Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2019-02-13 Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, February 13, 2019 – 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: Mayor Svante Myrick (7:15 p.m.) and Alderperson McGonigal Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn, IURA Director; Robert Sarachan, City Prosecutor; Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer; Peter Mesmer, Parking Director; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: Monica Roth, Chair, PRNR Commission Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review No changes to the agenda were made. 2) Special Order of Business a) Public Hearing – Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium Alderperson Lewis moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously No one from the public spoke during this public hearing. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Fleming moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. 3) Public Comment and Response from Committee Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, stated there is an Ithaca rental brochure. She forwarded the url address to committee members. There is a state-wide change coming regarding renter protections. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, pointed out a number of excerpts from the Ithaca comprehensive plan. It clearly states the need to protect the neighborhoods. The back yards on these properties are a very important part of their proper ties. There are changes coming. Infill housing will create a huge impact on neighborhoods. The City needs to save these neighborhoods. Fred Muratori, 214 Lake Street, spoke on infill guidelines. Because there is not a significant definition of “tiny” house, approvals are granted without much of a site-plan review. Backyard infill should be the last option for the City to look at. Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on infill development and asked for a clarification of whether a limited site-plan review will be required. With a limited a site- plan review, there is no committee to review, no public hearing or meeting. This will produce harmful neighborhood problems. Ken Jaffe, 218 Lake Avenue, spoke on infill housing. The recommendation does not mention any reference as to unused green space. Community character needs to be protected. We need an overall community plan, flood plan, etc. Fay Gougakis, 171 East State Street, stated that she often is characterized as a loud person with devious mannerisms. She further stated that when watching Common Council meetings on TV, they can be hardly heard. She also spoke on the LimeBikes now in the City. They are a nuisance to the City. She has talked about this problem for a year, and no one is listening. Fines should be implemented. The Ithaca Times ran an article about scooters coming to the area. We need to discuss this further. Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, spoke on chickens and thanked the Planning Board for their work. It took nine years to get the ordinance in place. Seventeen families currently raise chickens. He would like to see the chicken ordinance continue. Joe Wilson, 75 Hunt Hill Road, thanked the Planning Board for the letter in the packet regarding climate change and building environmental issues. Response from the Committee: Chair Murtagh thanked all those who came to speak. He further stated the infill development guidelines are being looked at. When infill came to this committee Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting months earlier, it was this committee who asked the Planning Department Staff for the guidelines that they recommend. This is a discussion item tonight. JoAnn Cornish clarified when a minor site-plan review is warranted. These types of projects are always looked at by the alderpersons of the ward in which the review is located. Alderperson Lewis commented for the need to spoke into the microphones as she too is guilty of it sometimes. She also agreed with the concerns of the flood zones. Living on Willow Avenue she is very aware of this issue. Alderperson Brock agreed with the concerns of the LimeBikes that are now here in the City. Alderperson Brock commented on a concern of a constituent wanting to build a home knowing that blueprints can be found on line or in catalogs but don’t comply with the green building policy. Does that force the homeowner to hire an architect which will only raise the cost of building a new home? 4) Updates: a) Energy Issues / Green Building Policy 5) Action Items (Voting to Circulate) a) Southside Plan Senior planner Megan Wilson provided a presentation of the Southside Plan. The action tonight will be for circulation. Once that is done, it will come back to this committee and its recommendation would be forwarded to the whole Council. Alderperson Smith moved to circulate; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. 6) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium – Declaration of Lead Agency Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried Unanimously. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering acquisition of a parcel of land containing the 9,156 square foot gymnasium on the former Immaculate Conception school campus, located at 320 W. Buffalo Street, Ithaca, NY, and WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition of less 2.5 acres of contiguous land is an Unlisted Action under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (CEQRO), and WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176.6 of CEQRO require that a Lead Agency be established for conducting environmental review of proposed actions in accordance with local and state environmental law, and WHEREAS, State Law specifies that 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, no other agency than the City of Ithaca Common Council has jur isdiction to approve or undertake the proposed action; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed acquisition of the former Immaculate Concept ion school gymnasium. Acquisition of the Former Immaculate Conception School Gymnasium – Environmental Significance Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Flemming. Carried unanimously. WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council is considering acquisition of a parcel of land containing the 9,156 square foot gymnasium on the former Immaculate Conception school campus, located at 320 W. Buffalo Street, Ithaca, NY, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council declared itself Lead Agency for the environmental review of this proposed action, and WHEREAS, such proposed action for the acquisition of less than 2.5 contiguous acres of land is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQR”) and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”), both of which require environmental review, and WHEREAS, a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) and supporting information has been prepared and provided to the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Commission for review of the proposed action, and WHEREAS, the Common Council for the city of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency and City planning staff; now, therefore, be it Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca, as Lead Agency in this matter, adopts as its own, the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the SEAF, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Lead Agency hereby determines that the proposed action at issue will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of the same, together with any attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the same to any other parties as required by law. Revised Allocation of New York State Administered CDBG Program Income Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 