is less than 20% to
get this point. Many traditional mainstreet buildings have less
than 20% window coverage, in fact one of the halmarks of
traditional/classical architecture compaired to modernist
architecture, is a lower window to wall ratio - generally in the
15-25% range for traditional architecture. One example woudl
be a typical mainstreet building as found on the Ithaca
Commons, that is 30' wide and 80'deep. The ground floor front
facade is likely to be between 50&70% windows, but upper
floors on the front facade range from around 20-30%, side
facades which are more than half the building's facade area
generally have 0%, as they are party walls, and the rear
facades have less than 20%.
2) Window coverage of 20% or less
In fine-tuning the final draft of the Green Building Policy,
consider the following from "The Philosophy of Sustainable
Design: The Future of Architecture" by Jason McLennan.
"... the stereotype is that green buildings are less attractive
gets some credence as many of today's sustainable design
practitioners ignore or diminish the importance of aesthetics
while trying to meet environmental goals. Sustainable
designers cannot be content to produce good buildings that
are only good environmental performers. They cannot be
complacent in the development of their craft and rationalize
altruistic concerns. Beauty is a requirement in the success of
the sustainable design philosophy.
... The goal of architecture is to create shelter for human
activities that lift the spirit, and the philosophy of sustainable
design maintains this focus while balancing environmental
responsibility. Sustainable design demands responsibility to
both environment and people."
This comment is acknowleged.
Rick Burgess -
Cornell
As this project continues, we would ask that continual public
outreach and time to absorb a substantial, in-progress
document will be the norm. This is a complex effort that will
require considerable time to work through and consider
thoughtfully.
Pending Common Council and Town Board approval, in the
next phase of the project we plan to perform additional
stakeholder outreach as the policy recommendations are
codified.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
What is the reasoning behind EE2 (1 point for water heating
systems that use heat pumps or biomass). Heat
pumps for heating hot water in the northern climate is a poor
application of the technology- Most residential
applications would involve removing heat in a residences
basement (or similarly heated space) resulting in an
increased heating load. The technology is typically used in the
south where water heaters can be located in
unheated spaces without the worry of freezing temperatures
affecting the system.
There is a net decrease in carbon emissions, even with the
increase in heating load during winter.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
WB1 – For Commercial include a LEED Cerficaon Path (i.
e. LEED Gold). The “Easy Path” already opens this Pandora’
s Box by including density, walkability, and reuse credits, whic
h
recognize the value of reducing embodied energy and operaon
al impact beyond the specific and installed building
systems. These credits are not available to projects pursuing
compliance under the WB‐1 path as they appear under
other LEED categories not recognized by this policy (sustainab
le sites, materials and resources) and ignores their
associated reducon in climate impact and energy use from ope
raon. If the focus of this policy should be renamed
to remove reference to green buildings and instead reference
or energy/carbon efficient design as the direct benefits
to human health and wellness, material impacts, and sustaina
ble urban design are not being recognized or pursued.
We have extensively discussed non‐
carbon related green design
and have had various suggesons for specific non-
carbon related requirements (for
example, building deconstrucon, wastewater, and more), and
we decided that the policy should stick to energy and
water. Otherwise, we are opening a very significant Pandora’
s Box, and potentially increasing the cost of compliance.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
WB1 ‐ Why did Energy Points increase from 16 to 17 from the
last submission?
Energy points on WB1 increased from 16 to 17 in order to
approximately reach 40% better than ASHRAE 90.1‐2013.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
15
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
LEED V. 4 does not use ASHRAE 90.1‐
2013, it uses the 2010 standard. A 40% reduction
under LEED V. 4 requires only 15‐
16 points. Should we be mixing reference standards like this?
Please clarify the WB‐1 compliance path for LEED v.
4. Previous drafts indicated that projects must achieve 17 poin
ts
in the Energy and Atmosphere category. The current table ind
icates 17 “energy points” must be targeted. This could
be variously interpreted as 17 EA category points or 17 points
under Energy and Atmosphere credit EA‐2 Opmize
Energy Performance. While the pursuit of 17 EA‐
2 points would identify efficient design as shown in an energy
model,
it would ignore the substantial benefits from other EA Category
points (such as building commissioning., submetering,
demand‐
response, and renewable energy installation/purchase – which
is identified and recognized as a separate
points under the easy path checklist).
It is our understanding that 17 points under LEED V. 4 (with
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 as the baseline) represents roughly the
equivalent of 40% reduction relative to the current energy
code. The mention of 17 EA category points was an error, and
has been corrected to 17 energy points. We propose to
evaluate the possibility of crediting LEED EA points other than
energy points. We need to recognize that the new energy code
already requires a base level of commissioning for larger
buildings, and that points such as submetering and demand-
response do not assure reduction in carbon emissions.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
This decision [referring to firm requirement for 17 Energy
Points in LEED, see above] could have substantial
economic and opportunity costs if pursued. As noted in the ca
tegory name, pursing the whole building path should
recognize the substanal energy and climate benefit of all of the
Energy and Atmosphere credits, and not create a
single focus on a modeling exercise. This could have the perv
erse result of an overly complex and expensive design
being created, which is then not fully commissioned to ensure t
hat it is constructed or is operang correctly. Energy
efficiency programs are driven by data, so the opportunity to tu
ne, adjust and educate users would not be recognized
or the opportunity lost by eliminang energy metering credits. It
would also ignore the benefit of renewable energy
systems where this is recognized as a completely separate an
d valued opon in the easy path. Further, not allowing
flexibility and requiring 17 energy points in EA‐
2 Opmize Energy Performance alone would essenally make it
impossible for certain building types from ever being able to co
mply. Structures with a high process energy load (such
as laboratories or most industrial processes) must apply this lo
ad to both the baseline and proposed building in the
energy model which the EA‐
2 credits are based on. Energy efficiency measures in a propo
sed design can only show so
much improvement against the baseline if the underlying proce
ss energy contained in the facility hides the energy
improvements made to the building operang loads.
We recognize that certain buildings, such as lab buildings, will
have challenges in meeting compliance with 17 LEED V4
energy points. We propose to revisit this requirement for
buildings with unusually high "process" loads.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Efficient Electrification ‐ As a category heading this does not e
ncompass the concepts under it. We suggest
separang efficiency from supply choices – rename to Energy E
fficiency
Energy Efficiency is widely used for things like insulation, air-
tightness, etc. We propose to change this term to "Beneficial
Electrification" or "Strategic Electrification", both of which are
gaining currency for the use of heat pumps and general
replacement of fossil fuels with efficient electric alternatives.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Suggest moving biomass for space heating to Renewable Ene
rgy
We propose to move biomass for space heating to a section
other than this section, but not to Renewable Energy where it
would be subject to a cap.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
EE3 – We disagree with the space heating prerequisite. These
are desirable for energy efficiency (just like EE2)
and should be incentivized regardless.
We are seeking to strongly encourage electrification in multiple
ways.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
AI4 – This point should also apply for Residential. Lawrence Berkeley Labs has data that shows very little
lighting energy use in residential buildings, the average lamp is
on for less than 3 hours per day. So we cannot
deliver our goal of 6‐10% (per point, in other words we cannot
deliver even one point)
carbon reduction in residential buildings with this point.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Please consider points for enhanced building envelope/r‐
value.
This is possible with either/both the Stretch Code point or the
Improvement of Your Choice point, or with any of the whole‐
building compliance paths.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
WB1 – For Residential include a LEED Energy Points complia
nce path and a LEED Cerfication Path (i.e. LEED
Gold)
I'm checking, but I believe LEED for Homes simply requires H
ERS for their energy points, which is
what we are requiring. Regarding a cerfication path, see resp
onse above about LEED Gold for commercial
buildings.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
16
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Easy Path – Why did the minimum number of points increase t
o 6?
Various stakeholders commented
that buildings could reach 5 points too easily, and oen with so
me points that were planned anyway, and so 5
points would not deliver the 40‐
50% reduction in carbon emissions that we are seeking. With t
he addition of
new points, like EE3, it was felt that 6 points is still fair and ach
ievable.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Easy Path – Why do water efficiency improvements not provid
e points as this is an Energy + Water project?
We decided to separate water out as a prerequisite for a few
reasons: 1. Cold water conservatoon does not
reduce carbon emissions. 2. The water conservation require
ments (fixtures) do not cost more than
conventional fixtures. 3. In many
buildings (like office buildings), hot water use is very
small and so meeting the requirements does not deliver the 6‐
10% reduction in carbon emissions that we are
seeking per point.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Renewable Energy – Why are the available points capped at 3
if more renewable energy can be installed?
This is in adherence with Architecture 2030. The report goes i
nto detail as to why, here is an excerpt
from the report, below. THAT SAID, I have been wrestling with
this issue a lot myself, worried that things like
plug loads will not allow us to get to net‐
zero, in the future. So I think there is room for discussion here
.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Why not simply allow or require renewable energy to provide a
ll the energy needed by a building, without
requiring the building to be energy‐
efficient, in other words not requiring good insulaon, windows,
heang,
etc.?
There are several reasons to not just allow renewable energy t
o meet all a building’s energy needs,
without more efficient buildings:
Renewable energy systems can fail, making a building revert t
o relying on non‐renewable backup
energy.
Renewable energy systems take energy, themselves, to be fa
bricated. This "embodied
energy"
offsets some of the savings of the renewable energy system.
Renewable energy systems cost money to maintain, and this c
ost offsets some of the energy cost
savings.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Consider prorating LEED Energy Points and apply to Easy Pat
h Points System
Some LEED points overlap with Easy Path points.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
OP5 – Also provide thermal units for reducon in energy use. We have had multiple stakeholders recommend
discouragement of fossil fuels in any way possible, and we
agree that we need to move expeditiously to eliminating fossil
fuels, so this item ("improvement of your choice")
is only allowed for buildings that are free of fossil fuels, in
order to further discourage them.
Erik Eshelman -
Cornell
Regarding the walkability map, we would like to know the criter
ia used to determine walkability. It appears
that a buffer was applied to commercial areas, but there may b
e more to it. We would recommend that anything within the U‐
1 Zoning District for the City be considered walkable. Cornell’
s campus is among the
most walkable areas in the county with many services and use
s including dining, banking, recreaon,
entertainment, etc. It seems logical that all of campus be inclu
ded in the walkability map.
We agree that the walkability map can be improved, it was
included as a starting point for future discussion in the policy
rather. Measuring walkability in a campus context is quite
different than a conventional neighborhood, and including
transit accessibility as well as a lack of parking and longer
walk distances may be reasonable. The included map is based
on 1/4 mile buffers from locations where there is a cluster of
amenities where an average person could complete multiple
errands without a need for a car.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
39 Are you allowing double counting of an Easy Path point if
it was already included in the whole building design to
achieve the LEED or HERS points? ASHP, for example.
In the proposed policy the easy path and the whole building
path are completely separate options, buildings choose to
pursue one or the other so there is no chance of "double
counting". In 2025, when a combination of whole-building and
easy path points are envisioned, provisions are made to avoid
double counting.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
37 How about limiting the max number of renewable points
to 1 or 2 for off site PV contracts? There should be more
specific language about off site PV contracts. What
happens if a housing developer meets the easy path
requirements by maxing out the renewable points using
an off-site contract that then falls through? Will the city
require them to sign a new contract?
The policy aligns with Architecture 2030 in limiting the
contribution of renewables to the point system, including off-
site renewables. The policy is seeking to enforce off-ste
renewables through a requirement for a 20-year contractual
commitment. The actual language of the proposed ordinance
will offer an opportunity to tighten this requirement.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
6 Make the name consistent. I think it is called Custom
Improvements later in this document.
We propose to make the name consistent, as suggested.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
17
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
38 Need to specify the minimum credentials of the
professional. Also, the energy analysis should be
specified as energy modeling given the reference to a
baseline, right?
There was some discussion of whether or not the energy
modeling would need to be performed by a licensed
professional. It was suggested that some building
professionals may be well versed in things like Passive House
or other tools but may not be licensed engineers. This
proposed policy is focused on making any requirements
relatively easy to achieve in such a way that it will not require
extra project costs such as professional engineers. We
recommending creating enough flexibility in the policy to allow
knowledgable homeowners to perform their own energy
modeling should they choose that path.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
33 Should give a few sentences here to tell reader what this
rough estimate is based on. Also, are 6 points, or the
assund min reduction of 36% equivalent to meeting
Passive Haus or LEED parh? Would be helpful to
designers.
We propose to clarify these issues as you suggest.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
34 Similar to other points below, MUST SPECIFY minimum
requirements of these equipment. ASHP have very
different efficiencies and capacities heating in our climate
depending on the model. One option, specify that the
ASHP must be listed or approved by the list maintained
by NEEP for cold climate heat pumps found here http:
//www.neep.org/initiatives/high-efficiency-
products/emerging-technologies/ashp/cold-climate-air-
source-heat-pump HPWH need a lot of specificity as
they have elec resistance coil to make up extra demand
and need to specify proper location of the water heater. If
in the living space, there is little energy savings during
the heating season (robbing Peter to pay Paul). NREL
recommends basement for our long heating season
requirements. The other issue with these is that they
have different modes that can be changed by the
installer or the homeowner, unless the tank is sized large
enough and it is kept in the mode that prioritizes the heat
pump, these units will end up running the electric
resistance coil much of the time. These units need a lot
of airflow and cannot be put in a small mechanical closet.
