HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2019-04-10
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, April 10, 2019 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock,
Stephen Smith, Donna Fleming, and Laura Lewis
Committee Members Absent:
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Lisa Nicholas, Deputy
Director, Planning and Development; Tom Knipe,
Deputy Director, Economic Development;
Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips,
Planner; and Deborah Grunder, Executive
Assistant
Others Attending: Monika Roth, Chair, Community Life Commission;
Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There are no minutes to approve.
2) Public Comment
Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on infill housing. Public accessibility for these
projects should be made available.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, if the chemicals can be removed from the Chain works
project, she would like to see affordable housing.
Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on infill housing. Agrees with Miller as to the
accessibility of infill projects. Immaculate Conception would like to see the availability of
gardens.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
Fay Gougakis, 171 E. State Street, spoke regarding dogs on the Commons. She would
like the City to listen to people who live on the Commons. The tenants should have a
say. She referred to the comment JoAnn Cornish made regarding the only problem with
the dogs on the Commons is the poop. There is more to it. Thirteen complaints were
made of dogs. Dogs are a serious issue.
Sheryl Swink, 321 N. Albany Street, she would like to see the West End remain as it is.
She is encouraged by the change in height and set back. She supports the INHS PUD
project. She likes their approach with the public. She agrees with Dan Hoffman’s
comment on community gardens at the INHS site.
Anne Sullivan, 109 Irving Place, from the Belle Sherman neighborhood. Encourages a
public meeting to discuss the infill housing. Changes to the infill housing may not work.
This is a big change. We need to know more.
Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, supports the chicken ordinance 100% and thanks
Monika Roth for her work on this ordinance. He also spoke on the reduction of fossil
fuels. A constitutional amendment at the state level where all citizens have a right to
clean air. The City needs to act on this as well.
Joe Wilson, 75 Hunt Hill Road, spoke in favor of the reduction in fossil fuels and gas
emissions and the new Green Building policy.
Ann Kilgore, 216 Lake Avenue, spoke her displeasure of the City’s infill proposed
changes. She spoke of the Barken Building which is not in compliance and not a legal
structure.
Ken Jaffe, 218 Lake Avenue, reiterated Kilgore’s comments as to the infill proposed
changes. We need more information.
Alderperson Lewis thanked all who spoke tonight. The Green Building policy working
group is looking to have a draft to share with municipalities by the end of summer for
Common Council’s consideration likely at the September meeting.
JoAnn Cornish spoke regarding the comments made by Fay Gougakis regarding dogs
on the Commons. She was simply at that mentioned meeting as a history source.
Chair Murtagh stated to the group that no vote will be taken on infill housing. Tonight is
discussion only. There are many diverse opinions on this topic.
3) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Harold Square Update – Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
This project suffered a delay due to a change of contractors. It took time for new
building permits, but construction is back in operation. We meet weekly with the
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
project team. Spring 2020 is the projected completion date. The playground
maybe open this summer.
Alderperson Brock asked the maximum height of the building. The answer is
twelve stories, 140 feet.
Chair Murtagh stated there is a meeting set up for April 24 at the Library on infill
development.
b) Economic Development Update – Tom Knipe, Deputy Director of Economic
Development
Knipe provided a brief outline of what is happening now and what is coming in the
near future.
Alderperson Brock thanked Knipe for his overview. Ithaca is a difficult City to
manage and find the things that people need.
Alderperson Fleming asked what the City role is to find new tenants for vacant
spaces.
The answer was yes it definitely is part of the City’s work plan. There is a process
for that.
Alderperson Nguyen asked what the setbacks new businesses face starting up
are.
Alderperson Brock stated she would like to see the retention of the ma and pa
businesses. She would like to see Ithaca have a focus on an ethnically diverse
businesses. She would also like to see hi-speed internet. How can we bring fiber
optics to the City?
4) Action Items (Voting to Circulate)
a) INHS Immaculate Conception Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed
unanimously. It will be circulated, a public information session will be held, and
broke back to this committee in May.
TO: Planning and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner
DATE: April 4, 2019
RE: Planned Unit Development Application for Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) located at
320-324 & 330 W. Buffalo St, and 309 N. Plain St.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
On March 14, 2019, the City of Ithaca received the enclosed application from Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services,
for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project to be located at 320-324 & 330 W. Buffalo St, and 309 N. Plain Street.
