A variety of local organizations have, in recent years, expressed concern with the pattern of development in Tompkins County:

• Environmental Management Council,
  
• Tompkins County Area Development,
  
• Citizens Planning Alliance,
  
• Tompkins County Greenway Coalition,
  
• Northeast Subarea Transportation Study working group, and
  
• Advocates for Sensible Area Planning.

At a 1999 retreat, the staffs of the Planning Department and the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council felt that, as professional planners, they should take a lead in addressing these concerns. There was a sense among the staffs that, even with its a low rate of growth, the county is suffering from development patterns which do not make the most efficient use of its public facilities, do not enhance its existing communities, and unnecessarily detract from its natural features.

At the retreat, the staffs developed the following vision statement:

Our vision is to build vital communities within Tompkins County by encouraging and involving people in participatory planning to create communities where:

• natural and historic resources are preserved,
  
• jobs are available,
  
• sprawl is contained,
  
• neighborhoods are vibrant,
  
• services are accessible, and
  

In October 2000 and January 2001, the Planning Department and the Transportation Council hosted participatory workshops for invited representatives of interest groups to draw future land use maps as a first step in this Vital Communities Initiative.
Forty-two people attended the first workshop, representing interests in the environment, agriculture, economic development, land development, neighborhood quality and local planning. The second workshop had 36 attendees and involved the following interest groups: youth, education, local elected officials, human services, county elected officials, and transportation and infrastructure.

The participants expressed a variety of opinions concerning future development in Tompkins County. Several interesting areas of discussion emerged. These are all topics future Vital Communities Initiative activities will address.

City of Ithaca, the urban core
All groups agreed that the City of Ithaca should remain a focal point of development, and advocated a mixed-use environment with mutually reinforcing uses, including residential, commercial, public services, and cultural activities. All groups also advocated building up rather than out, maximizing use of the existing infrastructure (water, sewer, and roads), infilling vacant urban land, and utilizing existing vacant buildings. The prescribed high intensity, mixed-use environment, they believed, could and should be one in which people can live in proximity to jobs, recreation, services, and commercial activity, and also be highly livable and aesthetically pleasing. Specific forms this development would take, or the means to achieve the desired development, varied somewhat from group to group.

Some groups advocated high-rise development while others preferred 'human-scale' development. Other groups emphasized physically attractive, high intensity areas with adequate sidewalks, green space, and interesting buildings and architecture to create a real sense of community.

A number of groups expressed the need for more jobs and economic development within the urban core. Some groups talked about the need for quality, high-paying jobs to keep people here and to keep extended families together. Other groups focussed on a "job mix" to accommodate a range of income levels and to promote economic diversity. Still others advocated locating shops and consumers in close proximity to create the mixed-use, high intensity urban core.

Groups also emphasized the importance of including neighborhood components such as schools, churches, and neighborhood commercial in the mix "to make growth smart." It was also suggested to locate a school downtown in order to attract development and provide students access to amenities like fast food restaurants.

Most groups advocated incorporating areas of green space within the high intensity, highly urbanized areas. Suggestions included promoting an urban forestry program, providing green corridors to connect parks and recreation areas, creating "pocket preservation" areas, and locating recreational facilities in the urban core.

A number of groups viewed building density in the City of Ithaca as a means to address various social issues, such as providing for the elderly, and preventing crime and abuse. Currently, a varied population, including the elderly, handicapped, and young unmarried people, is attracted to downtown Ithaca because of its cultural opportunities and its proximity to certain services. By improving the city's economic base, the surrounding area would be better tied together. If the city thrives, there would be fewer drugs and family problems and more people would feel empowered, both economically and socially.

Some groups suggested that the city could also play a larger role in providing affordable housing. It was suggested that if urban areas were made more affordable, low-income and dependent populations would have greater access to transportation, jobs, and job training.

Hamlets and Villages, building density
Several groups looked to promote growth in hamlets and villages by expanding or intensifying development, although with different approaches. There was discussion of the role hamlets and villages could play in providing life style choices to residents. There was some recognition that development in these 'nodes' should be designed in such a way as to protect the character of the areas.

The presence of infrastructure in the villages and hamlets was viewed as a reason and a means to foster development in these areas. Investment in water and sewer facilities in the hamlets could encourage development in these areas and, therefore, discourage growth in other areas. Groups also emphasized the need to combat tentacle or leapfrog development by making the existing settlements more affordable and desirable places to live.

A couple of the groups proposed creating new hamlets (or nodes). One suggestion was to locate a new development node in South Lansing (around the Rogue's Harbor area). Another suggestion was to create a 'floating node,' i.e., creating a new hamlet in an area to be determined at the time that growth creates a demand for a new neighborhood.