Therefore I do not think they are applicable to multi-
family apartment buildings. Unlike air source heat pumps
for heating which are more or less a plug-and-play
technology that delivers the rated capacity and
efficiency, a heat pump water heater is part of a system
and therefore the efficiency can vary greatly depending
upon the piping layout and the draw demand. Using point
of source electric water heaters can end up using less
total energy than a heat pump water heater in our
climate especially since the water heater would likely
have to be in the basement to have sufficient airflow and
not cool the conditioned space in the heating season.
Therefore, I strongly recommend that heat pump water
heaters NOT COUNT as 1 point but instead can be
included through the Custom Energy Improvements
points.
We propose to add a requirement that ASHP's comply with
NEEP, as you suggest. For heat pump water heaters within
the heated space, there are still considerably savings during
the winter, and "full" savings during the summer (plus reduced
need for air conditioning). Our model shows savings that justify
the one point.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
7 Where does the data for the red line come from? What
assumptions were made?
We propose to add our assumptions.
Jerone Gagliano
- Independent
Consultant
39 Why have a big jump? We would get a better impact if
the points requirement increased 2 points every 2 years
or one point each year. Think about the number of
buildings that will go up between now and 2025.
There is benefit to not frequently changing standards, in terms
of smooth adoption of changes. Changes in 2025 and 2030,
following changes that might start in the next year or so, will
already require relatively frequent adaptation to changes.
Craig Modisher What about building envelope, insulation?These can be accomodated in several ways: The stretch
code, or custom improvement, or whole building path
Gary Ferguson Love idea of City and Town doing this together which makes it
more fair. But raises question - can we talk with Village of
Lansing? The more geographically broad the better.
While this study was developed specifically for the City and
Town, the policy is designed in such a way that it could be
easily addopted in other municipalities in the county and we
hope it will be a model across the region.
Gary Ferguson How to differentiate between residential and commercial
(mixed-use)?
This is a good point, the final policy will need to spell out a
method for allocating points in mixed use buildings that have
residential and commercial space.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
18
Joe Wilson Read the whole document. Very quality work. A lot fo thought
put in. Good info and data. Applicable locally. But needs to be
more rigorous, deman more points, advance timeline. Speed
of climate change demands faster timeline. Vague when going
to be codified - probably 2019 more realistic.
This comment is acknowledged.
Joe Wilson State DEC policy around GHG (SEQR) should be brought into
CEGR/TEQR. Was important for Maplewood.
This comment is acknowledged.
Diane Cohen Wonder if reuse element could be stronger. Even if don't go for
point, it's good educational tool. Deconstruction, salvage?
More than just preservation.
This comment is acknowledged. The team discussed this at
great length and agrees that reuse and deconstruction are
important tools for reducing the environmental impact of
construction and demolition, however, we did not include it in
this draft because we found it difficult to craft a point that could
be consistently verified by building department staff that would
reduce GHG by the 6-10% goal we have for each point.
Additional thoughts and research on this topic could be helpful.
Denise Katzman Appreciate effort. Historic buildings could use a lot of
encouragement for efficiency. White roof program. Historic
buildings should not be exempt.
Only buildings that are designated historic or pursuing
designation would be exempt. A policy for existing buildings
needs to be studied separately.
Public Info
session?
Biomass is not all equal. Wood pellets not as good as some
others. Shouldn't be valued same as heat pumps. Methane in
short term this really pays off - ws that considered in additon to
CO2? Should emphasis natural gas reductions more.
We propose to add more information and requirements
relating to biomass.
Sara Hess Climate change couldn’t be more evident than this evening,
March 14, when we have more snow arriving because of
unprecedented warming in the Arctic. We must take our local
goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050
seriously, along with the actions to reach them.
This proposed new energy code has a very high standard for
energy efficiency, perhaps higher than any other municipality
in the state. It is in line with leaders across the country, such
as California and Vermont who are setting policies of net-zero
energy for new residential construction by 2020 or 2030 for
commercial. I'm very proud of the forward thinking that led to
this policy.
I saw two lengthy presentations about the details of the
proposed policy when it was in a first draft form and heard
about how it was constructed. I am impressed in three ways:
1. The process of developing the code – I believe those on the
committee are among the state’s most expert on building
codes and best energy conservation methods, especially Ian
Shapiro, founder and head of Taitem Engineering. I also
thank Nick Goldsmith for the two years of careful study and
preparation that went into the work. During that time, the
committee deliberated and researched myriad best practices
and cost-benefits of energy efficient building methods. The
result is a code that has multiple options and a lot of flexibility.
2. Balancing development and environmental goals were
considered very carefully, with affordability and acceptance by
developers as a central criteria. There are many different
practical ways the policy tries to meet goals of reducing GHG
while encouraging economic development. With expanding
R&D in new and better building materials and energy systems,
the code requirements are looking to a future of even greater
affordability and shorter ROI in the years to come.
3. I appreciate that the city and town would be using
regulation through codes to mandate changes in addition to
using various “carrots” (such as state or federal rebates, tax
credits, IDA incentives, etc.) to encourage best practice
construction.
The anticipated effect of this code with be buildings with as
much as 40% lower carbon emissions than the current NYS
energy code. That is a remarkable achievement.
To reach the 80% by 50 goal, we need to do 100 things -- no
one policy change is sufficient. We need to be doing much
more to reduce energy in existing buildings, for example.
However, this code is way out front within NY when it comes to
requiring best energy building for new construction or major
renovation, so I strongly urge you to pass this code. And I
sincerely thank the people who wrote it.
This comment is acknowledged.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
19
Irene Weiser I do suggest that Site Plan Review laws be reviewed and
strengthened to compliment the new code - they can go
beyond code to make added requirements. Not just guidelines,
but actual legal requirements for projects that require SPR
(usually larger projects). For example, even if they go w/simple
design, point scale option, they might be required to provide
energy modeling showing heat pumps vs whatever they have
chosen and to justify why they have not chosen heat pumps to
the satisfaction of the review committee. They might be
required to put in charging stations or other things that could
not be justified in stretch code but could be rationalized as
reasonable expense or attribute for larger projects.
This comment is acknowledged. We are open to further
exploring Site Plan Review.
Irene Weiser I have a question about the following:
2.10.2 Placing heating/cooling systems within the heated
space
Many heating/cooling systems are placed outside the heated
space (on roofs, in attics, in unheated
basements, in crawl spaces, etc.), and as a result lose
significant energy. Even when an unheated
basement is located inside the thermal envelope, losses of
10% or more are typical.
I'm not sure I understand this - particular with respect to heat
pumps, where compressors are outside, loop fields
underground, ductwork or tubing outside (ASHP) or in the
basement (GSHP). If this does not apply to heat pump
systems - why give it any points at all and encourage/reward
non-heat pump options? Just require it.
It does apply to heat pumps (but not to ductless heat pumps).
Ducted heat pumps outside the heated space would not be
eligible for this point. (And there are many ducted heat pumps
- virtually all ground source heat pumps are ducted, and many
air source heat pumps are ducted.)
Irene Weiser Also - would you advocate ASHP hot water in finished space?
I've thought a lot about this. Yes - it pulls heat from the heated
room - but I think managing when it does this is key. They can
be programmed to turn on after one leaves for work, or in the
evening when all are asleep - typically times when temp
setback occurs anyhow. Also, is the amt of heat they'd draw
from the finished space really that significant? I ask about this
because some apts or rental cottages have water heaters in
the individual apt - in a utility closet or some such.
Where we locate hot water does not have a big impact on
carbon. There might be a small benefit to where it's located,
but each of our points needed to rise to a threshold of saving
over 6% in carbon emissions, and preferably more. So if a
particular improvement does not deliver significant reductions
in carbon emissions, it was not included.
Irene Weiser I appreciate the idea behind the point system and that you
have revised and added more points for heat pumps, and
more points required overall - and if costs were equal for all
point options Heat Pumps would be an obvious choice. But
I'm guessing that it's a lot easier for developers to choose
several cheaper, lower point stuff like "right lighting" than to put
in heat pumps.
It might be hard to. We do not allow right lighting to be used for
homes or apartments (or hotels), because it does not deliver
enough reduction in carbon emissions for these building types.
Building shape turns out to be fairly hard to get as a point.
Commercial buildings are not eligible for the building size
points (different than building shape). The case studies give
examples of these. For example, consider a typical retail
building on Route 13: Likely will not pursue heating in the
heated space (because they all use rooftop systems), not
eligible for building size, not eligible for heat pump water
heating, difficult to meet the building shape point. So unless
they want to spend money on solar or on the stretch energy
code, the likelihood that they will choose heat pumps (likely a
rooftop heat pump system) is extremely high, if they want to
keep the building affordable. And in 2025, when the required
points jumps up to 12, it is even less likely. And in 2030 we
propose that new buildings be free of fossil fuels. Note also
that we do not allow heat pump systems that rely on fossil
fuels to get these points.
Irene Weiser I dont know enough about the various certified green building
standards to know whether heat pumps would be >90%
certain outcome. What I dont want to see is more of what has
happened with some recent downtown buildings, like
Tompkins Financial, that have gone for LEED certification - but
still using gas.
Note that the level of LEED required is extremely high, which
is more likely to direct people to the Easy Path, which very
strongly discourages fossil fuels in several ways.
Irene Weiser I think the statement about Pros of not using Fossil Fuels (and
perhaps the committee's understanding of what's at stake)
needs to be strengthened.
Support NYSEG’s new pilot project, which has the goal of
providing adequate natural gas service to the region without
building a new gas pipeline. A big part of this effort is to reduce
gas use in current and future buildings.
It is much more than this. NYSEG and the Dept of Public
Service folks have cautioned that if too much gas is drawn
from the system to feed downtown then the compressor
solution could fail - and Lansing pipeline will be needed. We
are all connected and what the City and Town do has impacts
elsewhere.
We propose to add text to further emphasize the importance of
not using fossil fuels, and the issue of interconnectedness.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
20
Irene Weiser I also think the statement about "Cons" of not using Fossil
Fuels ...
If natural gas prices drop or if electricity prices rise, we might
risk preventing the lowest-cost heating fuel.
... is very low risk because so much of our electricity -
especially peak electricity - is generated from gas. Except in
rare situations, if gas prices change, electric prices will change
along with them.
Gas prices unfortunately plummeted by 50% over the past 10
years, during which time electricity did not fall nearly as far.
Also, as gas demand hopefully continues to drop, its price may
unfortunately also drop. And even if the risk is low (which we
may or may not agree with), the statement is still correct that
the risk exists. New York City is dealing with this situation in a
big way, due to their high cost of electricity.
Irene Weiser I know that for legal reasons you can't come out and say "no
gas" But really - that's where we've got to be. Our energy
road map says we have to REDUCE our use of gas by AT
LEAST 50% to meet our GHG reduction goals. At the very
least, we should not be adding new uses.(unless offset by
existing use reduction somewhere..) It troubles me that the
policy would allow new gas until 2030. That means that
unless market conditions change significantly by then (and
goddess knows I hope they do!) we could have gas furnaces
going in in 2029! I'd like to see this policy help those market
conditions occur by doing everything possible to promote heat
pumps and discourage furnaces. Maybe a way to provide an
extra point for developers who try it for the first time (along
w/some extra provision of support thru the energy navigator?)
As described above, we believe what we are proposing is
intended to do what you are suggesting. Based on prior
feedback, we took additional steps to discourage gas,
including: 1. Giving a point for fossil-fuel-free appliances, but
only if the rest of the building is free of fossil fuels. 2.
Requiring one more point (we used to require 5, not it's 6) 3.
Allowing "energy improvements of your choice" for two points,
but only if the building is free of fossil fuels. 4.
Recommending the big step up in 2025 (12 points). 5.
Requiring a further step up in 2030, to net zero and fossil-fuel-
free. We believe that what the policy proposes is strong.
Irene Weiser Does the City or Town use design guidelines as partner
documents to their site plan review process? This might be
one way to help convey the very strong desire of the
City/Town to not expand use of fossil fuels. At a minimum,
conversations should be had to inform developers of the cost
effectiveness of building w heat pumps now- rather than the
cost of conversion later. Maybe also some bargaining w/in
those discussions to allow the developer some other thing that
is wanted... And for individual home owners - City/Town must
provide educational materials about what are heat pumps and
their advantages. Not as part of code change - but City/Town
should also make changes to their site plan review laws as we
have been doing in Caroline, to add in additional elements -
like a requirement that developer provide documentation of
energy use study and consideration of heat pump option. (this
is required by County 239 review)
We propose to consider adding recommendations regarding
such approaches. And/but look at the colorful "carrots/stick"
table in the report. None of what we might call softer
approaches comes close to achieving the effectiveness of
mandates, in other word firm legal requirements. And a
mandate is what we are proposing.