According to § 325-12 Planned unit developments (PUD), properties located within the City’s Planned Unit
Development Overlay District (PUDOD), may apply to the Common Council for consideration to establish a PUD in
order to permit uses not explicitly allowed by the underlying zoning if they offer communitywide benefits. The PUD
legislation states that the Common Council will consider the application for any PUD on the following criteria, among
others:
1. Does the project further the health and welfare of the community?
2. Is the project in accordance with the City Comprehensive Plan?
3. Does the project create at least one long-term significant community benefit?
The proposed INHS project involves the redevelopment of the former Immaculate Conception School into a vibrant
mixed-use community, specifically designed to address high-priority local needs. The over-arching goal of this project
is to provide both rental and for-sale housing that is affordable at a range of household incomes (from less than 30%
AMI up to 90% AMI for the rental units and 80% AMI or below for the for-sale units) and that is suitable for a range of
household sizes (from single people to large families). The project will also provide space for non-profit organizations
and will transfer the existing gymnasium to GIAC.
The proposal includes the following elements:
• Retention of the 1948 wing of the existing school building
• Demolition and replacement of the c. 1920s wing of the school with a new four-story wing
• connecting to the 1948 wing to form an “L”
• Retention and rehabilitation of the Catholic Charities Building for their continued use
• Detachment of the gymnasium wing and sale to the City for GIAC’s use
• Construction of an as-yet undetermined number of rental row houses facing W. Buffalo Street
between Catholic Charities and N. Plain Street
• Demolition of the existing building at 309 N. Plain Street and construction in that location of a
group of rental row houses
• Construction of a group of four for-sale row houses facing N. Plain Street at W. Court Street
• The project will also include both the retention and conversion of the two houses at 330 West
Buffalo Street into two rental units, or demolition to allow the construction of an additional
group of row houses facing W. Buffalo.
• Adaptive re-use of a portion of the existing school building for non-profit service organizations.
The applicant notes that this project will result in the following potential community benefits resulting from this project:
• The property is currently wholly exempt. Upon completion, we are projecting the project will pay
approximately $45,000 annually in property taxes via a PILOT.
• The project is expected to result in the creation of 1.5 FTE INHS jobs that will be paid living wages.
It is also possible there could be new jobs created by the non-profit organizations that occupy the
space, but at this time that is unknown.
• The project will provide affordable housing.
• The project will redevelop a vacant school building.
• The project is required to award at least 30% of the value of our State Housing Trust Fund loan to
Certified MWBE contractors, subs, or suppliers.
• The project will adaptively re-use a largely vacant, centrally located site, supporting the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goal of increasing residential density through appropriate infill
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
• The project will also provide space for a number of non-profit organizations that serve the local
community at a reduced rent.
• The project will transfer the existing gymnasium to GIAC.
The application has been reviewed by staff for completeness and has been found to be satisfactorily complete for
distribution and review. If the committee is in agreement, this application will be circulated for comments and a public
information session will be held, in accordance with the PUD requirements.
If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Adoption of Findings for Chainworks and Reaffirm Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
Findings –Chainworks District Redevelopment Project
City of Ithaca
Tompkins County, New York
Moved by Alderperson Brock; 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 (PUD) districts on any property in the City currently zoned for industrial uses,
and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Common Council has one pending application for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project (CWD Project) to be located at
620 S. Aurora Street by Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors PC, for David Lubin, Project
Sponsor, Unchained Properties (UP), and
WHEREAS: the proposed CWD Project seeks to redevelop and rehabilitate the +/-800,000-SF former Morse
Chain/Emerson Power Transmission facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of
Ithaca’s municipal boundary (Site). The PUD is for a mixed-use district, which includes residential,
commercial, office, manufacturing and a natural area, and which consists of four primary phases: (1) the
redevelopment of four existing buildings (21, 24, 33, & 34); (2) the repurposing of the remaining existing
buildings; (3) potential future development within areas of the remainder of the site adjacent to the existing
buildings/parking areas; and (4) future developments within remaining areas of the Site. The CWD Project
also requires a subdivision approval and approvals from the Town of Ithaca for a Planned Development Zone
and site plan approval, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the adopted City process for consideration of a PUD, the application was
circulated in July 2014 to City boards and committees, as well as, to the Town of Ithaca, and to the County
Planning Department, and
WHEREAS, a required public information session, was held on August 5, 2014. In accordance with PUD
regulations, the meeting was advertised in the Ithaca Journal, the property was posted with signs and
property owners within 500 feet of the property were notified by mail of the meeting, and
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
WHEREAS, a legal notice was posted to the Ithaca Journal, on July 29, 2014, in order to advertise a legal
public hearing on August 13, 2014, and
WHEREAS, the process for consideration of an application for the PUD requires that the applicant obtain a
preliminary approval in concept from the Common Council prior to beginning the site plan review process,
