HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2020-01-22
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, January 22, 2020 – 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: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: Alderperson McGonigal
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and
Development Department; Jennifer Kusznir,
Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner; Nick
Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator; and
Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Jeanne Grace, City Forester
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) Public Comment
Peggy Tully, 329 W. Buffalo Street, spoke in support of making ADUs accessible
throughout the City. Encouraging ADUs will do so much to the City. Owner-
operated will be a detriment.
John Graves, 319 Pleasant Street, spoke on ADUs stating that 26.4% of the housing
stock is ADUs. The current owner-occupied parcels is at an overall low.
Tom Shelley, 118 East Court Street, supports the community gardens ordinance. Is
concerned about the green space requirement in the ADU proposed amendments.
He is also in support of saving the trees. We need to maintain our tree stock.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Jed Scheckler, 142 Hawthorne Place, spoke against not requiring ADUs to be owner
occupied.
Sally Lockwood, 641 Hudson Street, would like to see the requirement of owner-
occupied ADUs. If the owner is there, they may take more interest in the
neighborhood. We need a better balance who is buying these homes. Too many
developers come in and buy up homes well before anyone else is able to do so.
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, doesn’t agree with the home-owner requirement for
ADUs. Landlords are often seen as the problem. We are trying to use zoning to fight
against capitalism.
Pam Mackesey, 323 Pleasant Street, has a two-family home purchased 43 years
ago. She has been able to improve the property via a home equity loan. Her story
is the typical story of the middle class. Buying a home became a major path to
increase their wealth and pave their way in the best popular situation. The City
does not need to decrease the owner-occupied requirement.
Sandy Kelly, 141 Hawthorn Place, supports the owner-occupied requirement in
ADUs.
Ashley Miller, 126 Sears Street, spoke on ADUs. Many people have come forward
on multiple times urging the City to keep the owner-occupied requirement. The
public concerns haven’t been respected and is noted as such in tonight’s resolution.
David Ritchie, 160 Crescent Place, spoke on ADUs. This area of the City is a nice
mixture of owner-owner occupied and tenant dwellings.
Sheryl Swink, 321 N. Albany Street, talked about the Norway maple in her lawn
before commenting on the tree ordinance which states thirteen different cities were
used in the research of the proposed resolution. Do these cities identify with Ithaca?
This ordinance must be handled cautiously with all people are involved.
Ellie Pfeffer, Adin Burnwell, etc., 1667 Dixson Hall. Spoke in favor of on the ADU
ordinance. A suggestion was also made to change in the name of the PEDC to
include sustainability within the title like the county does.
Deborah Justice, 10 Second Street supports ADUs within the City. It will help the
tax base. The owner-occupied clause complicates the process. Lives on the
Northside. She was fortunate that her parents have helped her with her housing.
Not all are as fortunate. Renting is expensive in Ithaca. We need options for smart,
mobile people.
Kenneth Young, 228 Columbia Street, spoke on ADUs. Living on South Hill, he is
well aware of the ADU population. It requires management.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Dan Hoffman, Elm Street, stated he was reminded that years ago while on Council
he did vote in support of ADUs. This isn’t a one-size fits all. The neighborhoods are
different. He would also like to see the limit to one primary ADU per lot.
Susie Cramer, lived in an ADU while in college. She know owns property of her
own. Why isn’t there the research provided like the tree ordinance has been
provided? Comparing Ithaca to Portland and Seattle isn’t a comparison. There’s an
assumption that these ADUs are affordable. That’s not the case. Let’s look at the
ADUs currently here in the City.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing – Community Gardens Zoning Amendment
Alderperson Lewis moved to open the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Fleming. Carried unanimously.
Marty Hiller, 110 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of Project Growing Hope. She
thanked the Planning staff working with them on the definitions of the
neighborhood and community gardens.
Dan Hoffman, Elm Street, spoke in favor of the proposed changes to the
ordinance. Will a ‘community garden’ be allowed in other areas of the City?
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Alderperson
Fleming. Carried unanimously.
Response from Committee:
Alderperson Brock thanked all who spoke and asked that we all be patient while
we work through this process.
Alderperson Fleming stated that the City of Ithaca has a wonderful variety of
neighborhoods which house all different types. She further thanked the owners
of Hawthorne Place keeping such good care of it. She and her husband bought
that home years ago.
Chair Murtagh thanked all who came and shared their thoughts. This legislature
is complicated. There are many ADUs in place within the city. We need to find a
way to manage and control this. The City is committed to home ownership as
well as renters.