Irene Weiser I also wonder about not including points for solar. Yeah - I
know.. We need to encourage solar and this is a fine way to do
it. But the reality is that solar IS happening and accelerating
and will do so even more as storage starts to happen (and it
is!!) So I'm less worried about solar.. The grid overall is getting
greener and will continue to do so. Instead maybe points for
solar ready rooftops or property - such that at least 50% of
energy consumption could be done on site.
We discussed solar ready rooftops, but solar ready rooftops do
not firmly deliver reductions in carbon emissions. Solar does.
And we cannot get to net zero without renewables. We have
capped points for renewables so that someone cannot just go
out and comply just by using renewables - we pretty much
followed the lead of Architecture 2030 on this.
Irene Weiser Maybe a point for Energy Efficient appliances plus "right
lighting" - but not just for right lighting..
Right lighting is only allowed for commercial buildings,
many/most of which do not have appliances (think of office
buildings, for example). And appliances are typically not
addressed in a building design/construction/permitting
process. (The policy does have one point that relates to
clothes dryers, but that point also requires no fossil fuels to a
building that gets this point, which is permit-related.)
Irene Weiser How does this policy allow or promote Ecovillage type
development - with economically built buildings so tight that
they can be heated with one small baseboard heating unit?
We should be encouraging this most of all!!!
Much of Ecovillage-style construction is included in this policy -
simpler building shape, modest window-to-wall ratio, no
heating outside the heated space, and more. This is
described in the report. Other Ecovillage characteristics, like
superinsulation, are possible through the whole-building path,
and on the Easy Path with points through the Stretch Code,
and through the "improvement of your choice".
Irene Weiser Last - I think the thing I most appreciate in this policy doc are
the graphs showing how relatively little impact new
construction has vs BAU - yes, it matters some -but where
we've really got to focus our efforts is in converting existing
housing stock!! (we should keep this in mind w/NYSEG RFP
too!!)
We agree. And/but we do not want to let new buildings off the
hook: If we cannot control the growth of carbon emissions, we
will have a hard time reducing them. So we need this policy,
even if its impact is not as big as existing buildings. Also, look
carefully at the City projected energy graph, where the impact
of new building growth is bigger than for the Town.
Irene Weiser Really last - the other thing I most appreciate about this policy
is the team that has been working on it - and how open and
responsive you have been to constructive criticism. Thanks
for all your hard work!!
Thank you.
Guillermo Metz
- EE1 should specify some amount of total heat load is met
with heat pumps or biomass (ideally, we should require 100%)
The policy allows 10% backup heat by electric resistance,
which means a minimum of 90% must be supplied by heat
pumps.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
21
Guillermo Metz - EE2: I suggest we cut out biomass for water heating, and for
heat pumps require that some amount be met with heat pumps
(again, 100%)
We propose to eliminate biomass for water heating. We
propose to recommend that heat pump water heaters be set
on heat-pump-only mode.
Guillermo Metz - AI1: particularly for hotel rooms, how many of the total rooms
need to be the requisite size? All?
We propose to clarify that an average of all rooms can meet
the standard, but not every room needs to.
Guillermo Metz - AI2: should stipulate that all heating/cooling systems (except
for heat pumps) be inside actively heated spaces
Detailed requirements for this point are spelled out in the full
policy requirements in the report. The table is just a summary.
Guillermo Metz
- AI4: “reducing” by how much?
Detailed requirements for this point are spelled out in the full
policy requirements in the report. The table is just a summary.
Guillermo Metz
- AI5: in addition to limiting overall WWR, should the policy
limit any single wall to less than some amount (40%? 60%?)
Based on some concerns from others, the consultants
determined that an average of less than 20% for the entire
building provides more flexibilty in the design of buildings
which may require one or more exterior walls to exceed even
40 to 60%.
Guillermo Metz
- OP1: what would the policy be for commercial/retail?
This point would also apply to commercial/retail buildings that
exist within any neighborhood with an exsiting or proposed
density level of 7 du/acre.
Guillermo Metz
- OP3: need to define “substantial”
Detailed requirements for this point are spelled out in the full
policy requirements in the report. The table is just a summary.
Guillermo Metz - OP5: stipulate that the proposed energy improvement needs
to be submitted in writing to and approved by ________?
We proposed to clarify the requirement for this point to add
this level of detail.
Guillermo Metz - WE1: “Use” is too vague. Maybe “Exclusively use” or
something like that.
Detailed requirements for this point are spelled out in the full
policy requirements in the report. The table is just a summary.
Guillermo Metz Also, in the references section, or separately, I think it would
be good to list additional resources such as specific
NYSERDA and other incentive programs, info about heat
pumps including their economics, the County’s various energy
and emissions reports, if available and able to be made public,
the 2030 District market analysis report, etc.
This comment has been acknowledged.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
22
Elmer E. Ewing As a Town of Ithaca resident and patron of Ithaca, thank you
for the huge investment in work and time that you have made
on the Green Building Policy. Thank you also for the
opportunity to comment on it. I would like to expand on the
remarks that I made at the Public Outreach event of March 28,
2018.
If we want to have a significant impact on slowing climate
interruption, our focus should be on immediate results. Why?
For a number of reasons, but an important one is the
probability that irreversible cycles are being initiated which will
accelerate the rate of climate change. One example: as the
permafrost thaws in the Arctic, methane is already being
released--and the huge quantities present there court disaster.
Methane frozen in shallow bodies of water present another
potential time bomb. The warmer the Arctic gets, the more
methane is released; the more released, the warmer it gets.
Thus meeting goals for reduction of greenhouse gases by
2030 are important not only because they mark progress on
the road to eventual replacement of all fossil fuels; they are
critical because unless we make sufficient progress in the very
near future, our goals for what happens by the end of the
century may be impossible to achieve!
This is why we must stop focusing only on CO2 emissions. If
we want to meet our goals for 2030 or earlier, we have to pay
major attention to methane (the major component of natural
gas). Methane decays more rapidly than does CO2, which
persists for centuries. Therefore, in comparing how much the
two gases contribute to climate change, the time frame must
be specified. In early days of research on this topic, EPA
decided on 100 years. This led to a figure for methane of 25
times more powerful than CO2. However, for the shorter time
frames crucial to meet our goals, that figure approaches 100
times more powerful than CO2.
The gas industry assures us that natural gas is a bridge fuel,
and that leakage of gas is a minor issue. Evidence is
mounting that leakage is far higher than they claim. Instead of
only 1-3%, if we include the entire process from drilling to end
usage, gas leakage may well exceed 15%. Yes, CO2 is very
important, but the low-hanging fruit is natural gas.
It is imperative that the City and Town of Ithaca zero in on
switching away from natural gas. Tighter buildings and better
insulation are certainly helpful, but heat pumps are a far better
answer than natural gas for heating needs. It is true that the
electricity for heat pumps is likely to be generated by natural
gas, so we must also move toward non-fossil methods of
generation. That will be easier to do than to switch away from
natural gas as a heating source once gas furnaces have been
purchased and new gas lines have been laid. New gas
infrastructure is a huge impediment to change; it must be
blocked soon! Please bear this in mind as you continue to
work on this important policy, and thank you for the chance to
comment.
This comment has been acknowledged. We feel a major
component of the proposed policy is to discourage any new
natural gas infrastructure by rewarding more points for all
electric systems.
Katie Borgella Walkability Map: Clarify how often it will be updated, how
developed, what it is based on.
We would recommend updating the map an an annual basis.
The map is automatically generated using 1/4 mile buffers
around all known services as well as targeted development
areas identified in the Town's Comp Plan such as King Rd, Rt
13 cooridor and East Hill Plaza. We acknowledge that more
GIS data points (such as dining halls on both IC and Cornell)
need to be added in order to make the map more accurate.
Katie Borgella Density: Have you compared to town/city zoning to see how
much of Town/City could get points?
We have not specifically done this calculation but we don't
believe there are currently any locations within the Town other
than Belle Sherman Cottages and Maplewood Redevelopment
that would meet the density points. New developments such
as Chainworks and East Hill plaza could meet this point. Most
of the residential neighborhoods in the City meet this
requirement.
Katie Borgella Heat Pump Dryer: Could include definition in glossary? Not
familiar with it.
We propose to add this definition.
Katie Borgella Why is heat pump water heating not ok for commercial points?Most commercial buildings (office, retail, etc.) have very low
water loads.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
23
Katie Borgella It would be good to include a definition of Residential and
Commercial. Does Commercial include apartment buildings
with more than 5 units?
We propose to include definitions of residential and
commercial buildings, as suggested, and to also include
clarification for mixed-use buildings.
Katie Borgella Why are dorms and hotels called out only for EE2 in the
Summary Table? Are hotels and dorms not considered either
residential or commercial?
Dorms and hotels are considered commercial buildings, but
some points are available for both residential and these
commercial buildlings.
Katie Borgella NYS Stretch code – include explanation of what is in it,
mention some specifics e.g. insulation, air sealing).
We propose to include more description of the NYS Stretch
Code, as suggested.
Katie Borgella Summary Table pg. 6: Might want to reference other places in
report for more info OR could organize report in same order as
table. Right now, it can be hard to find additional information –
for example the NYS Stretch code info is kind of buried in the
text on page 16.
We propose to add these references, as suggested.
Katie Borgella It is great to see the city and the town taking leadership on this
issue. This policy will help to meet City, Town and County
GHG reduction goals.
This comment has been acknowldeged.
Umit Sirt As I mentioned you earlier, we need to make sure and
highlight that this additional simple approach is on top of the
current NYS energy code, which is already stringent for the
building envelope.
This is clear in some places in the report/policy, but we
propose to highlight this, for clarity, as suggested.
Umit Sirt As mentioned, we may want to discourage the fossil fuel even
more, with putting negative points for any sort of natural gas.
The current approach is to provide one point for each 6-10%
reduction in carbon emissions. A negative point would be
inconsistent with this accounting.
Umit Sirt You affordable zero energy piece (simplified approach) is
amazingly complimentary with the energy code, based on
ASHRAE, which really lacks in some areas. One area that I
see a HUGE opportunity is to reduce overventilating with the
outdoor air. I am seeing more and more , the designer goes
over ventilate so that they are not liable. They give resistance
to change their practice and goes beyond ASHRAE 62.1-62.2.
My suggestion is to give one more point (both commercial and
residential) for not over ventilating the building (may be not
more than 5% of the ASHRAE values of the overall building.)
This will lower the amount of outside air and lower the duct
size and also equipment sizes. Therefore, it is an affordable
measure, and the impact on energy is substantial, most of the
time, more important than building shell.
We propose to consider providing one point for avoiding over-
ventilation.
Umit Sirt The same approach with over ventilating can be repeated for
the over lighting. We can use LPD for the whole building. (you
may already have this, just didn’t recall)
We already have a point for reduced overlighting on a space
by space basis. And the stretch code rewards lower lighting
power density than required by code.
Ithaca College Recommend an institutional compliance path. Several
additional comments were included in the attached memo.
We propose adding language to the report similar to the
following: We will evaluate an institutional compliance path, in
cooperation with large local institutions, as part of the next
phase of this project.
Ithaca College • The “easy path” can be a challenge as we have a number of
buildings that share utility services, resulting in regional energy
plants. An upgrade in one does not always sync up with
others.
We propose to review the Easy Path to see if changes are
needed to address this issue.
Ithaca College • The “walkability” point would likely be available to IC based
upon the planned changes to the GIS data base.
We believe this to be true but would like to better understand
what services are currently offered on campus. The data
points will be added to the GIS map.
Ithaca College • The “whole building” scoring system will be synced to the
current LEED version 4 regardless of any updates or changes
to the LEED system.
That is the current plan, but it is difficult to commit for what
might be done in the future. We could see revisions happening
based on improvements to LEED. Other whole-building paths
may also emerge, such as the Stretch Code at higher levels of
performance, that may offer broader options, for example for
2025.
Ithaca College • We would appreciate the continued discussion around the
concept of carbon offsets. Although the elimination of fossil
fuel usage and the concept of “strategic electrification” are the
main drivers to the current policy, carbon offsets may still have
a potential role.
We can certainly continue to discuss this idea as part of the
next phase of the project.
Ithaca College • The Stretch Code is scheduled to be updated with a newer
2018 version which is likely to be the one recommended for
this policy.
Which version of the NYS Stretch Energy Code is used
depends on the dates that the 2015 and 2018 Codes are
finalized, as well as the timeline for the development of the
Green Building Policy.
Ithaca Green Building Policy Comments and Responses
24
Ithaca College • The emergency generator issue needs to be clarified, as they
are required by the Life Safety Codes. Fossil fuels for dining
services and commercial kitchen operations will be required for
the foreseeable future. We appreciate your willingness to
consider these fossil fuel usages as potential exemptions.
