[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6334441,"mediaKeyId","2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379","parentId",2295731,"title","Council tables resolution to change certificate-of-compliance fee policy until next week","audioSeconds",308,"startMs",7045000,"endMs",7353000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379&start=7045&end=7353","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379/thumbnail_7045000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6334441/New-York/Council-tables-resolution-to-change-certificate-of-compliance-fee-policy-until-next-week","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334441-9df26411d310ff86b97ed2077c2ecdbd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775635421&Signature=BbEuL4EmbO2wXloSjn5DmQXjt6Ce0cPUEOAsZZhPc-Y9XfmhCwCmvau7RBYJ-G-h130ApaHYilev2QQtykx2kCGwX4i~3ZYXey80Kb82rIkSNS7SIBxiYV7p3lDhYSpVXsRvCK0iquAm2QSXY1qDzrh~s7rZJ5NvS6fhLcuOBwlllh9DtWKUMs8jfjL-plMIcO3XfxTEX-J-wXOzKilLUrCDNAOXI3ZNoYLPAiXa6JeZepmfyS4GRMID2IeWGJ9F207xinTei~NoHRevGL3Ry0NLK8tyIwpIs6B-leNLS0jgbpTZzKkwn80x5oCfsQRRvCmczZaAKt1dN4UUBELdPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ithaca City","date","2025-02-13T08:56:10.393Z","article","A resolution introduced by Aldersperson Fabrizio would have directed the city manager to itemize the full costs of the building-division inspection program, revise the fee schedule to better recover residential inspection costs, increase fines to encourage compliance, remove special categories for university-owned dormitories and congregate living uses, and create tiered fees for larger multiple-dwelling properties.

Council action: The resolution was seconded and after brief discussion the council voted to table the item to the committee meeting on February 19 so it can be considered alongside work the building division is already preparing. The motion to table carried 10–1 with Aldersperson Saint Perez recorded as opposed.

Why it matters: The resolution addresses fee structure, enforcement, and equity across housing types — topics council members said warrant review but also requested more time so the building division can present its related analysis and so council members and staff have materials in the packet in advance.

Next steps: Staff will bring the building-division materials and a draft response to the resolution at the February 19 meeting so council can consider the two items in tandem; any code or fee schedule changes would then proceed through the normal legislative process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02_12_2025_Council of the Whole Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","A resolution proposing changes to the city’s certificate-of-compliance fee program and cost‑recovery approach for residential inspections was introduced and — after a manager’s office scheduling discussion — tabled to be considered with related building-division work at a meeting scheduled for February 19.","taxTitle","Ithaca City, Tompkins County, New York","taxId",52738,"location","New York","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6334445,"Council directs staff to refine College Town form-district rules on height, row houses and site features",1737,3696000,5433000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379&start=3696&end=5433","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379/thumbnail_3696000.jpg","/articles/6334445/New-York/Council-directs-staff-to-refine-College-Town-form-district-rules-on-height-row-houses-and-site-features","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334445-3ccd8d27fb86378b457ab0ef2d1e36f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775635421&Signature=SvekmWN6ROaKSqK1O~lNRUABPaIB-hvanJI5u0h9cCd8eju~n-gOeoJhPmlXRmq7b~GbXc9otiw2iQ2yIvBt5bhEqx-VJZTzglJqWrR-j6cenWOg0nNUzihaugPBJQW3hwxudUmJO9HEWr7giLe0oUyDCOrRuQXP0336rPJ8sFoOOnRyxKBtb0VERtDUPDP2pBqRALZgLOSHq8c3QYc-Ud6QvtnMQN5AEcGGF4xBdQpEOoDfw3HV27os5aWSKaC3yk5H325naoWk5be~QUECwvbzfP7NVwPhCUcUU3NLH1uba2eZtxJFob7M-ipg9aWk2IT76RCEvFfRPkv4Ym6dMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning Department staff presented proposed targeted amendments to the College Town Area Form Districts and related design guidance at the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 12, focusing on building height, a row‑house incentive, sunken/front-yard patios, green‑space requirements, and rezoning five parcels into CR‑4.

The presentation traced the district’s history — a College Town plan and hybrid form-based code adopted a decade earlier — and explained that the mixed-use (MU) districts contain dual limits: a maximum number of stories and a maximum number of feet. Staff said recent projects have reached building heights and story counts that make variance requests common and raise questions about whether the code should measure height by feet only, by stories only, or retain the two-part requirement but realign feet and stories to current construction practice.

Council reaction and guidance: Several council members said they favored giving developers more flexibility in College Town (some suggested allowing additional stories in MU‑2 near core corridors), while others urged caution and a comprehensive zoning process before dramatic citywide changes. After discussion staff reported the committee generally supported a targeted fix rather than leaving the status quo: staff said they are leaning toward option 4 (keep feet and stories but realign the relationship so the regulation meets built reality) and will return with specific language.

Row‑house incentive: Staff proposed eliminating the current “row‑house” incentive that allows longer building lengths and reduced side setbacks in MU‑1 and CR‑4 because the outcomes built under that incentive have not matched the form the incentive intended (true townhouse-style row houses with vertical unit separations). Council responses were mixed; some members supported removal, others preferred to retain the incentive pending more study of specific blocks. Staff will bring back more analysis.