Not all groups, however, agreed with this development proposal. A couple of groups recommended that new growth be located along major transportation corridors, as transportation and, in many cases, utilities are already present in these corridors.

There was also disagreement about the appropriateness of nodal development patterns in specific areas. For example, the Economic Development group proposed that the Village of Lansing be developed at moderate intensity, primarily residential, to take advantage of existing water and sewer infrastructure; the Local Planning group, however, believed that the Village has no room for additional growth.

Neighborhoods, enhancing livability
Many groups discussed the importance of protecting the quality of life in neighborhoods and the impact of future development on the character of neighborhoods. Most discussion about the importance of neighborhoods included neighborhoods in the City of Ithaca, the villages, and the hamlets around the county. There was a general concern expressed of not damaging traditional neighborhoods in the effort to concentrate growth in existing developed areas. There is also a need to identify opportunities to generate new neighborhoods.

The strong sense of community present in many of the neighborhoods, villages and hamlets was identified as an important aspect of life in the county. There is a need to preserve and enhance the sense of community, the sense of belonging to someplace. Some groups recommended expanding those villages that have a particularly strong neighborhood feeling.

Groups also talked about the distinctive character of existing neighborhoods and community centers in Tompkins County. Each neighborhood needs to be defined individually and its essential character preserved. As one group said, some places are 'funky' and their funkiness ought to be preserved.

There was also discussion on what the elements make a successful neighborhood. Many groups focused on the walk-ability of neighborhoods and villages, as in the Village of Groton, and re-creating that pedestrian orientation in other places, like Enfield Center, West Danby, Danby, Brooktondale, and Slaterville. Other important elements of neighborhoods include recreational opportunities, natural areas, and open spaces; schools, churches and neighborhood-based commercial services; public places and activities that provide opportunities to build community cohesiveness; and interesting architectural components that make neighborhoods attractive.

Environmental Protection, preserving green space
Most of the groups expressed a desire to protect the environment while providing for future growth. The reasons for protecting the environment were almost as varied as the interest groups that expressed them. These included protecting the rural character and natural beauty of the community; providing access to open space and recreation; protecting unique economic assets, such as the gorges and Cayuga Lake; and protecting water and air quality.

The approaches to protecting the environment also varied from group to group. Many groups identified specific environmental features to protect. These included unique natural areas, wetlands, state parks, watersheds, and aquifer recharge areas. Many groups also combined protecting specific environmental features, agricultural lands, and open space.

Several groups proposed the establishment of greenways or biological corridors. Most of these proposals included linking natural features, agricultural lands, and other open spaces to provide a continuous system. It was suggested that establishing buffers along creeks could provide part of this network, while also protecting water quality. One group strongly advocated protecting a greenbelt around the urban core. Reasons for establishing these greenways ranged from protecting animal and plant species to providing trails to travel between these areas and developed areas. There was also concern expressed about the economic impact of establishing greenbelts; the effect of greenbelts on property values needs to be identified and may require municipal financing.

Some groups expressed a need for an even broader approach to environmental protection. This included viewing humans as part of a larger community of living things. Consideration should also be given to the impacts that broader environmental issues, like global warming and energy concerns, will have on development patterns. These "global" issues may result in a greater impetus to develop in clusters, or nodes. There were also suggestions that future development be designed to minimize environmental impacts; that areas be evaluated for their environmental and ecological contributions to determine priorities for protection; and that natural resources be integrated into all planning efforts.

Development Settings, providing choices
Many groups, in developing their future land use maps, stressed the importance of providing choices to individuals regarding the types of area where they could live. In our efforts to intensify development within existing settlements, we must not lose track of the need for providing alternative places to live. People should be able to choose to live in an urban setting, within a hamlet or village, in suburban neighborhoods, or in rural areas. There should be different types of areas and, among densely developed areas, a variety of densities and neighborhood styles.

It is important to acknowledge that when people choose a place to live, they already make certain trade-offs, between proximity to services, the desire for privacy, affordability, and neighborhood character. The choice of living areas will also be affected by changes in technology. For example, the increasing ability to telecommute is already affecting housing choices.

The economic status of individuals determines, to a large degree, where they live. Towards the idea of providing choices, it was suggested that affordable housing should be provided in all types of areas. Some pointed out that high density housing should not be equated with low-income housing, while others pointed out that lower income individuals should not necessarily be relegated to mobile home parks.

Multi-Modal Transportation, relying less on automobiles
At almost all of the tables, an improved transportation system, with less dependence on the automobile, was envisioned. Most of the groups discussed some form of multi-modal transportation as being important to the future of the county. Most of the discussions focused on improved bus service. Many talked about light rail connecting the nodes (villages). One table even proposed a ferry across Cayuga Lake, between Myers Point and Ulysses. Discussions on transportation in the future most commonly centered on the preservation and improvement of pedestrian and bike trails throughout the county.