We will explore the emergency generator issue, but we
anticipate we can find a mutually agreeable solution. The
Green Building Policy will not conflict with existing regulations.
We recognize that commercial cooking operations may require
the use of gas or other fossil fuel. The use of these is not
prohibited under any proposed compliance path for the first
iteration of this policy. While we have proposed a mandate for
net zero building by 2030, we believe that the global
conversation around net zero will lead to some consensus with
how to treat things like commercial cooking.
Ithaca College • The dialogue around “gut rehab” highlights the need to
consider including additional language to help more formally
define this item.
We propose clarifying the language related to "gut rehab."
Ithaca College • Please include additional verbiage to clarify how residential
halls will be treated. In the version we reviewed there
appeared to be two different references that offered conflicting
guidance.
We propose to review definitions of residential and commercial
buildings, and clarify where residential halls fall.
Ithaca College • The 20% offsite renewable cap may be a challenge that ends
up negatively impacting the desired intent. Perhaps allowing
off site locations within the State or a certain radius to count as
“on site” may be an acceptable alternative.
The cap is on points, and is not a cap on Renewables
themselves. However, we do propose to re-examine the cap
on points for Renewables.
Ithaca College How will future energy sources such as fuel cell technology be
scored if it reaches an acceptable
level of technical and commercial availability?
Under the Easy Path, points are available under OP5 for
improvements not already included in the Easy Path which
reduce energy use on site. Additionally, the Whole Building
Path allows for more flexibility in design.
Ithaca College If carbon capture is developed into a sustainable and
commercially available technology, how will the policy be
adapted?
The policy can be adapted as necessary in the future to
account for an electric grid which has a smaller carbon
footprint.
Ithaca College • Has the team considered incorporating water reclamation
systems into the report?
There has been discussion of a variety of water conservation
strategies. Water was moved to a separate mandatory
prerequisite because cold water conservation does not reduce
carbon emissions. For now, it is limited to approaches that do
not add to construction cost, in order to minimize impacts on
building affordability.
Ithaca College • There currently appears to be minimal local support and
parts availability for geothermal systems maintenance.
There are a number of operating geothermal systems locally,
and we expect the field to grow with time.
Cornell University Would like to see an institutional path.We propose adding language to the report similar to the
following: We will evaluate an institutional compliance path, in
cooperation with large local institutions, as part of the next
phase of this project.
To: Planning Committee
FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner
DATE: April 5, 2018
H
RE: Review of the City of Ithaca Community Investment Incentive Tax
Abatement Program (CIITAP)
The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the proposal to amend the City
of Ithaca Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP).
The proposed expansion of the CIITAP boundary and the inclusion of an affordable housing
requirement was previously discussed at the March Planning Committee meeting. At that
meeting questions were raised regarding the history of CIITAP, the projects that had been
previously approved and the need for a continuation of this program. Enclosed please find a
brief history of the City’s tax abatement programs, a list of City projects that have received
tax abatements between 2000-2017, as well as a table showing the total projected taxes to be
collected during the abatement period from projects that received abatements between 2012-
2017.
The seven projects approved since 2012 are expected to generate nearly 6 million dollars in
new City tax revenues during the abatement period. During that same period the City has
not seen any projects be built that did not require some sort of financial subsidy. Staff feels
that this program is still an essential tool for encouraging development in the density district
of the City.
The City waterfront areas which were recently rezoned are also considered to be desirable
areas of the City to encourage development. The zoning for the area allows for 5 story mixed
use development. However, given poor soil conditions this area of the City is also a very
expensive area to construct buildings. Tax abatements are an important tool to help support
projects in the waterfront. In addition, by including an affordable housing requirement, the
City can ensure that new development along the waterfront does not become exclusively
high-end housing.
Staff proposes that the City consider an amendment to the CIITAP that would require
housing projects applying for CIITAP to provide a minimum of 10% of their total units be
affordable units. Affordable units would be defined as units whose rents are affordable to
those earning 75% of Area Median Income (AMI) and would be restricted to be occupied by
households that earn no more than 80% of AMI.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
Recognizing that this requirement will most likely result in a loss of potential revenue for the
project, staff recommends that the CIITAP program include additional support for housing
projects that provide affordable units. The current standard CIITAP offers a 7 year abatement
that starts at a 90% abatement on new taxes and reduces annually in equal increments over a
7 year period. In order to offset the loss in revenue on these units and maintain financial
feasibility of the project, staff proposes that for projects containing an affordable housing
component, there be an additional 10% annual reduction in new taxes paid for a period of 20
years.
Enclosed for your consideration is a draft resolution to amend the City CIITAP. If you have
any concerns or questions regarding this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410.
4/4/2018
Draft Resolution—Expansion of the CIITAP Boundaries and Mandatory
Inclusion of Affordable Housing
1. WHEREAS, On July 5, 2000, the Common Council unanimously
requested that the Tompkins County Industrial Development
Agency (“IDA”) undertake a program to provide financial
incentives for development of multi-story buildings within
a density target area encompassing the downtown Central
Business District, the West State Street corridor, the West
End, and Inlet Island, the program was in effect for 5 years
and delivered incentives to 6 projects, and
2. WHEREAS, in 2006, the City endorsed the continuation of an
IDA program of local tax abatements as a tool for encouraging
appropriate real estate and business investment in the urban
core of the city; and further requested the IDA establish
the Community Investment Incentive Program (CIIP) ― through
which, projects would be reviewed by the community and
evaluated by Common Council, and (if endorsed by Common
Council) proposed for recommendation by the Mayor to the IDA
as eligible for tax abatements, and
3. WHEREAS, the CIIP program was in effect from 2006-2012 and
delivered incentives to one project, and
4. WHEREAS, in 2012, the City voted to simplify the CIIP
program, remove the checklist of requirements and created
the Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program
(CIITAP) which provides financial incentives based on a
size, a location, and a density requirement, and
5. WHEREAS, the CIITAP delivered incentives to 5 projects
between 2012-2015, and
6. WHEREAS, in 2015 the City amended the CIITAP program to add
living wage, local labor, and diversity requirements, and
the amended CIITAP delivered incentives to two additional
projects between 2016-2017, and
7. WHEREAS, 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 phase two of the Comprehensive Plan, and
8. WHEREAS, in order to develop recommendations for the plan
and for the zoning, the City established a waterfront
working group made up of 17 members of the public and City
Planning Staff, and
9. WHEREAS, the Waterfront Working Group drafted new zoning for
the waterfront area that encouraged mixed commercial and
residential development, and
10. WHEREAS, the Waterfront Working Group also recommended that
the City consider expanding the boundaries of the CIITAP to
include the waterfront area as an incentive to encourage new
development in this area, and further recommended that the
City consider adding an affordable housing requirement for
any new residential projects, and
11. WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the recommendation to expand the
boundaries of the CIITAP and prepared map of a proposed
expanded City of Ithaca Density District to include
appropriate location in the waterfront area, and
12. WHEREAS, in order to partially offset the loss in potential
revenues to a developer from providing affordable housing,
staff further recommends that the CIITAP provide additional
tax incentives for projects that include affordable housing,
now,therefore, be it
1. RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council
understands that the City’s Community Incentive
Investment Tax Abatement Program continues to be a vital
tool to encourage density in targeted development areas
of the City, and be it further
2. RESOLVED, that the City hereby expands the Community
Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program to have a
requirement that in order to receive City endorsement
any project including 10 or more rental residential
dwelling units must meet the following requirements:
Must have a minimum of 10% of their housing units
be affordable to households earning up to 75% of
the Area Median Income (AMI)
The percentage of affordable units of various sizes
should be the same percentage of units of each size
for the entire project
Developer must agree that affordable units will
only be rented to households earning no more than
80% of AMI for at least a 20-year period, and be it
further
3. RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca does hereby request
the continuation of the IDA’s density incentive program
and requests that the boundaries of the Density District
be expanded to include the waterfront areas, as shown on
the map entitled Expanded City of Ithaca Density
District–April 2018, and be it further
4. RESOLVED, that the City requests that in order to
partially offset the loss in revenue to a developer for
providing affordable housing, the IDA provide additional
abatements to residential projects containing affordable
units, in the amount of an additional 10% abatement per
year for a 20-year period.
EAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUESOUTH AVENUEWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETWILLIAMS STREETCENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUEEAST AVENUE CAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADCAMPUS ROADSTEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE
STEWART AVENUE OAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUEOAK AVENUESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVESAGE AVE
EDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEEDGEMOOR LANEHO Y R OA DHOY R OA DHOY R OA D
HIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEHIGHLAND PLACEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEWEST AVENUEMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C EMcGRAW P L A C ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U ECENTRAL AV E N U EUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVEFALL CREEK DRIVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVETHURSTON AVEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACEROBERTS PLACES TE WA R T A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUESTEWART A V ENUETHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLTHE KNOLLUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEL A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
L A K E S T R E E T
LOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOPLOOP
W I L L A R D W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A YWILLARD W A Y
WILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYWILLARD WAYL LENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URTLLENROC CO URT
UNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUEUNIVERSITY AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECORNELL AVENUECASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADCASCADILLA PARK ROADSTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUE
DEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETKING STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETQUEEN STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREETLAKE STREET
CASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUECASCADILLA AVENUEFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETFARM STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREETSEARS STREET
LINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREETLINN STREET
NORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREET
EAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST COURT STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETEAST MARSHALL STREETHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEHARVARD PLACEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUEELMWOOD AVENUESUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREETSUMMIT STREET IRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACEIRVING PLACE(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)(NYS RTE 366)OXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEOXFORD PLACEI T H A C A R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DITHACA R O A DDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUEDELAWARE AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUELINDEN AVENUEDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADDRYDEN RO ADCOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUECOLLEGE AVENUE COOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCOOK STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETCATHERINE STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETBOOL STREETB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEB RYAN T A VENUEDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREDUNMOREPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEPLACEBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREETBLAIR STREET MITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETMITCHELL STREETORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEORCHARD PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEVALENTINE PLACEB R A N D O N PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C EBRANDON PLA C E
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C E
F E R R I S P L A C EEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREETSOUTH QUARRY STREET
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
J A M E S S T R E E T
(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)E BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETE BUFFALO STREETOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACEOSMUN PLACESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUESTEWART AVENUE
EDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREETEDDY STREET
NORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREETNORTH QUARRY STREET
EAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETEAST SENECA STREETG IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
G IL E S S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
H U D S O N S T R E E T
DEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACEDEWITT PLACE
SCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACESCHUYLER PLACE
PARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREETPARKER STREET
TERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACETERRANCE PLACE
FOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACEFOUNTAIN PLACE
WILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACEWILLETS PLACE
GLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACEGLEN PLACE SENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYSENECA WAYNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREETNORTH AURORA STREET PLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETPLEASANT STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETEAST STATE STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHUDSON STREETHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACEHILLVIEW PLACECOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETCOLUMBIA STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETPROSPECT STREETEAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST SENECA STREET (NYS RTE 79W)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)EAST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)SOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREETSOUTH GENEVA STREET
FAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETFAYETTE STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETWEST SENECA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREETSOUTH CAYUGA STREET
WEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETEAST BUFFALO STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREETSOUTH ALBANY STREET
TURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACETURNER PLACE
EAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETEAST CLINTON STREETNORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUESPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSPENCER STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREETSOUTH PLAIN STREET
WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETCLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUECLEVELAND AVENUEWEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)WEST GREEN STREET (NYS RTE 79E)NORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREETNORTH CORN STREET WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREET
NORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREET
CENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETCENTER STREETNORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUENORTH TITUS AVENUEN YS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96NYS RTE13/34/96WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)WEST CLINTON STREET (NYS RTE 96B)SOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUESOUTH TITUS AVENUE(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)(NYS RTE 79 E)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.TAUGHANNOCK BLVD.SOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREETSOUTH CORN STREET
(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)TAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACE FLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUEFLORAL AVENUECHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETS H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
S H O R T S T R E E T
UTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREET
NORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOGA STREETNORTH TIOG A ST REE TNORTH TIOG A ST REE TNORTH TIOG A ST REE TNORTH TIOGA STREET
W TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW TOMPKINS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS STW LEWIS ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY ST WEST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STEAST JAY STAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREETAUBURN STREET
UTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREETUTICA STREET
W MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STW MARSHALL STNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GENEVA STREETNORTH GEN EVA S TREETNORTH GENEVA STREET
NORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETNORTH ALBANY STREETW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STW YATES STEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST FALLS STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETEAST LINCOLN STREETPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADPIER ROADWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETWEST FALLS STREETNYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13NYS ROUTE 34 & 13EAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETEAST YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETW YORK STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREETNORTH CAYUGA STREET
FRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST YATES STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETEAST TOMPKINS STREETW IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
D E Y S T R E E T
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U E
L A K E A V E N U EEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETEAST LEWIS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETADAMS STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETWEST LINCOLN STREETALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYALICE MILLER WAYFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETFRANKLIN STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETMADISON STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETHANCOCK STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETESTY STREETMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMONROE STMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEMORRIS AVENUEWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETWEST BUFFALO STREETF IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
F IR S T S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
S E C O N D S T R E E T
PARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACEPARK PLACE
WASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETWASHINGTON STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETCASCADILLA STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREETNORTH PLAIN STREET
WEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETWEST COURT STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREETMEADOW STREET
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F O U R T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
F IF T H S T R E E T
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
W IL L O W A V E N U E
NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34NYS ROUTE 13 & 34T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
T H IR D S T R E E T
(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)(N YS RTE 34N/13N)NORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREETNORTH MEADOW STREET
CECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVECECIL A MALONE DRIVE(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)(NYS RTE 89/96)NY S RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96SNYS RTE 13S /34S /96S
BRIN DLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREETBRINDLEY STREET
WEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETWEST STATE STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREETNORTH FULTON STREET SO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EETSO UTH FU LTO N STR EET(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)(NYS RTE 79 W)THIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONTHIRD STREET EXTENSIONN Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6
N Y S R T E 9 6THIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTTHIRD STREET EXTCARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLECARPENTER CIRCLEH E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.C LI FF S T.PARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADPARK ROADTAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TAUGHANNOCK BLVD (NYS RTE 89)TABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETTABER STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREETCHERRY STREET(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 13A)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)(NYS RTE 79)HOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEHOOK PLACEELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETELM STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETCHESTNUT STREETSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEHOPPER PLACEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVEWESTFIELD DRIVE SUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADSUNRISE ROADVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLVINEGAR HILLH E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
H E C T O R S T R E E T
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
C A M P B E L L A V E N U E
TAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACETAYLOR PLACEN Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
N Y S R T E 7 9
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
W E S T M O U N T D R IV E
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T
C L IF F S T R E E T 5001,0000feetEXPANDED CITY OF ITHACA DENSITY DISTRICT -APRIL 2018BuildingsProperty BoundariesExisting CIITAP BoundaryNY State Plane, Central GRS 80 DatumMap Source: Tompkins County Digital Planimetric Map 1991-2017inanceMap Prepared by: GIS Planning, City of Ithaca, NY, 6 April 2018.Proposed Expansion of CIITAP
Density Tax Abatement Project Applications Received by the City: 2001-2017
Revised CIITAP Program (2016-2017)
Approved:
City Centre
323 Taughannock Boulevard
CIITAP Program (2012-2015)
Approved:
Marriott Hotel
Harold's Square
Carey Building
Hilton Canopy Hotel
Tompkins Financial
Denied:
130 E. Clinton Street
CIIP Program (2006-2012)
Approved:
Ital Thai Project
Applied — Never Completed:
Hotel Ithaca (Jeffrey Rimland Project)
Downtown Density Program (2001-2006)
Gateway Plaza Offices
Seneca Place on the Commons
Cayuga Green Garage
Inlet Island Health
Gateway Commons Apartments
Cayuga Green II Apartments
Project Year Investment
Project Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Abatement
Length
(Years)
Projected City
Taxes
(Cumulative City Taxes to
be collected during
abatement period)
Projected New
Taxes
(Cumulative Taxes to be collected
during abatement period)
Mariott Hotel 2013 $32,000,000 100,000 10 years $1,211,779 $3,412,460
Carey Building 2014 $5,757,000 17,000 10 years $182,746 $530,777
Hilton Canopy 2015 $24,000,000 74,475 10 years $1,119,541 $3,286,486
Tompkins Trust HQ 2015 $35,000,000 110,000 10 years $1,289,338 $3,782,311
Hotel Ithaca 2016 $15,000,000 30,000 7 years $314,212 $921,068
Harold's Square 2017 $42,881,306 180,000 10 years $698,836 $2,109,204
City Centre 2017 $52,713,000 218,211 10 years $1,048,254 $3,163,806
Total $207,351,306 729,686 $5,864,706 $17,206,112
*Tax Projections Provided by the Tompkins County Industrial Development Agency
CIITAP Projects Approved (2012-2017)
History of City Density Tax Abatement Program
On July 5, 2000, the Common Council unanimously requested that the Tompkins County Industrial
Development Agency (“IDA”) undertake a program to provide financial incentives for
development of multi-story buildings within a density target area encompassing the downtown
Central Business District, the West State Street corridor, the West End, and Inlet Island. That
program was established by the IDA in 2001 and remained in operation for five years. During this
period five projects received incentives and were constructed.
In 2006, the City endorsed the continuation of a modified IDA downtown incentive program to
assist only those projects that provided a minimal number of specified community benefits.y
rebranded as the The program was rebranded as the Community Investment Incentive Program
(CIIP), and adopted by the IDA. Through the CIIP each project was evaluated against a lengthy
list of 48 potential community benefits first by the Common Council and then by the IDA. Projects
providing at least 15 community benefits were eligible for partial assistance. 23 community
benefits were required to receive the full incentive. The CIIP program remained in effect for 6
years, from 2006-2012. During that time only one project was awarded incentives..
In 2012, the Common Council adopted a simpler Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement
Program (CIITAP) that only required that a project meet a minimum density requirement (3 or
more stories, or major rehab), a location requirement (must be located in the density district, or be
a brownfield site), and a minimum size requirement (the project must increase the taxes on the
property by at least $500,000). In addition, in 2014 a municipal compliance requirement was
added. This requires that an applicant have no outstanding deficiencies, fines or delinquent taxes
on any properties that they or their partners own within the City. Between 2012-2015 the City has
received 8 applications.
In 2015 the City amended the CIITAP program to add living wage, local labor, and diversity
requirements, and the amended CIITAP granted abatements to two additional projects between
2016-2017.
In 2017, the Waterfront Working Group recommended that the City consider expanding the
boundaries of the CIITAP to include the waterfront and that a mandatory 10% affordable housing
requirement for residential projects.
1
To: Svante Myrick, Mayor Mike Thorne, Superintendent of Public Works
Common Council Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning and Development Board Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator
Aaron Lavine, City Attorney
Julie Holcomb, City Clerk
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement
Katie Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability
From: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Date: April 4, 2018
Re: Proposal to Authorize the Planning and Development Board to approve the
granting of Special Permits. (Currently the Board of Zoning Appeals has this
authority.)
Currently, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to review and grant requests for special
permits. The criteria used to evaluate whether or not to grant a special permit in the City Code,
Chapter 325-3, Definitions and Word Usage is; “SPECIAL PERMIT, The written authorization
by the Board of Appeals to permit, in a given district, a property use which, because of its nature,
location or effect on the surrounding neighborhood, warrants special evaluation of each individual
case.”
The Planning Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the same criteria as is used by the BZA
to evaluate special permits. During site plan review, the PB looks at impacts a project will have
on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the greater community. In accordance with
the City Code Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, §276-7 Project review criteria.
A. General criteria: the Planning Board is charged with weighing the impacts of a project by;
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be emphasized in
particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with Chapter 282 of the City
Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited to trees,
views, watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near the site. The protection
of existing mature vegetation, especially trees over eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-
height) may be required unless a justification for their removal can be made by the
applicant.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
2
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of importance to
the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks, neighborhoods, commercial
areas, and historic districts.
The process for applying for a special permit is the same process as for a variance. Notification of
neighbors within 200 feet, publication of a legal ad, and a required public hearing. The variance
process takes about 45-55 days from the application deadline to the hearing date depending on
what day the first Tuesday of the month falls on (BZA meets on the first Tuesday of the month).
The applicant can expect to work through the process in about 60 days, depending on preliminary
meetings and the information required. Approximately the same time period would be applicable
if the Planning Board issues special permits. In 2017, the BZA issued 3 special permits; one for a
community garden and two for accessory apartments.
After numerous discussions with the Zoning Administrator for the City, it was thought that the
Planning Board may be the more appropriate body to review applications for special permits since
the review criteria was so similar to the site plan and environmental review criteria.
I have attached the entire section of the Code, so that you can review the section on special permits
as well as the proposed changes.
The Planning and Economic Development Committee will consider the revision at its meeting on
May 9, 2018. Your comments are respectfully requested prior to this meeting. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at: jcornish@cityofithaca.org. or 274-6566.
1
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning and Development
Date: April 4, 2018
Re: Follow-up Memo Authorizing the Planning and Development Board to approve the
granting of Special Permits. (Currently the Board of Zoning Appeals has this
authority.)
At the January 10, 2018 Planning Committee meeting, I brought forward a proposal to authorize
the Planning Board to review and act on Special Permit applications, a power and duty currently
held by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The following questions were raised by PDEC members:
Q. What is the process for applying for a special permit? Currently, special permits follow the
same process as a variance. Notification of neighbors within 200 feet, publication of a legal
ad, and a required public hearing.
Q. Is it the same as a variance with neighbor notification and a public hearing? Yes
Q. Do you place a legal in the paper as with other variances? Yes
Q. Would the process for a special permit be quicker if the Planning Board reviewed it rather than
the BZA? Currently, the variance process takes about 45-55 days from the application
deadline to the hearing date. This depends on what day the first Tuesday of the month falls on
(BZA meets on the first Tuesday of the month). The applicant can expect to work through the
process in about 60 days, depending on preliminary meetings and the information required.
Approximately the same time period would be applicable if the Planning Board issued special
permits.
Q. How many special permits do we review, on average, in a year? The BZA issued 3 special
permits last year; one community garden and two accessory apartments.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
JoAnn Cornish, Director
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565
E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
2
As a reminder, The Planning Board, when reviewing site plans, uses much the same criteria as is
used by the BZA to evaluate special permits. During site plan review, the PB looks at impacts a
project will have on the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the greater community. In
accordance with the City Code Chapter 276, Site Plan Review, §276-7 Project review criteria.
A. General criteria: the Planning Board is charged with weighing the impacts of a project by;
(1) Avoidance or mitigation of any negative impacts. The following shall be emphasized in
particular:
(a) Erosion, sedimentation and siltation control in accordance with Chapter 282 of the City
Code.
(b) Protection of significant natural features and areas, including but not limited to trees, views,
watercourses or bodies of water and land forms, on or near the site. The protection of existing
mature vegetation, especially trees over eight inches DBH (diameter-breast-height) may be
required unless a justification for their removal can be made by the applicant.
(c) Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of importance to the
community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks, neighborhoods, commercial areas,
and historic districts.
After numerous discussions with Gino Leonardi, the Zoning Administrator for the City, it was
thought that the Planning Board was the more appropriate body to review applications for special
permits since the review criteria was so similar to the site plan and environmental review criteria.
If PDEC members are comfortable with the responses to their questions, we would like to move
this idea forward by circulating it for comment. We will bring any concerns, comments, or
suggestions back to the Planning Committee in March for further discussion and a decision on
whether or not to move this onto Council for a vote.
I have again attached the entire section of the Code, so that you can review the section on special
permits as well as the proposed changes.
If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at
274-6566.
Page 1 of 16
Date: April 4, 2018
Re: Proposal to Authorize the Planning and Development Board to approve the
granting of Special Permits. (Currently the Board of Zoning Appeals has this
authority.)
§ 325-9 Standards for special conditions and special permits.
A.
Intent. The intent of this section is to set forth additional regulations and conditions which
shall apply to certain land uses and activities which are incongruous or sufficiently unique
in terms of their nature, location and effect on the surrounding environment and the quality
of the community to warrant special evaluation of each individual case.
B.
Special conditions. The Director of Planning and Development or designee shall approve
the following uses only when the special conditions specified in this subsection have been
met:
[Amended 1-14-1993 by Ord. No. 93-2; 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[1]]
(1)
[2]Development in R-3 Districts which abut R-1 Districts. The development of any permitted
use in the R-3a or R-3b Zoning Districts, except a one-family dwelling or a two-family
dwelling, shall be subject to the following special conditions if the land on which the
development occurs directly abuts land in either the R-1a or R-1b Zoning District.
(a)
Minimum lot size (area in square feet): The required area in square feet needed to satisfy
the minimum lot size requirement shall be 150% of the requirement shown on the District
Regulations Chart[3] for the R-3a or R-3b District.
(b)
Maximum building height: The maximum building height requirement shall be the same
as the requirement on the abutting R-1a of R-1b District.
(c)
Maximum percent of lot coverage by buildings: The maximum percent of lot coverage by
buildings shall be 75% of the requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart for the
R-3a or R-3b District.