Alderperson Lewis also thanked all those that came and spoke. She started that
we do see the public comments and take them to help make these difficult topic.
This is not being treated lightly by staff, this committee, or council.
4) Announcements, Updates, Reports
a) Call for Proposals: HUD Action Plan
Chair Murtagh read the ‘call for proposals’ for the HUD Action Plan.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
b) Green Building Policy
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, provided what the group has been
doing so far and provided the time line of the adoption of the final legislature.
This time line was provided in the meeting agenda packet.
Alderperson McGonigal stated that Nick has done an excellent job with this
green building policy. He also asked how NYSEG was helping. Will any new
electrical service be placed underground or using poles?
Alderperson Brock asked how the change in the historic district restriction will
be handled. Will it be re-circulated? The answer is yes, it will be re-circulated.
Goldsmith stated comments will be addressed by way of a public hearing.
c) Tree Ordinance
To: Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission
From: Shade Tree Advisory Group
Date: 9/9/2019
Subject: Summary of residential tree removal ordinances
Background: Urban Trees are very important to city life. The trees in the City of Ithaca provide millions of
dollars of benefits per year and provide countless ecological services for urban communities; reducing
erosion, reducing heating and cooling costs, aiding in storm water mitigation, cleaning the air of harmful
particulate pollution, producing oxygen, acting as a carbon sink and providing habitat for wildlife. Trees
increase property values, enhance economic vitality of business areas and beautify our communities. A
community devoid of trees would barely be livable as connection with the natural environment is key for
human health and wellbeing. For these reasons, residents of the City of Ithaca have raised concerns about
removal of mature trees from private property for reasons of infill development or in preparation for
largescale development of a site prior to submittal of site plan review application.
While the City of Ithaca does have ordinances that protect the removal of trees on public property (street
trees, park trees and trees in City natural areas), there is currently no ordinance restricting the removal of
trees from private property outside of the Site Plan Review process. The 2nd Ward Common Council
members, Nyugen and Murtagh, have requested information from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas
Committee on potential adoption of a new City ordinance regulating the removal of trees from private
property with a summary report to be sent to Planning and Economic Development Committee. That
request was then passed on to the Shade Tree Advisory Group (STAG), the former Shade Tree Advisory
Committee.
Summary: Municipalities around the country try to protect all trees in their City, not just the street and
park trees. The STAG researched the tree preservation ordinances for 13 communities in the US and
Canada with community populations ranging from 56,000 to 994,000. The attached spreadsheet contains
our findings. A summary of common themes is as follows:
2 classes of trees, “Significant” and “Historic”. Significant trees begin ~6‐8” in DBH and Historic
trees are very large trees at least 24” in DBH
Trees growing near slopes, riparian, flood zones are taken into special consideration and
cannot be removed if they provide a benefit to protecting critical zones.
Certain species are valued more than others. Large, unique, or certain species are taken into
consideration more than small weed trees or undesirable species (ie invasive trees).
Dead, dying, or diseased trees do not need a permit to remove if there is an imminent hazard
or if the problem cannot be mitigated by pruning.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Most municipalities require an arborist report, or a tree protection/removal plan to be
submitted before any work is done on the property, provided by the owner or developer to be
reviewed by City Forester. Location, size, health, species should all be included.
Site is then reviewed by City Forester 2‐4 weeks from receiving the tree plan
Appeals can be made to remove additional trees after Forester’s final decision
Significant or Historic trees that are approved for removal are required to be replaced either
with multiple trees that will take up the same crown area as a large tree at time of planting, or
with similar species that will take up the same space once they get old enough.
Payment in lieu of planting is possible and should take into account the cost of the trees, and
cost of maintenance for ~2 years
If a property owner significantly clears trees from a property prior to submittal of a site plan
review or prior to submittal of tree removal application, the developer will be forbidden from
submitting a site plan review for a number of years.
Goals: The idea of this ordinance is not to create a prohibition of removing trees from private property.
The goal is not to require the retention of every tree that falls into the “regulated” category. This permit
process will require a conversation about each tree removal request. Possibilities for retention of high
quality trees can be explored before removal permission would be granted. If removal is granted
requirements and guidance for tree re-planting would be provided to the applicant. In this way tree canopy
across the city can be conserved.