4-1. (Brock) Whereas, New York State requires communities in possession New York State (NYS) Administered CDBG Program Income to use such funds for CDBG-eligible uses by March 31, 2019 or return the funds to New York State, and Whereas, CDBG program income in the form of loan repayments from this economic development activity are projected to total over $561,000 by March 31, 2019, and Whereas, the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) administers CDBG funds on behalf of the City, and Whereas, on November 7, 2018, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca adopted the IURA’s recommendation to allocate NYS administered CDBG program to the following projects:  $175,000 - Cherry Street public road extension, and  $386,583 - S. Aurora Street sidewalk extension (Hillview Place to City/Town line), and Whereas, the prospective employer to be served by the Cherry Street road extension has informed the IURA that they are pursuing an alternative location to address their space needs due to unforeseen soil conditions at Cherry Street, and Whereas, the Cherry St. Public road project is no longer an eligible CDBG economic development activity without job creation, and Whereas, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) has recently negotiated acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception school campus, and Whereas, INHS has indicated willingness to sell the former Immaculate Conception school gymnasium to the City of Ithaca at their pro-rated cost of $290,000, and Whereas, the IURA recommends the following revised allocation of CDBG funds: Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting  $0 - Cherry Street industrial park extension  $175,000 -Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception school gymnasium, subject to securing $115,000 in match funding  If match funding for the gym is not secured, then allocate $175,000 for purchase and installation of pedestrian-scale, solar lighting in Titus Triangle, Baker, and Conway public parks, and, Whereas, environmental review for acquisition of the gymnasium has been completed; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby amends its November 7, 2018 resolution to approve the allocation of NYS-administered CDBG funds for the following projects:  $386,583 - S. Aurora Street sidewalk extension (Hillview Place to City/Town line), and  $175,000 - Acquisition of the former Immaculate Conception school gymnasium, subject to securing $115,000 in match funding  If match funding for the gym is not secured, then $175,000 shall be allocated for purchase and installation of pedestrian-scale, solar lighting in Titus Triangle, Baker, and Conway public parks, and be it further, RESOLVED, that the IURA is authorized to request approval from the NYS Office of Community Renewal for use of CDBG funds. Alderperson Brock served previously on the GIAC Board and all her children attended BJM (Beverly J. Martin). She stated this area is a wonderful area in the center of Ithaca which has an abundance of recreational resources. There are many other areas within the City that need assistance as well. As much as she recognizes the importance of this for the GIAC community, there was minimal information provided describing the planning and cost of this purchase and as much she will not be voting for it. Alderperson Lewis agrees the need for park space in the City. We have seen months of inclement weather when a gym for kids to go and play would be ideal. The housing component of this project is also huge asset. Travis Brooks from GIAC stated there is a $30 per hour fee for the use of the BJM gymnasium as well as any other City School gym. The size of the GIAC gym is not doable. There’s no place for these kids to go. The YMCA is costly and requires transportation. Nels Bohn explained some of the processes that will be involved. The building and facilities staff has reviewed the building as well as GIAC staff. Brooks stated that there will not be a huge change in staff. Alderperson Brock asked if a tour of the facility could be arranged. Nels Bohn stated he would try to set that up, however there are pictures of the facility on line. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Mayor Svante Myrick joined the meeting at 7:15 p.m. b) Enforcement of Housing Standards ORDINANCE __-2019 All ordinances were moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. An Ordinance Revising Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures and requirements for save rental housing to promote public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; WHEREAS, all rental dwellings must hold a valid certificate of compliance as required in §210-43, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that obtaining a certificate of compliance for a rental dwelling helps to ensure the health and safety of tenants in the city; and WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon each property owner of a rental dwelling to first obtain and the periodically renew their certificate of compliance, and; WHEREAS, the presumption proposed will aid in the enforcement of the requirement of renewing certificates of compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for a presumption of rental status; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by requiring rental dwellings to renew expired certificates of compliance, and to enforce that requirement. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 210-43. § 210-43 A. … (3) Any rental dwelling that has obtained a valid certificate of compliance shall be presumed to continue being a rental dwelling or rental unit thereafter, regardless of the expiration of the certificate of compliance or until such time that the owner provides a written statement to the Building Division that the dwelling or unit is no longer rented and it is inspected by the Building Division to confirm that it is no longer rented. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 258 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 258 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures for equitable landlord-tenant relations, and; WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, there are circumstances where tenants must vacate a premises which have been leased through no fault of the tenant due to zoning violations committed by the landlord, and; WHEREAS, there are circumstances where tenants must vacate a premises which have been leased because the property has been declared unsafe for occupancy due to failure of the landlord to provide proper housing conditions, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that occupation of a building that has been declared unsafe risked the health and safety of our citizen’s within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to impose a remedy for tenants who are displaced due to violations of the housing code, of the zoning rules, and/or other violations of city, state or national codes, rules, and regulations during a lease term, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for alternative housing for displaced tenants; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by enacting a provision for a landlord to provide alternative housing for tenants who are displaced from their leased premises due to violations of housing code and/or violations of zoning rules. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 258. Article III Displaced Tenants §258-12 Definitions DISPLACED TENANT A tenant, as defined in this chapter, who cannot occupy the premises that the tenant is entitled to due to the landlord’s failure to adhere to any applicable provision, statute, rule or regulation relating to the rental unit, including but not limited to the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and Chapters 210 and 325 of the Ithaca City Code. §258-13 Landlord’s Obligation The landlord is responsible for the cost of providing housing that is of at least equal value and in a comparable location to every displaced tenant for the time period beginning from the date of displacement until the expiration date of the tenant’s lease term or until all deficiencies have been corrected and inspected by the Building Division and the Building Division has determined that the until is suitable for occupancy, whichever date comes first. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 325-3 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code defines occupant for the purposes of determining compliance with zoning rules and regulations throughout the City, and this definition has been found to be ambiguous as to what constitutes an occupant and; Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the statute is to ensure safe living standards for each Ithaca resident, and secondarily to protect the quality of Ithaca neighborhoods, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that safely occupied residences are a priority for the city as a matter of protecting our citizen’s safety and safety of the residences within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to clarify the penalty in this chapter to remove any ambiguity in what constitutes an occupant for compliance and violation of the provisions of this chapter , and thereby meet the legislative intent, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has proposed recommendations to Common Council to define occupant in this chapter; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by clarifying the definition of occupant in this chapter. Section 2. Amendments to Section 325-3. Section 325-3 shall be amended as follows: § 325-3 Definitions and word usage B. OCCUPANT (1) For the purposes of determining the number of occupants for all provisions of this chapter, an occupant is defined as person that has the right to occupy a dwelling unit or building notwithstanding actual occupation. Such a right to occupy may be demonstrated by any one of the following: (a) payment of rent; (b) being a lessee; (c) having permission of the owner to occupy a dwelling unit or building; (d) other evidence of a right to occupy (2) [Added 1-8-1990 by Ord. No. 90-2] In R-2c Zones only, a person that is permitted to occupy a dwelling unit or building in an R-2c Zone. (a) The number of such occupants that are permitted to legally occupy a dwelling unit or building is based on the amount of habitable space in the dwelling unit or building and on the basis of lot size. The minimum amounts of habitable space that are required for occupancy by one or more persons are as follows: [1] In R-2c dwelling units, the maximum number of occupants shall be limited to the number determined on the basis of lot size and on the basis of the floor areas of habitable space, other than kitchens, as shown in the following table: Number of Persons Type of Space Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting 1 2 3 4 or more Sleeping room, minimum square feet 80 120 180 240, plus 60 for each additional person Dwelling unit (other than kitchen), minimum square feet 150 250 350 450, plus 100 for each additional person [2] In any other lodging units permitted in R-2c Zones, the maximum number of occupants shall be limited to the number determined on the same basis as for dwelling units. (b) Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the maximum size of any room in a dwelling unit. Bedrooms that exceed the minimum square footage in the above chart may not sleep more persons unless the appropriate lot size requirements are met. (c) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, once an R-2c dwelling unit is constructed and legally occupied, the term "occupant" shall not include additional family members or members of a functional family unit that are added to a household. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 210-43 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes procedures and requirements for save rental housing to promote public safety; and, WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca has a significant tenant population, and; WHEREAS, all rental dwellings must hold a valid certificate of compliance as required in §210-43, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that obtaining a certificate of compliance for a rental dwelling helps to ensure the health and safety of tenants in the city; and WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon each property owner of a rental dwelling to first obtain and the periodically renew their certificate of compliance, and; WHEREAS, the presumption proposed will aid in the enforcement of the requirement of renewing certificates of compliance; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office and the Building Division have proposed recommendations to Common Council to add a provision for a presumption of rental status; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by requiring rental dwellings to renew expired certificates of compliance, and to enforce that requirement. Section 2. Additions to Chapter 210-43. § 210-43 A. … (3) Any rental dwelling that has obtained a valid certificate of compliance shall be presumed to continue being a rental dwelling or rental unit thereafter, regardless of the expiration of the certificate of compliance or until such time that the owner provides a written statement to the Building Division that the dwelling or unit is no longer rented and it is inspected by the Building Division to confirm that it is no longer rented. Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes the penalties for offenses for over-occupancy violations throughout the City, and the city code provision providing for penalties has been found to be ambiguous as to whether there is a penalty for each occupant over the limit per day or just one overall penalty per day, and; WHEREAS, the city court has found the penalty for over-occupancy violations to be applied for each additional occupant over the permitted number, as each additional occupant places an additional burden on the residence and neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the statute is to ensure safe living standards for each Ithaca resident, and secondarily to protect the quality of Ithaca neighborhoods, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that safely occupied residences are a priority for the city as a matter of protecting our citizen’s safety and safety of the residences within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to clarify the penalty in this chapter to remove any ambiguity that the penalty applies per occupant in violation of this chapter, and thereby meet the legislative intent, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has proposed recommendations to Common Council to add that the penalty for over-occupancy applies per occupant in violation of this chapter; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by clarifying the penalty applicable to violations of this chapter. Section 2. Amendments to Section 325-47. Section 325-46 shall be amended as follows: § 325-47 Penalties for offenses. [Amended 8-1-1984 by Ord. No. 84-12] A. If a property is in violation of any provision of this chapter, the owner of the property shall be guilty of an offense. In addition, any other person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense. Each day's continued violation constitutes a separate offense unless otherwise provided herein. For any violation of over-occupancy provisions herein, each additional occupant over the maximum shall constitute a separate offense. [Amended 2-8- 1994 by Ord. No. 94-1] Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. c) Local Control of City Speed Limits and Related Safety Discussion ORDINANCE __-2019 