and
WHEREAS, that the Common Council did, on September 3, 2014 grant a preliminary approval in concept to
UP for their application for a PUD district to be established at the Site, and
WHEREAS, that by granting a preliminary approval in concept, the Common Council acknowledged that
UP could begin the site plan review process, despite any zoning-based deficiencies in the application, and,
WHEREAS: UP did submit a site plan review application to the City of Ithaca Planning Board in September
of 2014, and
WHEREAS: the CWD Project exceeded the thresholds defined for Type I projects in both the State and City
Environmental Quality Review Law. Type I actions carry with them the presumption that it is likely to have
a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, this CWD Project exceeds the Type I thresholds as
defined in Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §174- 6
(B)(1)(i),(j),(k),(n), (2), (6), (7),(8)(a)and (b) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act §617.4
(b)(2),(3), (5)(iii), (6)(i), and (iv), and
WHEREAS: Common Council, the Town of Ithaca Town Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the
Tompkins County Department of Health, the NYS Department of Health, the NYS Department of
Transportation, and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation all consented to the City of Ithaca
Planning and Development Board’s being Lead Agency for this CWD Project, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency, made a Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance on October 2, 2014, directing the Project Sponsor to prepare a
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed CWD
Project, and
WHEREAS: on October 18, 2014, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board held both an Agency
Scoping Session and a Public Scoping Session to identify issues to be analyzed in the GEIS, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on January 13, 2015, approve a
Scoping Document, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as Lead Agency for the purpose of
environmental review, did on March 8, 2016 review the DGEIS submitted by UP for completeness and
adequacy for the purpose of public review and comment, and with the assistance of City Staff and the City’s
consultants, Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP, find the DGEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope,
content, and adequacy, and
WHEREAS: on March 29, 2016, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Development Board to
obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in
the DGEIS, and written comments for the same purpose were accepted until May 25, 2016, and
WHEREAS: Concurrent with the Environmental Review and over the same four year period, Common
Council, did, meet numerous times with the project team to review and provide feedback on the draft PUD
and Design Guidelines, and
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
WHEREAS: Common Council did circulate the draft PUD and Design Guidelines for comments in
December 2017 and again in December 2018 and all relevant comments have been incorporated, and
WHEREAS: the final draft PUD is comprised of four districts: the CW1 Natural Sub Area, containing 8.01
acres of predominately undeveloped land/open space and CW3A, CW3B & CW3C, containing 21.31 acres
of mixed use development in both new and existing buildings. The Design Guidelines are intended to
supplement the zoning and provide clear but flexible guidance during the site plan review process, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on February 26, 2019 accept the
Final GEIS for the CWD Project as complete for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse
environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR Part 617 (the SEQRA
regulations) and Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code (the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance, CEQRO), and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board as Lead Agency, did on March 26, 2019, issue positive
written findings (Findings Statement) determining, among other things:
(a) That consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the
reasonable alternatives available, the action to be carried out minimizes or avoids, to the maximum
extent practicable, adverse environmental impacts disclosed in the Draft and Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statements; and
(b) The Findings Statement was prepared by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, as
Lead Agency relating to the Chainworks Redevelopment Project, pursuant to the New York State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and the
regulations promulgated thereto at 6 NYCRR Part 617 (collectively referred to as “SEQRA”) and
Chapter 176 of the City of Ithaca Code, City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”).
This Findings Statement draws upon the matters set forth in the SEQRA/CEQRO record, including
the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (“GEIS”), consisting of the DGEIS and the FGEIS, as
well as the public comments on the DGEIS received at a public hearing and during the public
comment period; and
(c) A DGEIS and FGEIS have been prepared on behalf of the Lead Agency. The purpose of the DGEIS
and FGEIS was to identify and evaluate the potential significant adverse environmental impacts of
the proposed project and, where applicable, to identify reasonable alternatives or mitigation
measures that would reduce the effect of those impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
(d) The Findings represents the conclusion of the environmental review of the proposed project by the
Lead Agency. Under SEQRA and CEQRO, this Findings Statement must:
1. Consider the relevant environmental impacts, facts and conclusions disclosed in the GEIS;
2. Weigh and balance relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other
considerations;
3. Provide a rationale for the Planning Board’s pending decision (regarding site plan review for
the Project);
4. Certify that the requirements of SEQRA have been met;
5. Certify whether, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from
among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and whether any such adverse
environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by
incorporating as conditions to any site plan approval those mitigation measures that were
identified, in the GEIS, as practicable.