STAG sees the goals of this ordinance as being:
1) To preserve tree canopy for the benefit all of the Ithaca community
2) To address resident concerns with tree removal related to in-fill development
3) To close a loophole by which developers can currently clear-cut a property prior to submittal of a site
plan review application and as a result, not have to deal with tree preservation for their development
plans
4) To create an ordinance that is not overly burdensome to city staff or property owners
Proposal: To achieve these goals the following points are recommended to be included in a residential tree
preservation ordinance:
Regulation of tree removal will apply to “regulated trees”, being trees greater than 12” in DBH
(truck diameter) or greater than 6” DBH for trees located in an environmentally critical area (ie
on slopes, in riparian zones or flood zones)
Some undesirable species would not be regulated, possibly including Tree of Heaven
(Ailanthus), boxelder (Acer negundo), and ash (Fraxinus).
Tree removal permit approval would take into consideration; health of tree, structural
condition of tree, future utility conflicts, current utility easements, public safety concerns,
potential significant burden to economic development of the site.
An approved certified Arborist could submit a short report to confirm tree species, tree
health, and structural condition which would exclude a tree from the “regulated tree” status.
Alternatively, the City Forester or Forestry Technician could confirm with a brief site visit that
the tree is excluded from the “regulated tree” category.
There would be a small fee for permit applications to prevent frivolous requests and offset the
cost of staff time. The City Forester would respond to permit applications within 2 weeks.
Appeal of the Forester’s decision would be to the Board of Public Works.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Tree retention would be ideal in the majority of situations but if that was not deemed to be
possible, replacement of “regulated trees” by planting or payment in lieu of planting would be
expected; details to be determined.
Ordinance could be restricted to specific neighborhoods or zones of concern as a test before
being expanded to cover residential trees city‐wide.
It should not apply to the easements or rights‐of‐way of utility companies, to federal, state, or
local governments.
Property owners that knowingly remove a tree or trees from private property without a
permit may be assessed a fine or be restricted from submitting a site plan application for a
number of years.
If this is a direction that the committee feels is appropriate, more time would be invested to develop additional
details, draft application forms and devise public communication strategies.
A few suggestions for next steps would be:
To contact some of the municipalities we evaluated to see how the ordinance is working for staff and
planners there. This may enlighten us if we decide to proceed to drafting an ordinance.
To poll a few of the local tree companies to gauge how much work they do in the city. This could help
get an idea of how many permit applications we would have to process. May only be able to use this
ordinance in a few neighborhoods with current staffing levels.
To think about allocating city funds to help replant trees on residential property. A topic that was brought
up was the recent NPR reporting on heat islands and how low income neighborhoods generally have
lower percentages of tree canopy coverage and thus higher temperature. We could explore the idea of
creating a grant type program to help lower income property owners in the city replant residential trees
that are removed, or if the removal of a neighboring tree results in loss of shade for an adjacent neighbor.
I think a big stumbling block for people to successfully plant trees on their own property is lack of
knowledge and the cost of purchasing trees. Buying them wholesale as the City does makes tree planting
much less expensive and advising people on proper species selection would be very effective in
increasing successful tree planting.
Jeanne Grace, City Forester, asked for direction. Should we continue this?
Alderperson Brock asked how we got here. Isn’t there a process to follow?
Alderperson Fleming stated she likes the concept, but it is private property. She is
also concerned about the time burden and implementation. She further asked about
the process of tree removal through the site-plan review.
Director Cornish’s concern is with Jeanne’s time. This will be costly for
homeowners.
Alderperson Smith stated he needs more time to digest this and think it through. It’s
a good idea to maintain our ‘tree city’ reputation.
Alderperson Brock is concerned that this may cause problems within neighbors.
She further commented her concern of these trees are on private property and the
homeowners should have the rites to decide what to do with their trees.
Chair Murtagh is also concerned about the amount of time for Jeanne Grace.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Alderperson Lewis would like more information to get more finite data. She shares
the concerns of the others regarding staff time.
Alderperson Brock would like to see those who work in the tree industry be used to
identify which tree is which.
It was agreed that this will be brought back to this committee with more information
as to how this will all work out.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Lead Agency Concurrence for Planning Board
2020 Annual Common Council Concurrence that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board be Lead
Agency in Environmental Review for Site Plan Review Projects for which the Common Council is an Involved
Agency Resolution
Moved Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously.