An Ordinance Revising Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code WHEREAS, Chapter 325-47 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code establishes the penalties for offenses for over-occupancy violations throughout the City, and the city code provision providing for penalties has been found to be ambiguous as to whether there is a penalty for each occupant over the limit per day or just one overall penalty per day, and; WHEREAS, the city court has found the penalty for over-occupancy violations to be applied for each additional occupant over the permitted number, as each additional occupant places an additional burden on the residence and neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the statute is to ensure safe living standards for each Ithaca resident, and secondarily to protect the quality of Ithaca neighborhoods, and; WHEREAS, the city of Ithaca recognizes and affirms that safely occupied residences are a priority for the city as a matter of protecting our citizen’s safety and safety of the residences within the city, and; WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to clarify the penalty in this chapter to remove any ambiguity that the penalty applies per occupant in violation of this chapter, and thereby meet the legislative intent, and; WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office has proposed recommendations to Common Council to add that the penalty for over-occupancy applies per occupant in violation of this chapter; now therefore BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACT ED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that the safety of the public will be better served by clarifying the penalty applicable to violations of this chapter. Section 2. Amendments to Section 325-47. Section 325-46 shall be amended as follows: Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting § 325-47 Penalties for offenses. [Amended 8-1-1984 by Ord. No. 84-12] A. If a property is in violation of any provision of this chapter, the owner of the property shall be guilty of an offense. In addition, any other person who shall violate any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an offense. Each day's continued violation constitutes a separate offense unless otherwise provided herein. For any violation of over-occupancy provisions herein, each additional occupant over the maximum shall constitute a separate offense. [Amended 2-8- 1994 by Ord. No. 94-1] Section 3. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as provided for in the City Charter. A Resolution Supporting the City of Ithaca’s Vision Zero Plan to Eliminate all Traffic-Related Fatalities and Serious Injuries WHEREAS, traffic crashes are among the leading cause of death and injury within the United States, and WHEREAS, traffic crashes are the leading cause of injury related death, second leading cause of injury related hospitalizations and third leading cause for injury related emergency department visits in New York State. On average, three New Yorkers die every day due to a traffic-related crash. The combined hospitalization and emergency department charges average $1.1 billion, annually, and WHEREAS, from 2008 to 2017 the City of Ithaca had a total of 182 serious injury crashes including 5 fatalities, and WHEREAS, the City is hereby recognizing that these crash statistics are not acceptable for citizens, commuters, and tourists who live, work and play in the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, death and injury on our streets is unacceptable and many serious crashes are preventable, and WHEREAS, traffic deaths and serious injuries in the United States have disproportionately impacted pedestrians, cyclists, people of color, low-income households, older adults and youth, people with disabilities, and households with limited vehicle access, and WHEREAS, the City will hereby commit to decreasing these crash statistics by endorsing Vision Zero, which is a safe systems approach and strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all, and WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca will create a Vision Zero action plan that focuses on Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting safety as a primary objective in designing transportation projects; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby adopts a goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries; and endorses Vision Zero as a comprehensive and collaborative approach that involves several City departments in order to achieve this goal, and, be it further RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs The Department of Public Works and the Ithaca Police Department to create and pursue a Vision Zero Action Plan for future consideration by the Common Council, based upon a comprehensive analysis of traffic deaths and injuries in the City of Ithaca, and, be it further RESOLVED, That Common Council directs the Transportation Engineer to oversee the Vision Zero Action Plan to addresses traffic deaths and serious injurie s through a collaborative combination of engineering, enforcement, education, and evaluation, with public engagement and other stakeholders. 7) Discussion a) Intercity Busses To: Planning and Economic Development Committee Members From: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner Date: February 7, 2019 Re: Inter City Bus Service on Green Street (Submitted to give a planning perspective of the downtown intercity bus service.) This memo is intended to provide information regarding the intercity bus servi ce on Green Street. In October of 2018, the Common Council directed staff to enter into an agreement with the intercity bus providers in order to allow them to use the Green Street stop for a period of six months. The current agreement is scheduled to expire in six month and staff has prepared an evaluation of this program in order to allow for the Common Council to determine whether or not to renew the permits. Inter City Bus Service Evaluation Positive Impacts  The City has received positive feedback from many riders and downtown businesses on the relocation of the buses to Green Street.  The increased foot traffic helps to support local businesses, with a significant positive impact on the businesses located on the south side of Green Street and on the Commons.  The convenience of the location allows for easy transfers to and from other forms of transportation.  Having all the intercity buses in one location is convenient and easy to understand for passengers.  Visitors are brought to the heart of downtown for easy access to goods, services, and attractions. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting  Some of the bus providers have contracted with the Green Street Pharmacy to provide convenient nearby ticket sales for customers.  On most days during the trial period there have not been significant iss ues and all of the buses have been able to use the street. In fact many of the challenges listed below are limited to a handful of heavy travel days or days with unexpected weather related issues (snow, ice, delays) Challenges  In order to fit two buses in front of Urban Outfitters, buses must encroach on the bike lane, which is currently not active but is scheduled to be reinstated once City Centre is completed (early summer 2019).  The pull out in front of the Mental Health building is heavily used by Gadabout and taxis, and Mental Health has asked that it not be used for buses during regular business hours.  There are 15 times during the week, using current schedules, when three intercity buses need to be staged concurrently.  Large snowfalls are problematic, as there is no place to put snow, so it has to be completely removed from the sidewalk and the bus pullout to not impact bus parking and passenger access.  