Front-yard/sunken patios and green space: Staff proposed regulating so-called sunken patios or large front light wells by (1) prohibiting sunken patios in the front yard when they create sub-grade outdoor rooms that undermine the streetscape, and (2) counting such features toward lot coverage (similar to decks). Council asked staff to refine definitions and to bring site-specific examples to a future review and to analyze green‑space requirements and stormwater implications.

Rezoning small set of parcels to CR‑4: Staff proposed rezoning five parcels on Oak/Delaware/Linden areas to CR‑4 to remove nonconformities (several parcels already lack required off‑street parking under current zoning). Several council members expressed support for making zoning more congruent with existing conditions and asked staff to return with maps and analysis.

Ending: Staff said they will draft more specific code language and mapping changes and return to committee with recommended ordinance text and visual examples for council review.","Planning staff presented a series of targeted amendments for the College Town Area Form Districts; council generally asked staff to return with clarified height rules, consider eliminating the row‑house incentives in MU/CR zones, regulate sunken patios, and rezone five parcels into CR‑4 where appropriate.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6334451,"Ithaca council committee hears ADU outreach, leans against owner-occupancy requirement",3104,554000,3658000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379&start=554&end=3658","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2295731-8fcbaa31628d2b988f6f3499d8adb379/thumbnail_554000.jpg","/articles/6334451/New-York/Ithaca-council-committee-hears-ADU-outreach-leans-against-owner-occupancy-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6334451-201928711f50e577ac24ae1da3a78425/orig.mp4?Expires=1775635421&Signature=jzRPowCsIodCIhivFwQw5WIwHFYst-OIESD0v5JY1aw8kQNzD1ASOJ37C0EkrAKJkg4JDDIgBNVNUdIVm3vG78JzaJutxy~9T2JK0QbCeGbOCIrj401IuL10CUDlSrvHW8tDFnPAwdHw~MguO-8-xyl8bZf8objzqrWseggRX1uQTI2DZSyiLHJn2pAJk26-cdnOfGJxLbKcJvIOK1mD2IW-V1TZkRJsICg5NzQ4fRwM0sk2l2NaHZRKR5jxFJwVzhf4ezyrrw0QY2FqBZISLqMX3Bw9OeGxxtLrT~iY1N~nxD~InrCIpzcbNPRiahAfLRrUOaO0SjwcPGNwCiklGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning Department staff briefed the Ithaca Common Council’s Committee of the Whole on February 12 on a months-long public outreach effort and draft technical standards for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance.

The presentation summarized an open-house and an online survey of about 290 respondents, most of whom were homeowners, and outlined proposed local rules on where ADUs would be allowed, maximum size and height, setbacks, and how ADUs would be treated when they are part of existing structures versus new construction. Planning staff said survey respondents were generally supportive of allowing ADUs but split on whether properties with ADUs should be owner occupied. Staff recommended no parking requirements for ADUs, a 5-foot side setback for new detached ADUs (changed from a 4-foot draft), a 20-foot maximum height and two-story cap for new ADU construction, a 40% size limit for attached ADUs, and a 600-square-foot maximum footprint for detached ADUs. For conversions of existing structures, staff proposed no new setback requirement but continued adherence to building and fire codes.

Why it matters: Council members framed ADUs as one piece of a broader housing strategy. They raised concerns about impacts on neighborhood character, student housing pressure in areas such as Belle Sherman and South Hill, financing and resale complications tied to owner-occupancy limits, and whether ADUs would meaningfully increase affordable supply given construction costs.

Council discussion and informal guidance: Council did not vote on an ordinance but used public straw polls and discussion to give staff direction. After debate, a majority of council members indicated they did not want an owner-occupancy requirement written into the draft ordinance; staff was asked to draft the ordinance without that requirement so it can be amended later if needed. Council also indicated unanimous support for allowing short-term rentals (STRs) in ADUs only when the property is owner occupied, consistent with the city’s existing STR framework. Finally, staff reported an overall sense that the council would opt into two New York State ADU tax-exemption programs when drafting the ordinance.

Technical, outreach and program details: Staff said the outreach included an open house at the Tompkins County Public Library (about 25 attendees, mostly from the Third Ward), an informational web page, and a three-week survey. Staff cautioned that 90% of survey respondents were homeowners while homeowners make up fewer than 30% of city residents, and that survey responses therefore do not represent the citywide population. Staff also reported that Tompkins County has opted into the state ADU tax exemptions and that the county assessor has discussed how exemptions would apply (an exemption applies to the increased assessed value from adding an ADU and would taper over several years under the programs discussed).

Next steps and constraints: Staff said the survey and outreach material and a September 2024 memo are posted to the planning web page and asked the council to provide the discussed direction so staff could draft an ordinance. Council directed staff to draft the ordinance consistent with the straw poll results and to return with a proposed regulatory draft for further committee review and amendment before any formal vote.

Ending: Planning staff thanked the committee and said they will return with draft ordinance language and additional analysis, including further work on financing and accessibility concerns raised by council members.","Planning staff presented results of ADU public outreach and draft technical rules; council gave staff direction in informal straw polls to draft an ADU ordinance without an owner-occupancy requirement, to allow short-term rentals only for owner-occupied ADUs, and to opt into state ADU tax incentives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council tables resolution to change certificate-of-compliance fee policy until next week

Council directs staff to refine College Town form-district rules on height, row houses and site features

Ithaca council committee hears ADU outreach, leans against owner-occupancy requirement