(e) This is a “positive” findings statement, which means that the proposed Project is potentially
“approvable” (a relevant term used in the State’s “SEQR Handbook”) by the Planning Board, as to
its site plan. The Planning Board will use this Findings Statement to assist in its review of the
proposed site plan, and in considering conditions that could be applied to any approval thereof.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
(f) All involved agencies, as listed in the FGEIS, should prepare their own SEQRA findings before
making their own decisions, and
WHEREAS: Common Council has carefully reviewed the Lead Agency’s findings and finds them thorough
and comprehensive and consistent with SEQR, and therefore be it
RESOLVED: that Common Council adopts the Lead Agency’s findings in their entirety including the
following certifications:
I. The requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Conservation Law and the
implementing regulations of NYSDEC, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and local regulations, have been
met; and
II. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse
environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by
incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified
as practicable.
b) Public Murals
Resolution to Select Artwork for City Mural Program
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, in 2010, the City created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city,
while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street art, throughout
the City, by resolution on May 19, 2010 and the City-owned parking garages and municipal electrical boxes are
pre-approved mural locations, and
WHEREAS, Rusty Keller, Melody Often, and Annabelle Popa have submitted proposals to paint murals on an
electrical box on S. Titus Ave, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street
Parking Garage, respectively, and
WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission formed a mural subcommittee to assess mural proposals, hold
public comment and recommend proposals for consideration, and
WHEREAS, the Mural Subcommittee held a public comment period on the mural designs and locations at its
meeting on March 12, 2019 to gather input on the proposed murals, and the responses to the proposals have
been mixed, and
WHEREAS, the installation of the murals will be funded by the artists and will be budget-neutral to the City,
and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 18, 2019, the Community Life Commission voted to recommend that the
Common Council approve the three mural projects at their proposed locations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the proposals by Rusty Keller, Melody Often,
and Annabelle Popa as recommended by the Community Life Commission, for installation on an electrical box
on S. Titus Avenue, in the Dryden Road Parking Garage, and on the exterior of the Seneca Street Parking
Garage, and be it further
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their murals upon the execution of
an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
c) SIC Amendment to the Joint Sewer Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. __-- APPROVING JOINT SEWER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO
ELIMINATE CHAIRPERSON TERM LIMIT
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (“IAWWTF”) is owned and operated by the
City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca, and Town of Dryden (“Municipal Owners”), with oversight provided
through this Special Joint Committee (“SJC”) composed of representatives from the three Municipal
Owners,
WHEREAS, the Municipal Owners entered into a December 31, 2003 Joint Sewer Agreement that governs
IAWWTF administration and operations,
WHEREAS, Section 13.3 of the Joint Sewer Agreement provides as follows:
“13.3 The SJC will elect its own chairperson annually and shall establish scheduled monthly meeting dates
to provide for timely referrals to the Parties’ respective boards or governing bodies. No chairperson shall
serve for more than two consecutive one-year terms but may be re-elected after a minimum of a one-term
period has elapsed since that person last served as chairperson.”
WHEREAS, at its meeting on February 20, 2019, the SJC adopted a resolution recommending elimination
of the limit on a chairperson serving more than two consecutive terms, because it often takes an SJC
chairperson more than a year to develop enough understanding of the IAWWTF and the chairperson role to
function efficiently and effectively with the other SJC members and staff,
WHEREAS, Section 17.1 of the Joint Sewer Agreement provides that it may be amended as follows:
“17.1 This Agreement may be modified or amended by an instrument in writing, duly executed and
acknowledged by the duly authorized representatives of each Party, upon approval by majority vote of the
voting strength of the respective governing bodies of said Party.”
RESOLVED, the City of Ithaca/Town of Ithaca/Town of Dryden approves and authorizes the
Mayor/Ithaca Town Supervisor/Dryden Town Board to execute an amendment to the Joint Sewer
Agreement, subject to the approval of the City Attorney/Attorney for the Town, that eliminates the
chairperson term limit by deleting the second sentence in Section 13.3, so that Section 13.3 reads as
follows:
“13.3 The SJC will elect its own chairperson annually and shall establish scheduled monthly meeting dates
to provide for timely referrals to the Parties’ respective boards or governing bodies.”