Deleted: February 6, 2018
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Auto
Deleted: ¶
Page 2 of 16
(d)
Yard dimensions, side or rear yards: The minimum required side or rear yard requirement
shall be 150% of the requirement shown on the District Regulations Chart for the R-3a or
R-3b District if the side or rear yard abuts land in the R-1a or R-1b District.
C.
Special permits.
(1)
Applicability. The uses listed under the district regulations in §325-8 which require
a special permit from the Planning and Development Board are as follows:
(a)
Cemeteries in all districts.
(b)
Public utility facilities in all residential districts.
(c)
Private schools in all residential districts.
(d)
Nursery schools or child day-care centers in R-2 and R-U Districts.
(e)
Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and R-3 Districts.
(f)
Hospitals or sanatoriums in R-3 Districts.
(g)
In P-1 Districts, within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts, any use other than public
recreation, classrooms or living accommodations. In such P-1 Districts, living
accommodations within 200 feet of adjoining residential districts shall conform to the use
and area regulations applying to the strictest of such adjoining residential districts.
(h)
Signs in all districts, as provided in the Sign Ordinance.[4]
[Amended 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
(i)
[5]Home occupations in all Residential Zoning Districts require a temporary special
permit unless the home occupation meets all the following criteria:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2; amended 11-4-1992 by Ord. No. 92-16; 12-2-
1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
Deleted: Board of Appeals
Page 3 of 16
[1]
The occupation does not carry a stock of merchandise or store materials for resale or use
in the occupation, except a reasonable supply of office supplies customarily incidental to
a small office.
[2]
The occupation does not create traffic or need for parking beyond that which is
customarily incidental to the residential use of the property. Factors that are not to be
considered incidental to residential use are regularly scheduled events such as deliveries,
client or customer visits or similar events.
[3]
The occupation requires or performs no exterior alterations and maintains no exterior
display visible from outside the residence (including vehicles with signage parked outside
of the buildings) except a nameplate as permitted by Municipal Code Chapter 272, Signs.
[4]
The occupation does not create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust or objectionable effects
not customarily incidental and accessory to the residential use of the property.
(j)
In any district, towers or structures for the transmission or receipt of radio or other
electronic communications signals, except towers or structures subject to Article V-A of
this chapter, entitled "Telecommunications Facilities and Services," unless:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2; amended 11-4-1992 by Ord. No. 92-15; 12-3-
2003 by Ord. No. 2003-20]
[1]
The towers or structures are antennas or satellite dishes with a maximum dimension of
six feet or less;
[2]
Such antennas or satellite dishes are not in a front yard;
[3]
The maximum height (top to bottom) of such antenna or satellite dish, when combined
with attached mounting supports, is 10 feet or less; and
[4]
Such antennas or satellite dishes, if they are to be located where they would ordinarily be
visible from a public way adjoining the property, are subject to the following conditions:
Page 4 of 16
[a]
If in a residential zone or on a lot abutting or across a street or waterway from a residential
zone, they shall be screened from such view.
[b]
In all other locations, they shall be screened from such view or be of a color and/or in a
location that will minimize their visual impact.
(k)
Towers or structures intended for use in the generation of electricity for the premises on
which such tower is located in any district.
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
(l)
Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts.
[Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
(m)
(Reserved)[6]
(n)
Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts.
[Added 5-6-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13]
(o)
Any use not permitted as of right in the I-1 Zoning District.
[Added 11-14-1989 by Ord. No. 89-16]
(p)
Redemption centers in B-2 Districts.
[Added 10-6-1993 by Ord. No. 93-19]
(q)
Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns.
[Added 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10]
(r)
Neighborhood parking in any district where such parking is permitted.
[Added 6-6-2012 by Ord. No. 2012-03]
Page 5 of 16
(2)
Required plan.
(a)
A plan for the proposed development of a site shall be submitted with an application for
a special permit. The plan shall generally conform to the requirements for presentation of
plans set forth in Ch. 290, Subdivision of Land. It shall show parking areas, traffic areas,
landscaping, building arrangement, the height and number of stories of the buildings,
topography and other pertinent information that may be required by the Board of Appeals.
(b)
In addition to the plan requirements set forth in Subsection C(2)(a) above, an applicant
for a special permit for a school or related use must provide the following information:
[Added 11-6-1985 by Ord. No. 85-14]
[1]
Information on the nature of the proposed uses to be conducted or facilities to be located
on the premises, including but not limited to the courses of study and subjects to be
offered, the size and composition of the student body to be accommodated, the size of
the faculty and staff required, the daily hours of operation and annual periods of operation
and the type and location of support facilities required.
[2]
Information concerning the type and number of living accommodations which may be
required to serve any increase in the institution's enrollment resulting from the proposed
action, including the location and availability of those accommodations.
[3]
Documentation of the evaluation of suitable alternative sites for the proposed activity,
together with reasoning supporting its preference for the site for which a special permit is
sought.
[4]
Detailed information on the occupant load, night operation and the use of chemical,
biological or radioactive agents expected in connection with the proposed activity.
(3)
Standards applicable to all uses requiring special permits. No special permit shall be
granted by the Planning and Development unless the proposed use or activity meets the
following requirements:
(a)
The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it and the location of the
site with respect to the existing or future streets giving access to it shall be such that it will
Deleted: recommended
Deleted: Board or granted by the Board of Appeals
Page 6 of 16
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood and will not
discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and buildings or impair the
enjoyment or value thereof.
(b)
Operations in connection with any special use shall not be more objectionable to nearby
property by reason of noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand,
vibration or flashing lights than would be the operations of any use permitted without
a special permit.
(4)
Specific standards applicable to certain uses requiring special permits. Certain uses
listed in the district regulations in § 325-8 as requiring a special permit must conform to
the applicable conditions set forth in this subsection.
(a)
Neighborhood retail or service commercial facilities in R-2 and R-3 Districts:
[1]
The applicant must furnish information as to the specific goods or services offered and
the nature, size and hours of operation of the facility proposed in sufficient detail to enable
the Planning and Development Board to determine whether the use conforms to the
limitations specified in the definition of this category. (See § 325-3.)
[2]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in the procedures set forth in
§ 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in
the Board's decision to grant the special permit.
[Amended 8-5-1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(b)
Towers or structures for the transmission or receipt of electronic communications signals
in connection with any commercial or business enterprise in any zone except towers or
structures subject to Article V-A of this chapter, entitled "Telecommunications Facilities
and Services:"
[Amended 12-3-2003 by Ord. No. 2003-20]
[1]
Applicants must furnish information on the nature of the business requiring such means
of communication, including reasons why such tower or structure must be located on the
premises in question.
Deleted:
Deleted: of Appeals
Deleted: appellant
Page 7 of 16
[2]
Applicants shall furnish the Planning and Development Board with scale drawings of the
proposal, including, as a minimum, a plot plan of the premises involved showing lot lines
and the accurate locations of all buildings or structures on the premises and on each
adjacent lot, as well as the locations of the proposed tower and all guy wires, poles or
anchors, and a sketch elevation of the premises accurately depicting the proposed tower
and its relationship to structures on the premises and to the nearest structures on adjacent
lots.
[3]
Applicants shall provide sufficient information, including manufacturer's specifications or
engineering data, to assure the Board that the proposed tower or structure will not
unnecessarily obstruct the view from neighboring properties, that the tower support
system meets manufacturer's specifications or engineering requirements and that the
tower and its supports will be adequately safeguarded against structural damage by
persons or vehicles and against unauthorized climbing.
[4]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in the procedures set forth in
§ 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in
the Board's decision to grant the special permit.
[Amended 8-5-1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(c)
Towers or structures for use in the generation of electricity for use on the premises where
such tower or structure is located in any district:
[Added 4-1-1981 by Ord. No. 81-2]
[1]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[2] for radio towers above.
[2]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[3] for radio towers above.
[3]
Applicants shall furnish the Planning and Development Board with sufficient information,
including manufacturer's specifications or engineering data, on the mechanical devices
and the materials in the generating structure to indicate that excessive or annoying noise
will not be produced during prolonged operation of the generating machinery and that
failure of moving parts during operations will not present a safety hazard to adjoining
properties due to flying debris.
Deleted: Board of Zoning Appeals
Deleted: appellant
Page 8 of 16
[4]
Same as Subsection C(4)(b)[4] for radio towers.
(d)
Specific standards applicable to schools and related buildings in all residential districts
[R-1 (R-1a and R-1b), R-2 (R-2a, R-2b and R-2c), R-3 (R-3a and R-3b) and R-U].
Notwithstanding the criteria set forth in Subsection C(3) above, which criteria shall not
apply hereto, no special permit shall be granted by the Planning and Development Board
unless the proposed use or activity meets the following requirements:
[Added 11-6-1985 by Ord. No. 85-11; amended 1-8-1990 by Ord. No. 90-2]
[1]
If the proposed use is the expansion of an educational use, then the applicant must show
a need to expand into the residential area rather than into a less-restrictive area.
No special permit shall be granted by the Planning and Development Board unless the
applicant can demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to location or expansion
on the site proposed.
[2]
The location and size of the use, the size of the site in relation to it, the operations in
connection with the use and the parking and traffic related to the operations shall not be
such as to create a significant hazard to the safety or general welfare of the surrounding
area.
[3]
The proposed use or operation shall not produce or present substantial danger of
excessive noise, noxious odors, noxious or harmful discharge, fire or explosion, radiation,
chemical or toxic release or other conditions injurious to the health or general welfare of
occupants of nearby properties.
[4]
The size and use of the facility or the concentration with similar facilities in the
neighborhood shall not be so substantially out of proportion to the character of the
neighborhood as to jeopardize the continued use of the neighborhood for residential
purposes.
(e)
Community or neighborhood gardens in all districts:
[Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
Deleted: Board of Appeals
Deleted: Board of Appeals
Page 9 of 16
[1]
Applicants shall provide evidence of approval for such use from the owner of the property
on which the gardens are to be located.
[2]
Applications shall provide evidence that the area to be used will at all times be operated
in a responsible manner so as not to present a nuisance to or interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring private or public property. Such evidence shall designate at
least one responsible adult, who shall be a participant in the gardening, a representative
of the sponsoring organization or the owner of the subject property, to administer or
coordinate the operation and to act as a contact person therefor.
[3]
Applications shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning and Development
and shall include:
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[7]]
[a]
The name, address and phone number(s) of the contact person.
[b]
A description of the refuse disposal procedure to be followed and of the intended use of
organic materials, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
[c]
A site plan showing the proposed locations of all features of the site, including access
point(s) and any of the required parking spaces that may be located on adjacent property.
Applicants, or the administrator/coordinator of the garden area, shall ensure the following:
[a]
That the gardening activity on individual plots is confined to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m., except that power machinery shall not be operated before 8:00 a.m. or after
8:00 p.m.
[b]
All organic refuse and trash from the gardening operations is promptly and properly
disposed of on at least a weekly basis and that, pending disposition, it is stored neatly in
such a way that it does not produce offensive odors or attract dogs, raccoons or vermin.
Deleted: ¶
Page 10 of 16
[c]
That power or motorized machinery used in preparing and maintaining individual plots is
no larger than that normally used in connection with home gardening, e.g., a typical walk-
behind rototiller.
[d]
That farm tractors or other heavy machinery is not employed on the site except for initial
site development and for annual spring preparation and fall cleanup, if necessary; and in
those instances it shall be operated only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekdays.
[e]
That mulch, compost or organic fertilizer employed in the gardening is confined to the site
in a neat and orderly manner and that no fresh manure shall be used or composted.
[f]
That noxious fertilizers or noxious chemicals employed in the gardening are used only
with the knowledge and consent of all gardeners using the site, all adjoining property
owners and, in the event that adjoining properties are rental residential properties, with
the knowledge and consent of the head of each tenant household.
[g]
That no flammable liquids will be stored on the site.
[h]
That noise and odors produced in connection with the gardening activity will be no greater
than those normally associated with home gardening.
[i]
That City residents of the area nearest the site will be given an opportunity to obtain plots
in the allocation of plots on a first priority basis.
[j]
Other City residents will be given an opportunity to obtain plots in the allocation of plots
on a second priority basis.
[k]
That unused portions of the site will be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all
times.
[l]
That, at the end of each gardening season or within 30 days of revocation of a permit,
whichever occurs first, the entire site will be cleaned and left with a neat appearance.
Page 11 of 16
[5]
In addition, the applicable portions of § 325-15A and C shall be observed.
[6]
In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an interim nature, may occupy
only a portion of a parcel and may be located on property unsuited for other
uses permitted under this chapter, the district regulations specified for permitted uses
under § 325-8 of this chapter shall be superseded, where applicable, by the following
regulations for community or neighborhood gardens:
[a]
Minimum lot size: none.
[b]
Width in feet at the street line: none required; however, sites lacking street frontage shall
be accessible to vehicles and pedestrians via a right-of-way of at least eight feet in width.