Before and after holidays, high demand results in additional non-scheduled buses, which this site cannot accommodate simultaneously. Some buses have double parked to load/unload passengers.  The intercity buses sometimes park in the area set aside for TCAT.  The City required that loading/unloading of luggage only take place on the curb side of the bus, however, staff has observed buses violating this rule and passengers standing in or close to traffic.  The City has added signage to communicate where passengers should be loaded/unloaded. However, staff observed violations by cars and intercity buses, resulting in safety hazards, confusion, and the inability of buses to pull into their pickup areas. Enforcement is challenging, since cars only stand for a few minutes, which is not long enough to write tickets, but is long enough to prevent a bus from pulling into their space and cause a traffic back up. True enforcement would likely require a dedicated CSO in the vicinity for numerous hours.  Buses have blocked the Tioga Street stub on the south side of Green Street, which has interfered with emergency access to the Mental Health Building.  During heavy traffic days, large crowds of bus patrons can fill the sidewalk blocking the entrances to the Mental Health Building and to the retails shops.  There are currently no bathroom or indoor waiting facilities for passengers.  The City has limited ability to enforce rules and parking regulations with current staffing during regular hours and has no staff available during evenings and weekends. Recommendations If the City decides to continue allowing intercity buses to service Green Street, staff recommends that the following actions be considered in order to maintain healthy traffic flows and a successful public experience:  City staff would convene a meeting with bus providers to discuss necessary changes that need to be made in order to continue with Green Street intercity bus service. The bus companies will also be informed that there is no room for expansion of future service at this location so that they can make an informed decision of whether this space meets their needs now and in the future. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting  Due to the limited capacity for schedule flexibility or expansion, the number of bus providers that can use the street should be limited. Buses that don’t require on-site ticket sales, or that require greater schedule flexibility should not be permitted to use this location. The remaining providers rely on ticketing services that are offered at Green Street Pharmacy, so the Green Street location is critical to their operation. Staff can assist these bus providers in locating alternate locations, which would likely have to include agreements with private lots.  In order to ensure that snow is removed before buses arrive, this block of Green Street should be seasonally contracted for private early morning snow removal, with a requirement that the snow be removed off site.  Consider limiting the hours that the space in front of the Mental Health building can be used for bus service to off-peak times (after 5pm or before 9am).  Consider whether to create one shared bus lane (TCAT and InterCity) on Green Street.  Require bus companies to specify dates that will have additional buses (holidays, student arrival and departure dates) and to provide on street staff on these dates to direct customers to their buses, and to direct bus drivers to the appropriate locations.  Consider if the City needs to have a CSO assigned to this area during heavy traffic times in order to issue tickets.  Require bus companies to provide accommodations for their passengers. This can be accomplished through and an agreement with an existing facility, but they will need to show proof that they have permission to use existing facilities.  The bus permit agreement should continue to allow for revocation for failure to comply with requirements. There would be no tolerance of unloading luggage on the street side, encroaching on the bike lane, unloading from a travel lane or any other behavior deemed unsafe by the City.  City staff will work with NYSDOT to assess whether changes can be made to Green Street that would allow for greater flexibility for buses at the curb and to improve the distance between the bike lane and merging buses or consider whether the bike lane should be removed.  The following infrastructure improvements should be explored in order to accommodate the buses: o Move curb line along Urban Outfitters pull-off away from the street by four feet to allow buses adequate space to not encroach on the adjacent bike lane. This could impact the existing trees offset from the curb by four feet. o Consider whether to construct a new bus shelter o Improve lighting in the waiting area o Rebuild curb ramps crossing the Tioga Street stub o Relocate existing utilities and fire hydrants to accommodate curb line relocation o Paint all bus lanes in a solid color (red or blue) to assist buses and drop-off vehicles in wayfinding. Costs The Engineering Department has estimated costs for the suggested improvements to be between $200,000-350,000, depending on what improvements are deemed necessary. In addition, a snow removal contract is estimated to be a $15,000 annual contract. If a dedicated CSO is requested for this location, it would be an annual cost of $62,000. Contribution by Inter-City Buses Per the current agreement with the City, Greyhound, Trailways and Coach USA contribute a combined annual fee of $51,220.00 Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting To: Common Council From: Eric Hathaway, Transportation Engineer, Tim Logue, Director of Engineering, Peter Messmer, Director of Parking Date: 2/8/19 Re: Inter-City Bus Trial We are writing this memorandum in advance of April 1, when the Green Street intercity bus six month trial will end. We identify the positive and negative impacts of having the buses at this location and discuss various changes that could be made, along with the expected impacts of those changes. We hope this will help Common Council decide whether to continue to have intercity buses use this location and under what conditions. In short, if Green Street is to continue to be used as an intercity bus location, the City will ne ed to provide additional funding to create a functional space and will need to limit the number of bus companies that can use the space. The Positives  The City has received positive feedback from many riders and downtown businesses on the relocation of the buses to Green Street.  The increased foot traffic helps to support local businesses, with a significant positive impact on the businesses located on the south side of Green Street and on the Commons.  The convenience of the location allows for easy transfers to and from other forms of transportation.  Having all the intercity buses in one location is convenient and easy to understand; passengers and drivers don’t have to think about which bus company in order to know where to go.  Visitors are brought to the heart of downtown for easy access to goods, services, and attractions.  On most days during the trial period there have not been significant issues and all of the buses have been able to use the street. The Challenges  In order to fit two buses in front of Urban Outfitters, buses must encroach on the bike lane, which is currently not active but which will be reestablished once City Centre is completed (early summer 2019)  The pull out in front of the Mental Health building is heavily used by Gadabout and taxis, and Mental Health has asked that it not be used for buses during regular business hours (8:30 AM - 4:30 PM, M, TH, FR, 8:30 AM – 6 PM, TU, W) Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting  Residents of apartments near the bus stop have complained of noise and pollution related to the buses.  