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
d) Backyard Chickens
Article IV Backyard Chickens
[Added 6-1-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-13]
§ 164-30Remedies not exclusive.
Chapter 164Dogs and Other AnimalsArticle IVBackyard Chickens
§ 164-26Definitions.
§ 164-27Pilot program.
§ 164-28Requirements for keeping chickens.
§ 164-29Pilot registration process and parameters.
§ 164-30Remedies not exclusive.
§ 164-26Definitions.
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.
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried
unanimously.
§ 164-28Requirements for keeping chickens.
A. Up to 6 female chickens may only be kept on those lots with a property class
code of 210, 215, 220, 240, 250, or substantially identical successor
designations.
B. Chickens may only be kept on those lots possessing a lot square footage of
more than 2,000 square feet. [or eliminate the lot square footage requirement as
long as setback criteria are met and that the coop not cover more than 50% of the
rear lot].
C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen
area, either temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the
following prohibited areas:
(1) Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located;
(2) Within twenty feet of any adjacent lot's residential principal structure or
accessory structure that contains a residential unit [rationale for eliminating – it
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
makes sense to locate a chicken coop against a garage for example to provide
wind protection and perhaps winter housing]; and
(3) Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the
adjacent owner agrees, in writing, to a lesser setback.
D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the
lot on which the chickens are kept.
E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and
constructed coop or chicken house, or 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 repair of 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. Registration pursuant to § 164-29 is required for the keeping of chickens.
M. Registrants must provide evidence of having completed a seminar regarding
the care of chickens in an urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative
Extension Office, or similarly qualified organization acceptable to the Clerk's
Office.
§ 164-29Registration process and parameters.
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.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
The City Clerk and Police and/or Cooperative Extension shall report to a
committee of Common Council annually about the numbers of city households
registered to keep chickens and any complaints arising as a result.
C. As a courtesy, property owners shall notify the city clerk at such time when
they are no longer keeping chickens.
D. 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 Cornell Cooperative Extension, 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 Cornell Cooperative Extension
Office, 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
conditions creating the public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to
correct a violation of this chapter, including removing and confiscating any
chickens present, and then bill the property owner for the correction of the
violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the registrant and the
owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has
assumed responsibility as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any
violation of this chapter.
B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the
address on the registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll,
requiring such person, within a time specified in such notice but in no event less
than 30 days from the service or mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and
to abate the nuisance and, as appropriate, to remove the chickens. Such notice
shall also state that the property owner may contest the finding of the City Clerk
by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works.
C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally
delivered to the City Clerk within 14 days of the service or mailing of notice, and
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
any such written request for a hearing shall automatically stay further
enforcement concerning the alleged violation pending such hearing. The
decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority vote, shall be binding, subject
to any further judicial review available to either the City or the property owner.
D. Upon the failure of a 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.
6) Discussion
a) West State/West MLK Street Zoning
Alderperson Brock asked for clarification of the CBD-60 from Albany to Meadow
Streets.
Chair Murtagh stated it would be awful to lose some of these iconic buildings.
Alderperson Brock stated that there are many in the community concerned with the
increased heights in areas. Lowering the heights can bring positives.
Alderperson McGonigal asked for more clarification – should we change it 50’ or 60’?
Alderperson Brock stated that there wasn’t enough time to react before this meeting.
She would like to bring it back next month to allow enough time to digest it before
making any changes.
Approved at the
May 8, 2019 PEDC Meeting
b) Infill Guidelines
Director Cornish stated that this topic was brought to this committee in February and
received direct recommendation to review this and bring it back.
She further stated that as of right, City code always two primary structures on one lot
and accessory apartments are also allowed in zoning.
Accessory apartments legislation is not changing.
For rear yard, what we would like to propose is a secondary structure that is 60% of
the primary structure. It also cannot be taller than the primary.
For street front infill, the structures should be similar, same pitch roofs, same
direction (the front doors facing the street).
Foot print is defined as the foot print on the ground.
In R2, the lot sizes are generally smaller so there wouldn’t be enough room to have a
secondary structure because it wouldn’t follow the required 60% size of the primary
structure.
Alderperson Fleming does not support a change in the R1 zone.
Chair Murtagh would like to see an analysis between the different zones of what it
looks like now and what it could look like.
It was decided that staff will do analysis and bring this back next month.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) March 2019 – not available for circulation and a vote
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18p.m.