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the City
Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental
review of projects in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency shall
be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, State Law also specifies that when an agency proposes to directly undertake, fund or approve a Type
I or Unlisted Action undergoing coordinated review with other involved agencies, it must notify them that a lead
agency must be agreed upon within 30 calendar days of the date that the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)
or draft EIS was transmitted to them, and
WHEREAS, Projects submitted to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and Approval, at times involve
approvals or funding from Common Council, making Council an involved agency in environmental review, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Law and the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, involved agencies are provided with project information and
environmental forms for their review, as well as all environmental determinations, and
WHEREAS, Common Council did consent to the Planning & Development Board acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review for site plan review projects for which Common Council has been identified as an Involved
Agency since 2015, and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid delays in establishing a Lead Agency and to make the environmental review
process more efficient, it is desirous to continue the agreement in which the Planning Board will assume Lead
Agency status for such projects; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that Common Council does hereby consent to the Planning & Development Board acting as Lead
Agency in environmental review for site plan review projects for which Common Council has been identified as
an Involved Agency through December 31, 2020; and, be it further
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
RESOLVED, that for any future project Common Council may withhold or withdraw its consent should it so
desire.
b) Community Gardens Zoning Amendment
A Proposal to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter
325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens
and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish
Guidelines for Special Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens -
- Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried
Unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead
agency be established for conducting environmental review of projects in
accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local
environmental review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action,
and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the City
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, which requires environmental review;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare
itself lead agency for the environmental review of the proposal to amend The
Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to
Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for
Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit
Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
A Proposal to Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of
Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for Neighborhood
Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special Permit
Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens – Declaration of
Environmental Significance
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried
unanimously.
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca is
considering a proposal Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of
Ithaca, Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the
Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a Definition for
Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special
Permit Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an “Unlisted” Action under the
City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), Parts 1 and 2, dated December 9, 2019,
and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting as
lead agency, has reviewed the SEAF prepared by Planning Staff;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions
more fully set forth on the Short Environmental Assessment
Form, dated December 9, 2019, and be it further
RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at issue
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that
further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further
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.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
An Ordinance Amending The Municipal Code Of The City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” to Clarify the Definition of Community Gardens and to Add a
Definition for Neighborhood Gardens and to Establish Guidelines for Special
Permit Requirements for Neighborhood Gardens
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
unanimously.
The ordinance to be considered shall be as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ITHACA,
CHAPTER 325, ENTITLED “ZONING” TO DEFINE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY
GARDENS
BE IT NOW ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Ithaca is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325, Section 325-3, Definitions, be amended to add
a new definition of Neighborhood Garden and to amend the existing
definition of Community Gardens, to read as follows:
§ 325-3. Definitions and word usage.
NEIGHBORHOOD GARDEN. An area used by several
individuals or families, operating in association with
each other and under sponsorship by a nonprofit or
voluntary organization, primarily for seasonal
production of vegetables and other garden produce for
home consumption by the individuals or families
directly engaged in such production or for food
donations. [Added 7-10-1985 by Ord. No. 85-6]
COMMUNITY GARDEN. A lot that is specifically intended
to be gardened by a group of people, with membership
open to the public, operating in association with each
other and under sponsorship by a nonprofit or voluntary
organization utilizing either individual or shared
plots on private or public land. The land may produce
fruit, vegetables, and other garden produce; culinary,
medicinal, or beneficial plants; and/or ornamentals.
It may also contain structures intended to support year
round gardening, community events or education of the
gardening process.
Section 2. Chapter 325, Section 325-9, Special Permits, be amended to
remove Community Gardens from this section, to read as follows:
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
§ 325-9 Special Permits
B. Applicability.
(1.) The uses listed under the district regulations
in §325-8, District Regulations, which require
a special permit from the Planning and
Development Board are as follows:
(m) Neighborhood gardens in all districts.
F. Expiration and Renewals.
(1.) Special permits do not expire, with the
following exceptions:
(d) A neighborhood garden special permit shall
expire automatically if the site is not
used as a neighborhood garden, as defined
in §325-3, for one complete garden season.
(1) If a neighborhood garden special
permit should expire, a new application
must be submitted pursuant to §325-9C of
this chapter.
Section 3. Chapter 325, Section 325-10, Additional Conditions for
Special Permits, be amended to remove Community Gardens from this
section, to read as follows:
§ 325-10 Additional Conditions for Special Permits
B. Applicability. All uses allowed by special permit shall be subject to the criteria set forth in
§325-9, Special Permits. In addition, accessory apartments, bed-and-breakfast homes, bed-
and-breakfast inns, neighborhood gardens, and schools and related uses shall be subject to
additional conditions as set forth in §325-10C.