There are 15 times during the week, using current schedules, when three intercity buses need to be staged concurrently.  Large snowfalls are problematic, as there is no place to put snow, so it has to be completely removed from the sidewalk and the bus pullout to not impact bus parking and passenger access. City staff are unable to remove all of the snow after a large snowfall as their focus is on getting streets and sidewalks opened. This results in buses encroaching further into the bike lane and even into the travel lane.  Before and after holidays, high demand results in many more buses than usual, which this site cannot accommodate simultaneously. Some buses have double parked to load/unload passengers.  The intercity buses sometimes park in the area set aside for TCAT, which can interfere with their operations during peak times.  Although the City was careful to include language in the agreements with the bus companies that loading and unloading of luggage cannot take place on the street side of the bus, we have continued to receive complaints that this continues to happen, and passengers are standing in or close to traffic.  The City has invested significant effort in signing and communicating to drop-off vehicles and to bus operators where they should load and unload passengers. However, we continually see these rules violated by cars and inter-city buses, resulting in a significant safety hazard, gridlock, confusion and inability of buses to pull into their pickup areas o Enforcing no cars in the bus zone - In time it takes to spot an offender and get to car, it will typically drop off or pick up and be gone. In a minimum number of cases is it possible to write a ticket. o Enforcing passenger drop of/pickup in 15 min zone (north side of street) - Requires constant vigilance. Difficult to prevent parkers other than bus customers, from using it. Would require a CSO in vicinity for long hours with limited enforcement results. o Enforcing Commercial Bus rules would require constant vigilance to enforce limited violations of unpredictable frequency.  Staff have received complaints that buses are not staying on their permitted routes and are cutting through areas such as the 600 block of E Seneca Street.  Buses have blocked the Tioga Street stub on the south side of Green Street, which has interfered with emergency access to the Mental Health Building.  Mental Health Building staff have reported that large groups of pedestrians waiting for buses have created accessibility concerns for individuals trying to access their building via the Green Street sidewalk.  There are currently no bathroom or indoor waiting facilities for passengers.  The City has very limited ability to enforce rules and parking regulations with current staffing during regular hours. The City has no ability to enforce rules during evenings and weekends. Necessary Changes  Buses that don’t require ticketing (Big Red Bullet and OurBus) should be required to relocate as soon as practicable. The remaining providers rely on ticketing services that are offered at Green Street Pharmacy, so the Green Street location is critical to their operation. An updated schedule showing bus demand without OurBus and Big Red Bullet is attached). With this revised schedule, a maximum of two buses would occupy the space at any given time. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting  The City could help OurBus and Big Red Bullet connect with owners of downtown plazas or large parking lots, such as the DMV or Northside Plazas, or stores in Southwest, to see if they can make arrangements to use excess spaces there.  This block of Green Street should be contracted out for private snow removal, with a requirement that the snow be removed rather than simply pushed somewhere where it will become someone else’s problem.  Designate the pull-off space in front of the County Mental Health building as drop-off only. No inter-city buses would be permitted during weekdays 8 AM – 6 PM.  The bus permit agreement should require that on holidays and other days with increased demand, each bus company must have on-street staff to direct customers to their buses, and to direct bus drivers to the appropriate locations. Note however, that this bus company staff would not be authorized to enforce the parking regulations and therefore the aforementioned challenges in this area would remain unmitigated, unless a city CSO person were assigned (see notes below about this option).  The bus permit agreement should require the bus companies to provide accommodations for their passengers. This can be accomplished through and an agreement with an existing facility, but they will need to show proof that they have permission to use existing facilities.  The bus permit agreement should continue to allow for revocation for failure to comply with requirements. There would be no tolerance of unloading luggage on the street side, encroaching on the bike lane, unloading from a travel lane or any other behavior deemed unsafe by the City.  City staff would convene a meeting with Greyhound, Coach USA and Trailways to discuss necessary changes to the existing schedule that would allow the Urban Outfitters location to accommodate demand. The bus companies will also be informed that there is no room for expansion of future service at this location so that they can make an informed decision of whether this space meets their needs now and in the future.  City staff will work with NYSDOT to assess whether changes can be made to Green Street that would allow for greater flexibility for buses at the curb and to improve the distance between the bike lane and merging buses.  The following infrastructure changes would be needed by 2020 to provided adequate long-term viability of this space to accommodate passengers and traffic operations: o Move curb line along Urban Outfitters pull-off away from the street by 4 feet to allow buses adequate space to not encroach on the adjacent bike lane. This could impact the existing trees offset from the curb by 4 feet. o Build a bus shelter o Improve lighting in the waiting area o Rebuild curb ramps crossing the Tioga Street stub o Relocate existing utilities and fire hydrants to accommodate curb line relocation o Paint all bus lanes in a solid color (red or blue) to assist buses and drop-off vehicles in wayfinding Costs The above needed changes on Green Street will come with a cost, so we want to make you aware of the i nvestment the City would be required to make to accommodate the buses in the near -term and long-term. Aside from significant investment of staff time, the following are the estimated up -front and ongoing costs to make this space viable for inter-city bus operation: Infrastructure changes described above - $200,000-$350,000 Annual maintenance of above investments – $15,000 Annual snow removal contract - $15,000 Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Community Service Officer Needs – $62,000 for One Additional Full Time CSO would be needed (curren t CSO staff is at capacity, especially with school crossing guard duties). Enforcement demand during normal days and hours would be unpredictable and low, and high on holidays and holiday weekends. Therefore, the additional CSO would have to be assigned other duties on normal days and attempt to return regularly to Green Street to catch violations. On holidays regulatory enforcement needs would be at the highest demand. However, it would be a difficult position to fill and manage, if all holidays (which inherently include overtime) would be required work time, throughout the year. This would create a management challenge overall, likely negatively impacting the incumbent staff as well. Contribution by Inter-City Buses Per the current agreement with the Cit y, Greyhound, Trailways and Coach USA contribute a combined annual fee of $51,220. Eric Hathaway explained the Engineering Department’s recommendation. Unloading on the street side should be eliminated. They would like to see only three (3) bus lines use the Green Street bus stop. Engineering doesn’t want to see the Intercity Buses load and unload along with the TCAT bus system. Jennifer Kusznir explained the Planning Department’s recommendation. Most days it works very well, however there are definitely days that haven’t worked. A lot of trouble comes from the snow removal or lack thereof contributes to the problem. Alderperson Fleming commended the staff for their work on this. She thinks that this might be a short term solution. She feels the County should be involved. This shouldn’t be a City only problem. Alderperson Lewis agreed with Fleming’s comments. There are positive impacts but the costs associated with this needs to be reviewed. The City should not be the only one paying. Alderperson Brock stated she doesn’t think the West End bus station is adequate. The Green Street site is more doable. It is safer and more convenient. She too agrees that TCAT should be our first responsibility. The other buses could use the Ithaca Mall or East Hill Plaza. Maybe the Green Street Garage developer can help in making some space at the first level to accommodate this additional bus traffic. A suggestion was made to bring the bus companies back together to review what’s been happening and ask for their recommendations to improve the system. Gary Ferguson stated that everyone has worked very well together. He further stated that he thinks that the Uber drivers who pick up or drop off get in the way of the bus traffic. Alderperson Brock thanked Gary Ferguson for his letter. She asked for more information as to the statement that the DIA would even be willing to contract for providing the service of directing and guiding traffic during the peak stress times. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting It was suggested that an extension of the pilot of the agreement be granted. It was suggested through June, after the students have left for the year and the tourist season starts. The Mayor was asked his thoughts on the use of the new Green Street Garage. He stated it is possible. Another idea would be the use of Seneca Street Garage. Chair Murtagh stated he would be willing to member file the extension of the pilot program to the March Common Council Meeting. b) Backyard Chickens Monica Roth informed the group what she and her studen ts have been doing to come up with their recommendations. They are willing to continue classes on how to raise chickens. People may have an understanding, but this would be for everyone. It would provide a standard of raising chickens. Alderperson Brock was in agreement to make this a permanent program. If we can continue the training program, it will only help the program. The training program will help create a bond with fellow chicken growers. It was agreed to increase the number of hens to six, continuing the class, and add the Building Department to the City Clerk and Police Department for complaints and other issues that may arise. Review of the City of Ithaca Pilot Chicken Ordinance and recommendations for a Permanent Ordinance to keep chickens in the City of Ithaca. Fall 2017 – Pilot project review conducted by Monika Roth, CCE Tompkins, and two Cornell Graduate students taking an agriculture and food policy course in the Law school. Stephen Flynn is a 3rd year Law Student. Jonathan Burk is a senior economics student. Review process -Students investigated ordinances for chicken keeping in other cities to determine how similar or different those are from Ithaca’s and to determine if some provisions might be removed or added to a permanent Ci ty ordinance. In general, the city pilot program provisions are very similar to those in other communities of our size. -Students and Ms. Roth, visited 5 of the residents with Chickens to evaluate compliance and satisfaction with the City Ordinance. All chicken owners were generally in compliance – two had coops located on the property line but in both cases there was no residence on the adjacent properties and in one case, the owner had permission. There was a mix of coop styles and run space available at all sites. The coops were either homemade or prefabricated and the runs used a variety of fencing including both wire and mesh. All appeared to be secure enough to contain chickens and at least provide a deterrent from predators. Feed and water wer e appropriately provided. Manure was commonly being turned into a compost bin covered with straw bedding. No odors were detected during the Fall day on which we conducted our visit. Residents were satisfied with the city ordinance. Most indicated they had prior chicken raising experience so for these people, a class did not provide much additional information. One person who has a 6 -person household, indicated that 4 hens were not quite enough to meet their egg needs and that 6 hens would be ideal. Mo st people raised the chickens for eggs, and valued having access to fresh eggs from their own chickens and the folks with children also valued the opportunity to teach them about animal care. A number of people had dogs and chickens with no issue arising. Only one resident suspected a hawk might have taken a chicken. Some indicated there were some mice and rats about but did not feel the numbers had increased over what they had seen before having chickens. All were interested and supportive of a permanent ordinance. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Recommendations -Remove the 3000 SF Lot requirement – given the setbacks and the requirement to locate chickens in the rear yard and that to coop and run not cover more than 50% of the lots it seems that there is appropriate space on small er lots while at the same time maintaining distance from neighboring residences. Another option might be to have a lower SF minimum. -Consider allowing up to 6 hens – as long as the 4 SF per bird requirement is met, many yards could accommodate 6 hens and provide more fully for the family food needs. -Consider allowing coops to be located against a garage or even home where appropriate. This gives the homeowner more flexibility in locating a pen on their properties. -CCE class on chicken keeping – ma y not be needed if someone has experience, but then there is no standard set of “instructions” that all residents have received. The class does not seem to have been a huge impediment to getting registered as CCETC is now offering the instruction by appointment in cases where we do not have a class scheduled and someone is eager to keep chickens. -Consider some sort of re-registration or check in process – should residents re-register after so many years? Or should the clerk annually check on how many people in the city are keeping chickens? And document complaints. This may take time and may not be a top priority for the clerk or police dept. Perhaps contract with CCETC to conduct an annual survey/site visit and to be the first responder for complaints . Or the City Life Commission might take this on? Definitions As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: LOT As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. PROPERTY CLASS CODE As defined in § C-73C(1) of the City Charter. REAR YARD As defined in § 325-3 of the City Code. § 164-27Pilot program. replace with language making it a permanent program? The prohibition against keeping chickens in this chapter shall, during a two -year pilot program that shall expire on May 1, 2018, not apply to up to 20 pilot applicants approved for the keeping of up to four f emale chickens (hens) per three-thousand- square-foot lot while the animals are kept in such a manner that all requirements of this article are satisfied. Suggestion to increase to up to 6 female hens. § 164-28Requirements for keeping chickens. A. Chickens may only be kept on those lots with a property class code of 210, 215, 220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations. B. Suggestion to eliminate lot size as long as set back criteria are met or perhaps a smaller lot square footage requirement…2000 SF? Maybe specify the must be kept in the rear yard lot as in section E and that the coop not cover more than 50% of the rear lot…so the lot has to be at least 168 SF (assuming 4 SF per chicken). Chickens may only be kept on those lots possessing a lot square footage of not less than 3,000 square feet. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area, either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following proh ibited areas: (1) Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located; (2) Within 20 feet of any adjacent lot's residential principal structure or accessory structure that contains a residential unit, or within five feet of any principal structure on the lot housing the chickens; and Remove this requirement. In many cases it would make sense to locate a coop off a garage or even the back of a house. (3) Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the adjacent owner agrees, in writing, to a lesser setback. D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the lot on which the chickens are kept. E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and const ructed coop or chicken house, within a fenced and covered enclosure that is at least four square feet per chicken in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop and run combined shall be located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the rear yard of the lot. F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets, alleys or other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person. G. During daylight hours, the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs and other predators. H. Chicken feed must be in rodent-resistant and weather-proof containers. I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be maintained in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise or odor that creates a nuisance for adjoining lots and the responsible domiciliary and the owner shall remove any odorous or unsanitary condition. The lot owner shall be responsible for the repair on any adjoining lot of any damage caused by the chickens, including but not limited to damage to dwellings, structures and yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe condition. J.The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all solid waste storage and collection standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, § 331-7. K. Roosters and guinea fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of the bird. L. – Remove section, no longer a pilot. Pilot registration pursuant to § 164-29 is required for the keeping of chickens. M. Not sure a class is really needed….except for folks with no experience. Approved pilot registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Tompkins County (CCETC), or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerk's Office. Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting § 164-29Pilot registration process and parameters. Change wording to Registration process and parameters (remove word Pilot) A. No more than 20 pilot registrations for the keeping of chickens shall be approved under this Article IV- Remove B. Registration shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk's office upon submission of a registration fee of $35 and verification of a completed chicken-keeping seminar. (decide if class is needed). C. The City Clerk and Police Department shall, at least three months prior to the expiration of the pilot program, report to a Committee of the Common Council on the status of the pilot program. Change to something like – The City Clerk and Police Department shall report to a Committee of Common Council annually about the numbers of households registered to keep chickens and whether there are complaints or other issues arising as a result of improper chicken keeping. D. Should the pilot program not be extended after the two-year period, the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office may help rehome the hens in the program. - Remove E. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole discretion, that any requirements of this article are not met, a rebuttable presumption of which shall be created by a record of three or more complaints to the Ithaca Police Department about a specific site's chickens, on the recommendation of CCETC, or on the recommendation of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City Clerk shall notify the owner, in writing, of the same, in compliance with § 164-30, and if the revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in coordination with such assistance as may be available from the CCETC, who may assist with rehoming them. § 164-30Remedies not exclusive. The remedies provided by this article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are in addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any other provision of law. A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this article shall be deemed a public nuisance, and the owner or custodian shall be given 30 days to rectify the co nditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any chickens present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has assumed responsibility as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this chapter. B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll, requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than 30 days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and to abate the Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works. C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally delivered to the City Clerk within 14 days of the service or mailing of notice, and any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the property owne r. D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of violation of this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the time limit stated in such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works' determination, after such a hearing, that a violation exists), the City Clerk shall refer the matter, by memorandum, to the Superintendent of Public Works, who shall cause such premises to be put in such condition as will comply and shall charge the cost thereof to the owner of said premises, including a charge of 50% for supervision and administration. The minimum charge to the property owner for such work shall be $50. E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected a bill rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works. If not paid within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property, added to its tax and become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as delinquent City taxes. Appeals from this section shall only be permitted if written notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such appeals shall be taken to the Board of Public Works. c) Infill Development Guidelines Alderperson Fleming asked how we got to this. As for accessory structures, the re should be one principle structure and one smaller structure. There is already in the code in R1 and R2 zoning. JoAnn Cornish will take the suggestions from tonight’s meeting back to staff and work on it. d) Priority Work Plan and 2019 Goals JoAnn Cornish asked for feedback on the priority work plan and the 2019 goals . 8) Review and Approval of Minutes a) January 2019 Approved at the March 13, 2019 PEDC Meeting Moved as amended by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Passed unanimously. 9) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.