[c]
Structures permitted: No structures for human habitation or occupancy shall
be permitted except for a weather shelter for gardeners, which may have a maximum
floor area of 64 square feet. A light accessory structure for storage of gardening
equipment and materials for plant propagation, with a maximum floor area of 64 square
feet, may be erected separately or attached to the weather shelter. If necessary, a well-
housing structure for the production of water for garden use may be erected with
permission of the owner of the site.
[d]
Parking and loading space: At least one off-street space on or immediately adjacent to
the site shall be provided for the use of the gardeners for each 15 individual garden plots
on the site or portion thereof.
[e]
Yard setbacks shall not be required, except that the provisions of §§ 325-
17B and C and 325-25 of this chapter shall apply to any plantings, fences or accessory
structures on the site.
[7]
The response of those notified by the applicant as required in the procedures set forth in
§ 325-40, together with any other written comment received by the Planning and
Development Board before the hearing, as well as that comment expressed at the public
hearing, with primary consideration given the wishes of residents living within 200 feet of
Deleted: appellant
Page 12 of 16
the property, should be a principal factor in the Planning and Development Board's
decision to grant or deny the special permit.
[Amended 8-5-1992 by Ord. No. 92-9; 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[8]
In granting a special permit for community or neighborhood gardens, the Planning and
Development Board may prescribe any conditions that it deems necessary or desirable,
including but not limited to additional off-street parking spaces, so that the spirit of this
chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done.
[9]
Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be reviewed by the
Director of Planning and Development or designee at least annually for compliance with
this section and with any conditions established by the Planning and Development
Board. If, following such review or investigation of any complaint, the Director of
Planning and Development or designee determines that a substantial violation exists,
notice of such violation shall be mailed to the contact person designated in accordance
with Subsection C(4)(e)[2] above, requiring that such violation be corrected within 15
days. If satisfactory correction is not made, the permit may be revoked by the Director of
Planning and Development or designee. Appeals to such revocation shall be made to
the Planning and Development Board as provided in § 325-41 of this chapter.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[8]]
[10]
Special permits for neighborhood and community gardens shall be revoked automatically
if the site is not used as a community or neighborhood garden, as that term is defined in
§ 325-3, for one complete garden season.
(f)
Group adult day-care facilities in R-2 Districts: Applicants shall furnish information
sufficient to describe the scope of the proposed activity, including the size of the building,
the number of clientele, the operating hours, off-street parking availability, the number of
employees and the proximity to other group adult day-care facilities in the neighborhood.
Prior to granting any special permit for such use, the Planning and Development Board
must find that the activity is compatible with the character and quality of the neighborhood
in which it is to be located.
[Added 5-6-1987 by Ord. No. 87-13]
(g)
Bed-and-breakfast homes and bed-and-breakfast inns:
[Added 9-6-1995 by Ord. No. 95-10]
Formatted: Underline, Font color: Dark Red
Formatted: Font color: Dark Red
Deleted: Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 13 of 16
[1]
The Planning and Development Board shall only grant a special permit for a bed-and-
breakfast home or a bed-and-breakfast inn (in those districts allowing such uses) if the
following special conditions are met and adhered to during the period the bed-and-
breakfast use is in operation:
[a]
Each such use before it commences must obtain a certificate of occupancy from the
Director of Planning and Development or designee.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[9]]
[b]
A bed-and-breakfast home must be owner-occupied and owner-managed. A bed-and-
breakfast inn must be owner-managed.
[i]
An owner-occupant is an individual who owns at least a 1/2 interest in the real estate on
which the bed-and-breakfast home is located and also owns at least a 1/2 interest in the
business of running the bed-and-breakfast home and who primarily resides in and lives
in the bed-and-breakfast home for at least 80% of the days (in each calendar year) when
the bed-and-breakfast home is open for business as a bed-and-breakfast home.
[ii]
An owner-manager is an individual who owns at least a 1/2 ownership interest in the real
estate on which the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is located and also
owns at least a 1/2 interest in the business of the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-
breakfast inn and who is primarily responsible for the management of the bed-and-
breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn and is physically present in the bed-and-
breakfast home or bed-and breakfast inn at least once per day for 80% of the days (in
each calendar year) when the bed-and-breakfast home or bed-and-breakfast inn is open
for business.
[c]
Bed-and-breakfast homes or inns in residential zones must be compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood. No alterations to the exterior of the house for the
purpose of establishing or expanding bed-and-breakfast operations shall be
permitted except for routine maintenance, alterations not requiring a building permit,
restoration or requirements related to safety or handicapped accessibility. There shall be
no exterior indication of a business, except the one permitted sign as indicated below and
required parking. Drawings illustrating any proposed exterior modifications must be
submitted with the special permit application.
Deleted: Board of Zoning Appeals
Page 14 of 16
[d]
Drawings illustrating any major proposed interior modifications (excluding plumbing,
wiring or other utility work) directly related to establishing or continuing the bed-and-
breakfast use must be submitted with the special permit application. Examples of major
interior modifications are the removal, replacement or installation of staircases or
partitioning walls.
[e]
No cooking facilities are permitted in the individual guest rooms.
[f]
Food service shall only be provided to guests taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast
home or inn.
[g]
In R-2 Zones, no bed-and-breakfast home may be located on a lot closer than 500 feet
to any other lot containing a bed-and-breakfast home, with only one such
establishment permitted per block face.
[h]
There shall be no more than one sign. Such sign shall not be self-illuminated and shall
not exceed five square feet in area. Additional requirements described in Chapter 272,
entitled "Signs," of this Code shall be met.
[2]
The response of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set forth in
§ 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in
the Planning and Development Board's decision to grant or deny the special permit.
[Amended 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
[3]
A special permit granted for a bed-and-breakfast home located in an R-2 Zone shall
expire after a period of five years. All the requirements pertaining to the application for
and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed-and-breakfast home shall also apply
to the application for and granting of a renewed special permit for a bed-and-breakfast
home located in an R-2 Zone, including the notification procedures set forth in § 325-
40 and the expiration of such renewed special permit after five years.
[Amended 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
(h)
Temporary special permits for home occupations.
[Added 12-2-1998 by Ord. No. 98-30]
Page 15 of 16
[1]
Spaces in which home occupations are conducted must comply with the New York State
Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.
[2]
A home occupation temporary special permit shall be issued for a three-year period.
[3]
The response of those notified by the appellant as required in the procedures set forth in
§ 325-40, as well as that expressed at the public hearing, should be a principal factor in
the Planning and Development Board's decision to grant the temporary home
occupation special permit.
[4]
Renewals. The renewal of temporary home occupation special permits for additional
three-year periods shall be granted by the Director of Planning and Development or
designee following inspection of the premises by the Department of Planning, Building
and Development, submission of a renewal application form issued by the Department of
Planning and Development and an affidavit stating that the conditions as originally set
forth to the Planning and Development Board have not changed in any way. It is the
responsibility of permit holders to renew their temporary special permits. The Director of
Planning and Development or designee shall determine that the premises still meet the
standards of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and that the
original qualifying conditions still exist. The Director of Planning and Development or
designee is authorized to charge a fee of $30 for each renewal inspection conducted.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[10]]
[5]
Revocation. The Director of Planning and Development or designee shall revoke
any special permit issued hereunder, should the applicant or the applicant's tenant violate
any provision of this chapter or any condition imposed upon the issuance of the special
permit.
[6]
Periodic review. The Department of Planning and Development shall review the effects
of this section at least every five years to determine the long-term effect on the residential
character of the neighborhoods.
[Amended 6-5-2013 by Ord. No. 2013-15[11]]
[11]
Editor's Note: This ordinance provided for an effective date of 1-1-2014.
Deleted: Board of Zoning Appeals
Deleted: Building Commissioner
Page 16 of 16
(5)
In the I-1 Zone and the Cherry District, uses other than those permitted under § 325-
8 may be permitted by special permit upon a finding by the Planning and Development
Board and concurrence by the Common Council that such use shall have no negative
impact by reason of noise, fumes, odors, vibration, noxious or toxic releases or other
conditions injurious to the health or general welfare.
[Added 11-14-1989 by Ord. No. 89-16]
D.
The Board shall deny a special permit in all instances where it finds that a proposed use
would have a significant negative impact on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal
services, character of the surrounding neighborhood, or the general plan for the
development of the community. The granting of a special permit may be conditioned on
the effect the use would have on traffic, congestion, property values, municipal services
or the general plan for the development of the community. The applicant may be required
by the Planning and Development Board to submit plans for the site and for parking
facilities and to disclose other features of the applicant's proposed use so as to afford the
Planning and Development Board an opportunity to weigh the proposed use in relation to
neighboring land uses and to cushion any adverse effects by imposing conditions
designed to mitigate them. If the Planning and Development Board finds that the adverse
effects cannot be sufficiently mitigated, then the Planning and Development Board shall
deny the special permit.
[Added 7-8-1987 by Ord. No. 87-16; amended 7-1-1998 by Ord. No. 98-11]
Deleted: (i) ¶
Parking in the Waterfront Zone. Parking areas will
be permitted as a primary use in the Waterfront Zone
WF-1 and WF-2 districts by special permit and only if
they are open to the public or if they are intended to
serve the needs of multiple businesses.¶
[Added 10-5-2011 by Ord. No. 2011-13]¶
Formatted: Underline, Font color: Dark Red
Deleted: Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Donna Fleming, Stephen Smith, and Laura
Lewis
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending:
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Lisa Nicholas,
Deputy Director, Planning and Development;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Bryan
McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; and Deborah
Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Alderpersons McGonigal and Nguyen
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
The Parks Masters Plan was moved up on the agenda in front of the Historic
Designation of the Nines.
2) Special Order of Business
Jennifer Kusznir provided an explanation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
A PUD allows for flexibility in the zoning and design. There are certain criteria.
The applicant must work with the Common Council before going to the Planning
Board. A PUD requires a public information session if they receive preliminary
approval to go through the site-plan review process.
Lisa Nicholas provided the site map and pointed out the City portion as well as the
Town portion. The new buildings will be mostly housing units. 430 new housing
units. The PUD for the Chain Works also includes design guidelines. It will be
more defined as the site-plan process unfolds.
a) Public Hearing – Chainworks Planned Unit Development
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Smith. Carried unanimously.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, gave his thoughts on the proposed PUD.
As a 30-year resident of South Hill, he supports this project. Energy is the
number one criteria to be looked at. He would like to see this project follow the
proposed Green Building Policy.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, stated she read this proposal. Nothing is said
about affordable housing. She recommends that part of the zoning should be
inclusionary zoning. One could live at Chainworks and not have the need for a
car.
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by
Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously.
Chair Murtagh stated this project will come back to this committee next month.
3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Ken Hullett, 104 N. Titus, #4. He stated he is good friends of the owners. He
owned and ran the ABC Café. Designating this property will not provide any
economic viability. If you landmark it, it will sit empty. No one will make it with
a restaurant.
Susan Holland, president of Historic Ithaca. She asks this committee to
support the local landmark designation. By adding properties to the landmarks
registry, they are eligible for incentives to improve and maintain such
properties. Restoring and maintaining the current buildings is the greenest way
possible to maintain them.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, commends the City’s current Waterfront CIITAP
proposal for including affordable housing.
Peter Saye, 301 South Geneva Street, does not think the Nines property is
suitable for designation.
Gibrian Hagood, Cornell Cooperative Extension, 615 Willow Avenue, spoke on
the proposed Green Building Policy. It truly is achievable. A significant effort
has been made to make sure that cost associated with this policy remain
affordable.
Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street, stated that although the City will miss the
nostalgia of the Nines property, it is time to allow the owners retire. It does not
warrant designation. We should not be in the business of designating buildings
just to do so.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, continued with his wish list. Storm water
management is also key to the Chain Works PUD. Will this PUD include TCAT
bus transportation? He hopes that student housing will be a part of this PUD as
well. Ithaca College is right across the road.
Joe Wilson, Planning Board for Dryden. He urges the City to release the
proposed Green Building Policy. The City is “behind” in this area. We need to
reduce fossil fuels.
Brody Smith, One Lincoln Gate, Syracuse. He provided a packet with pictures
of the current condition and use of the Nines. Other pictures provided included
those dated back to 1910. The Nines is no longer what it was in 1910 and
doesn’t warrant designation. What’s being proposed currently is very much in
line with what is there now. He referenced how Plan Ithaca promotes mixed
uses and provides development for all income levels. This is the property that
will benefit the City with the amount of taxes it will receive.
Eric Lee, 502 ½ Utica Street. Back in the 90s, he worked at the Nines as a
delivery person and bartender. With the economics of a restaurant today and
the building conditions, people are not lining up to open up a restaurant. If this
is landmarked, it will ruin the future of the owners.
Pat Smith, 1429 Elmira Road, Newfield, has worked for the Nines for years. It’s
been on the market for years now. No one wants to buy it. There is a lot of
things that no one can do with this building. As for Collegetown, it’s gone.
Everything is overshadowed by new development. It’s time to let it go.