Improved bus service, and in some cases light rail service, was discussed mainly for the Freeville-Dryden-Ithaca corridor, the Newfield-Ithaca corridor, and the Lansing-Ithaca corridor. The Trumansburg-Ithaca and Groton-Dryden corridors were also discussed by some. In addition, some tables noted that the current abandoned railroad beds should be protected for future transportation use, be it bike, pedestrian or light rail. Another group's suggestion was to use existing road infrastructure rights-of-way for future innovative transportation technologies. Still another table talked about a public mini-bus transportation system similar to those used in developing countries.

Water and Sewer, guiding development
There was a general consensus among the groups that the location of water and sewer infrastructure directly impacts development patterns. Areas with existing infrastructure should be targeted for additional development. Existing infrastructure represents a substantial public investment and should be used to the community's best advantage. Water and sewer utilities should be available in areas that are designated for development. The availability, or lack, of these utilities may be used to increase the attractiveness of developing in some areas and decrease the attractiveness of developing in others.

Groups also considered the impacts of the location of water and sewer facilities on agriculture in the county. There will be direct impacts on the potential value of agricultural lands resulting from constructing water or sewer systems in nearby areas. Also, different types of development place different emphases on infrastructure. Manufacturing operations, for example, need access to water and sewer systems. High-tech businesses are more dependent on the availability of business and personal services.

Groups suggested different areas for the expansion of water and sewer facilities to accommodate growth. Areas suggested included the Village of Lansing, South Lansing, West Hill, Dryden, and Jacksonville. There was, however, disagreement on other areas. For example, the Local Planning group designated West Danby for moderate intensity development, owing to the existing water lines. The Environment group, however, considered the water lines in this area but suggested that, in this case, development should not be encouraged owing to the Unique Natural Areas in this area.

Agriculture, providing for future generations
All groups noted, although to varying degrees, that prime agricultural lands should be preserved for future generations. Some groups focused on finding ways to keep all existing farms viable, while others focused on only those with the best agricultural soils. Existing agricultural lands and the best agricultural soils were specifically recognized as priorities for preservation. The areas mentioned as the most important to protect were the northeast, northwest and southeast sections of the county.

The primary tool suggested to accomplish farmland protection was the Purchase of Development Rights. Another way suggested to protect agricultural lands was by encouraging development in community centers instead of in rural areas.

Protecting the lands with the best soils near urban areas was not a priority for a number of the groups. If agricultural lands were to be developed in the future, those located in the urban areas should be the first to be developed. A couple of the groups did note that the nature of farming may shift to smaller farms and aquaculture and hydroponics - which would utilize less acreage and allow more farming in suburban areas.

A secondary benefit of protecting agricultural lands is its connection with preserving open space and the environment - they go hand in hand. Most tables mentioned this aspect of farms, with many noting that protecting agricultural lands is the key to protecting open space.

A final aspect of farming that many groups discussed was the importance of relying on locally produced agricultural products in the future - for better food quality and reduced foods costs.

Low Intensity Development, differing opinions.
There was a great disparity of opinion among the groups about future low intensity development in the county. There were four basic approaches to low density residential development:

1. Low intensity development is the principal factor in creating sprawl and should not be permitted to expand in the future. Developing along road frontages results in the loss of rural character and fractures open spaces. This detracts from the quality of life in rural areas. Low intensity development along roads also places stress on public services and creates a demand for those services in an inefficient manner. Low density residential development is also a threat to the preservation of agricultural lands.

2. Low intensity development should be permitted throughout the county. Except for environmental areas already protected, low intensity development should be permitted in all of Tompkins County. Housing in rural areas serves an important function, allowing individuals to purchase an affordable home with privacy in a rural setting.

3. Low intensity development should be permitted, but only as clusters of moderate intensity developments. Building individual homes on one- to five-acre lots should not be the approach to accommodating future growth. Rather, rural area development should be permitted in clusters with common lands surrounded by agricultural lands and open spaces. There will remain a great pressure to permit houses on individual lots along the roads in our rural areas, but cluster housing will do more to preserve agricultural land and the rural character so important to county residents.

4. Low intensity development should be permitted in some specific areas based on the physical characteristics of the land and its suitability for other uses. Some groups defined low intensity areas as those areas that were not appropriate for moderate or high intensity development, and did not include important environmental features. Specific areas identified for future low intensity development were: along Route 79 in Enfield; west of West Hill in the Town of Ithaca; around Jacksonville; in northern Lansing; in western Ulysses; and in West Dryden.