C. Additional Conditions.
(3) Neighborhood gardens. The following specific conditions shall be applicable to all
special permits for neighborhood gardens:
(n) Approved special permits for neighborhood gardens shall be
reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development or designee
at least annually for compliance with the above noted conditions and
other conditions specific to each permit’s approval. If, following
such review or investigation of any complaint, the Director of
Planning and Development or designee determines that a substantial
violation exists, notice of such violation shall be mailed to the
designated contact person, requiring that such violation be corrected
within 15 days. If satisfactory correction is not made, the special
permit may be revoked by the Director of Planning and Development
or designee.
(o) In consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an In
consideration of the fact that such gardens may be of an interim
nature, may occupy only a portion of a parcel and may be located on
property unsuited for other uses permitted under this chapter, the
district regulations specified for permitted uses under §325-8 of this
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
chapter shall be superseded, where applicable, by the following
regulations for neighborhood gardens:
Section 6. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and
within the provisions of this local law. If any section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local law is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
then that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion.
Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take affect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of notices as
provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
c) Accessory Dwelling Units
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca, Chapter 325,
Entitled “Zoning” To Establish Regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) ― Declaration of Lead Agency
Moved my Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried
unanimously.
WHEREAS, State Law and Section 176-6 of the City Code require that a lead agency
be established for conducting environmental review of projects in accordance with
local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS, State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental
review, the lead agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the action, and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendment is a “Unlisted” Action pursuant to the
City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Ordinance, which requires environmental
review; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca does hereby declare itself
lead agency for the environmental review of the establishment of regulations regarding
accessory dwelling units.
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning” To Establish Regulations for
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ― Declaration of Environmental
Significance
Moved by Alderperson Fleming; seconded by Alderperson Brock.
Carried unanimously.
1. WHEREAS, demand for additional housing development has
resulted in an increase in residential infill development
within neighborhoods in the City, and
2. WHEREAS, the City would like to allow for appropriate
levels of residential development of accessory dwelling
units, while also protecting neighborhoods from
development that is out of scale and character with the
surrounding neighborhoods, and
3. WHEREAS, in August 2019, staff held a community
conversation on accessory dwelling units and solicited
comments from the public, and
4. WHEREAS, staff evaluated all of the public feedback and
spent several months evaluating options to regulate
accessory dwelling units, while taking into consideration
public concerns, and
5. WHEREAS, staff has drafted an ordinance that will
establish guidelines for developing accessory dwelling
units in the R-1 and R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 zoning districts,
and
6. WHEREAS, the appropriate environmental review has been
conducted, including the preparation of a Full
Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), dated November 22,
2019, and
7. WHEREAS, the proposed action is a “unlisted” Action under
the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, and
8. WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, acting
as lead agency, has reviewed the FEAF prepared by planning
staff; now, therefore, be it
1. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby adopts as its own the findings and
conclusions more fully set forth on the Full Environmental
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Assessment Form, dated November 22, 2019, and be it
further
2. RESOLVED, that this Common Council, as lead agency in this
matter, hereby determines that the proposed action at
issue will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and that further environmental review is
unnecessary, and be it further
3. RESOLVED, that this resolution constitutes notice of this
negative declaration and that the City Clerk is hereby
directed to file a copy of the same, together with any
attachments, in the City Clerk’s Office, and forward the
same to any other parties as required by law.
Chair Murtagh supports the special permit.
Alderperson Lewis supports the special permit in lieu of a moratorium.
Alderperson Smith seconded. Carried 3-2.
Alderperson McGonigal asked whether the special permits language needs to be
reviewed. Cornish stated she would like to revisit the process of the special permit.
Chair Murtagh stated he would like to move this forward tonight. There is a diverse
opinion on this process.
Alderperson Brock stated that nothing that has been circulated says anything of
special permits. The definition of green space in the Collegetown plan. There is no
definition of green space in this ordinance.
Alderperson Smith moved as written; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried 3-2.
Alderperson Brock moved to add an owner occupant requirement; seconded by
Alderperson Fleming. Failed 2-3.
All in favor to forward to Council 3-2.
6) Discussion
a) Housing Strategy – Next Steps
It was agreed that the next steps will be discussed at the February meeting.
b) 2019 Accomplishments – 2020 Goals and Work Plan
Approved at the
May 13, 2020 PEDC Meeting
Director Cornish will update these two items and bring them back to the
February meeting.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) November2019
Moved by Alderperson Brock as amended; seconded by Alderperson Fleming.
Carried unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Lewis; seconded by Alderperson Brock. Carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.