JR Ramirez, 17 Elm Street. He is a longtime friend of the Nines owner. He’s a
firm believer that an owner of a property should be able to do what they would
like to.
John Schroeder, 618 Stewart Avenue. In his 18+ years serving on the
Planning Board he never voted against new development, but did strive to
improve projects. In Plan Ithaca, all historical structures will remain that.
Existing buildings will be renovated, not demolished.
Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, worked at the Nines. The business has a
lot of memories, but the building is falling apart. If we were going to designate
it, it should have been done already. This block is nothing like it was. It’s time
to let it go and keep it like the other existing buildings.
Josh Lower, 205 College Avenue, stated that if this property is designated,
there should be some sort of compensation to help the owners.
Mark and Shirley Kielmann, 311 College Avenue, owner of the Nines. They
thanked all for their support. They don’t feel they are being treated fairly. If the
property was designated years ago, it would be a different situation. They are
way beyond retirement years. The size of the building.
Shirley Kielmann thanked all of the people who have supported them. They
have provided a lot to this community, and would like to go out on a good note.
Mark Kielmann further stated that they have been accused of not taking care of
the building on purpose. This isn’t the case. He currently owns the Clinton
House with Harold Schultz. They have done a number of improvements.
Chair Murtagh publically thanked John Schroder for all his work on the Planning
Board for 18+ years.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Public Hearings Announcement – 2018 HUD Entitlement Program Action
Plan
Chair Murtagh notified the group about the 2018 HUD Entitlement Public
Hearings.
JoAnn Cornish announced that on Monday, March 19th, 2018 a 300 lb. crane
will be coming down the Commons for the Harold Square project. The
merchants will remain open, and she encourages people to support them
during this time
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Proposed Historic Designation of the Nines Building
Chair Murtagh stated his appreciation to be able to look at this building. There
have been many buildings in the City that were also in bad shape but were
saved. A designation of this particular property is different. Murtagh asked
whether part of this building be designated and the other part be demolished.
Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner, stated that the entire property
has to be designated but each portion could be identified differently. The
building that faces College Avenue could be designated and the rear part could
be identified as not meeting landmark designation.
After a lengthy discussion, the committee voted on the resolution provided in
the meeting packet.
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Lewis to refer
back to ILPC (the last Resolved which is bolded below). Carried 3-2.
(Brock and Smith)
RE: LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FORMER No. 9 FIRE
STATION AT 311 COLLEGE AVENUE.
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Ithaca Landmarks
Preservation Commission (ILPC) is responsible for recommending to Common Council
the designation of identified structures or resources as individual landmarks and historic
districts within the city, and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2018, the ILPC conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of considering a proposal to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311
College Avenue as a local landmark, and
WHEREAS, the designation of a local landmark is a Type II action under the NYS
Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
and as such requires no further environmental review, and
WHEREAS, the ILPC found that the proposal meets criteria 1 and 4 defining a “Local
Landmark,” under Section 228-3B of the Municipal Code and on February 13, 2018,
voted to recommend the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue, and
WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Board
shall file a report with the Council with respect to the relation of such designation to the
comprehensive plan, the zoning law, projected public improvements and any plans for
the renewal of the site or area involved, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Planning Board's report and recommendation for approval of
the designation, adopted by resolution at the meeting held on February 27, 2018, has
been reviewed by the Common Council, and
WHEREAS, Section 228-4 of the Municipal Code states that the Council shall within
ninety days of said recommendation of designation, approve, disapprove or refer back to
the ILPC for modification of same; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee finds that the
proposed designation [is/is not] compatible with and [will/will not] conflict with the
comprehensive plan, existing zoning, projected public improvements or any plans for
renewal of the site and area involved, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue, [meets/does
not meet] criteria for local designation, as set forth in the Municipal Code, as follows:
1. it possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as
part of the cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality,
region, state, or nation; or
4. Is the work of a designer whose work has significantly influenced and
age, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Development Committee recommends to Common
Council approval of the designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College
Avenue and the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 as a local
landmark.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee disapproves the
designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and the adjacent
areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee forwards the
recommendation to designate the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and
the adjacent areas that are identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 to Common Council with a
recommendation to disapprove the designation.
OR
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Economic Development Committee refers the
proposed designation of the Former No. 9 Fire Station at 311 College Avenue and
the adjacent areas identified as tax parcel #64.-2-29 back to the ILPC for
modification, with the Committee recommendation to evaluate the architectural
integrity of the 1894-95 wood-frame fire station and its ability to reflect its historic
significance.
b) Planned Unit Development Overlay District
An Ordinance to Amend the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning,” Article IV, Section 325-12, in Order to
Expand the Area Permitted for Planned Unit Developments By
Creating a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD)
The rationale for not including the three suggested properties
be included in the overlay zone was due to the fact that these
properties serve as a transition to the next zone.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see the three CR4
parcels included since the other end of CR4 zone is.
Alderperson Brock moved to include the CR4 parcels; seconded by
Alderperson Smith.
By including them, it allows Council to make the decision
whether a proposed proposal will or will not work prior to going
through site-plan review.
Alderperson Fleming stated what she stated last month. She is
not in favor of this and will not vote for this.
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-____
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis.
Carried 4-1.
Alderperson Brock motioned to include the CR4 parcels. Failed 3-
2.
Alderperson Brock motioned to also include the Emerson site in
this PUD Overlay District; seconded by Alderperson Smith.
Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2014, the Common Council adopted legislation
allowing for the City to establish Planned Unit Development
districts on any property in the City currently zoned for
industrial uses, and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2017, the Common Council adopted new
zoning for the waterfront districts, which included a statement
recognizing that the adopted zoning may not allow for projects
that could be beneficial to the community and recommended that
the City consider adopting legislation to allow for PUDs
throughout the City, including in the waterfront districts, and
WHEREAS, A PUD is a tool that allows the Common Council to have
flexibility to approve projects that may not fit into the
underlying zoning, but may have benefits for the community that
outweigh any impacts resulting from not complying with the pre-
established regulations for that district, and
WHEREAS, in order to allow for potential development that could
bring significant benefits to the community, staff has
recommended the establishment of the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District, which would allow for PUDs in areas of the
City where additional development is anticipated, but would
protect areas that have established 1 and 2 family residential
neighborhoods; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Article IV, Section 325-12. of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-5, Zoning Map of the
Municipal Code of the City of Ithaca is hereby amended to create
a Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) to include
properties located Within the boundaries displayed on the map
entitled “Proposed Boundary for the Planned Unit Development
Overlay District (PUDOD)-December 2017”,” a copy of which shall
be on file in the City Clerk’s office.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.B, entitled “Purpose and
Intent”, is hereby amended in order to change the allowable
location for a potential PUD, and should read as follows:
§325-12.
B. Purpose and intent.
(1) This legislation is intended to institute procedures and requirements for
the establishment and mapping of PUDs, which may be placed in any
location approved by the Common Council, as long as it is located
within the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD), the
boundaries of which can be seen on the attached map, “Proposed
Boundary for the Planned Unit Development Overlay District (PUDOD) -
December 2017”. The PUD is a tool intended to encourage mixed-use or
unique single use projects that require more creative and imaginative
design of land development than is possible under standard zoning
district regulations. A PUD allows for flexibility in planning and
design, while ensuring efficient investment in public improvements,
environmental sensitivity, and protection of community character. A
PUD should be used only when long-term community benefits will be
achieved through high quality development, including, but not limited
to, reduced traffic demands, greater quality and quantity of public
and/or private open space, community recreational amenities, needed
housing types and/or mix, innovative designs, and protection and/or
preservation of natural resources.
(2) Section 325-12 is intended to relate to both residential and
nonresidential development, as well as mixed forms of development.
There may be uses, now or in the future, which are not expressly
permitted by the other terms of this chapter but which uses would not
contravene the long-range Comprehensive Plan objectives if they
adhere to certain predetermined performance and design conditions.
The PUD is intended to be used to enable these developments to occur
even though they may not be specifically authorized by the City zoning
district regulations.
(3) The PUD is intended to be used in any area located within the PUDOD.
Should a proposed project offer community-wide benefits, the Common
Council may establish a PUD in order to permit uses not explicitly
allowed by the underlying zoning.
(4) Areas may be zoned as a PUD by the Common Council. The enactment
and establishment of such a zone shall be a legislative act. No owner of
land or other person having an interest in land shall be entitled as a
matter of right to the enactment or establishment of any such zone.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-12.C, entitled
“Establishment and Location”, is hereby amended in order to
remove the sentence that states that the PUD is intended to be
used in industrial zones, and should read as follows:
C.
Establishment and location.
(1) The intent of a PUD is to create self-contained, architecturally
consistent, and compatible buildings, many times with diverse but
related uses. The creation of a PUD must entail sufficient review to
assure the uses within the zone will have negligible or no significant
adverse effects upon properties surrounding the zone. In reaching its
decision on whether to rezone to a PUD, the Common Council shall
consider the general criteria set forth in this chapter, the most current
Comprehensive Plan for the City, and this statement of purpose.
(2) No PUD shall be established pursuant to Subsection G (13) of this section unless
it is located within the boundaries of the PUDOD. .
Section 4. 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 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.
c) Parks Master Plan
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental
Review
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of an amendment to the comprehensive plan is a
“Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Declaration of Lead Agency for Environmental
Review
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with local
and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed adoption of an amendment to the comprehensive plan is a
“Type I” Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the adoption of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan as part of Phase II of the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
March 14, 2018
Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as Part of Phase II of the City
of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan – Resolution
Alderperson Brock expressed her concerns that the changes that were made to the plan
were not clearly outlined in a memo.
Alderperson Brock moved to table this resolution. There was no second.
Chair Murtagh stated his concern of de-parking the smaller neighborhood parks. He
would like to see stronger wording in the plan that outlines the purpose.
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried 4-1
(Brock)
WHEREAS, the City is pursuing a two-phased approach to its Comprehensive Plan,
where Phase I entailed the preparation of an “umbrella” plan that sets forth broad goals
and principles to guide future policies throughout the city and where Phase II includes
the preparation of specific neighborhood and thematic plans, and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Plan Ithaca as Phase I of its Comprehensive Plan in
2015, and Plan Ithaca recommends the preparation of a plan for the City’s park system
as part of Phase II, and
WHEREAS, the Common Council funded a parks and recreation master plan as part of
the City’s 2016 budget, and the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County funded various
aspects of the proposed plan, and
WHEREAS, PROS Consulting was selected as the project consultant and began work
on the draft plan in the fall of 2016, and
WHEREAS, the public was involved throughout the planning process through
stakeholder interviews, focus groups, surveys, and community events, and
WHEREAS, the consultant team gathered information through data collection, site
assessments, community input, staff observations and local and national trends and
used this information to prepare the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, a draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was presented in early
November and was then circulated for further public comment, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Ithaca Municipal Code and New York State
General City Law, the Planning and Development Board is responsible for
recommending a comprehensive plan to the Common Council for adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Development Board reviewed the draft plan at its
December 19, 2017 and January 30, 2018 meetings and recommended adoption of the
plan with several modifications, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of the proposed plan was held at the
January 10, 2018 Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting, and many
written comments have been submitted by community members and City staff, and
WHEREAS, in response to these comments, a revised plan, dated February 2018, was
prepared, and the revised draft provides additional information and clarifications of the
key ideas and recommendations presented in the initial document, and
WHEREAS, the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan was submitted for review by
the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 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 was also been distributed for review by the City
of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council hereby adopts the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, dated February 2018, as part of Phase II of the Comprehensive Plan, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that this Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for future decisions
made by Common Council, City boards and commissions, and City staff, and be it
further
RESOLVED, that Common Council shall establish regular reviews and updates of the
Comprehensive Plan every five years.
6) Action Items (Voting to Send to Circulate)
a) Green Building Policy
Chair Murtagh stated that he appreciates the amount of work gone into this. He asked
whether they thought move developers would use the easy pace.
Tatum Engineering stated that Cornell would go for the whole process.
Chair Murtagh stated that the City is really catching up with Green Building Energy
policies.
A meeting will be held on March 28, 2018 at Green Star.
Alderperson Brock stated that there is legislation that goes along with this. JoAnn
Cornish stated that would be the next step.
Alderperson Nguyen stated this report is very thorough.
Moved to circulate by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
b) CIITAP Boundary Expansion and Affordable Housing Requirement
The CIITAP was created to help developers with their projects.
The Citywide policy does not mandate 10% of housing to be affordable. This expansion
mandates the affordable housing.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see this affordable housing requirement be
Citywide. CIITAP has been very successful particularly in the downtown area.
Chair Murtagh stated that the majority of the housing being built is not considered
affordable housing. If this affordable housing requirement is not included in the
Waterfront area, that area won’t develop.
CIITAP is a powerful tool to reach the workforce housing.
Moved to Circulate by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
unanimously.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) January 2018 and February 2018
Both sets of minutes were moved by Alderperson Smith seconded by Alderperson
Brock. Carried unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.