[{"_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",6079863,"mediaKeyId","2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb","parentId",2953633,"title","Ithaca council hears hours of public testimony on ADU ordinance; moves measure to full council for May vote","audioSeconds",4298,"startMs",174000,"endMs",4472000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb&start=174&end=4472","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb/thumbnail_174000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6079863/New-York/Ithaca-council-hears-hours-of-public-testimony-on-ADU-ordinance-moves-measure-to-full-council-for-May-vote","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079863-45ce810850ff84f9477b4cfaac21112d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052921&Signature=HZWDyejGwz~mcrCa06QYLK1BPpXox9zDFvIr4IOrRglWfYdKnUfCZJMX9rZFrAJzcQQNKob6OHGJwwenJSGNPKnBG81HTyRrzZlxOm5B74trKT-NDuXRgZBR66C4SHQbZmFx4W-~Zx6P2bHaGqPfHwtSPGXgAMNikZbf1Mns5ju5xuv3HmEUjdLXRpNcRLCLJ5C~eKtu8rgG1be~3Lt4rSCYaxRP2va-B8Qj0kc9HPLdH3iClWHgQg5CxGDKFpGPRxNBzEkXT7JQZB5Ct54IUdpGzHEuNXj50tPVGoQPf5NtiK9NEivsDHAcYFU405HK0NzC7LmDxQJ~rIrxwGlYdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ithaca City","date","2025-04-10T16:35:47Z","article","Aldermen and dozens of residents filled the April 9 Committee of the Whole to hear a public hearing and debate on a staff-drafted accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance that would allow ADUs by right across most residential zones and does not include an owner‑occupancy requirement.

Supporters said ADUs would add housing supply and help homeowners cover rising property costs, while opponents urged carve‑outs to protect family neighborhoods from investor purchases and environmental harms.

The public hearing drew more than a dozen speakers in person and online. “I’m all for ADUs,” said Wendy Wallet of 209 Valley Road, who also warned that an unconstrained ADU rule could encourage corporate investors to buy single‑family homes and convert neighborhoods into rental districts. “The proposed ordinance before you, by allowing the development of ADUs without conditions, will turn our community into a playground for investors seeking to maximize profits,” she told the committee. Other residents from South Hill and Belle Sherman echoed concerns about investor purchases and tree loss in backyard areas.

Other speakers framed ADUs as one of several needed tools to increase supply. “ADUs offer one avenue for the city to increase housing stock,” said Rupert Spies, also of 209 Valley Road. Local realtors and the Ithaca Board of Realtors urged passage, noting that some homeowners rely on ADU income to pay rising taxes and maintenance costs; Brent Kotsman described the local market shortfall and recommended the city pursue pre‑approved ADU plans to reduce design costs.

Planner and longtime advocate David West told council staff had prepared workable regulations and warned against “poison pills” — conditions such as excessive parking or owner‑occupancy requirements — that can prevent ADUs from being built. “This ordinance will get us some ADUs. It’s a small part of the solution to housing,” West said.

Council debate reflected the split in public testimony. Several alderpersons reiterated that ADUs are not a silver‑bullet solution and that the ordinance had been under study for years; others said it was time to move forward. A recurring point from council members and public commenters alike was the specific pressure felt in wards closest to Cornell and Ithaca College (South Hill and Belle Sherman), where speakers urged protections such as owner‑occupancy carve‑outs for parts of the city.

Procedural actions: the committee opened the public hearing by unanimous voice vote, and later a motion to move the staff‑draft ordinance “as written” (that is, without an owner‑occupancy condition) was put before the committee. After extended debate and a failed motion to refer the item to the next agenda‑planning meeting, the committee voted to refer the ADU ordinance to the full Common Council voting meeting in May. A procedural tally reported by the clerk during the meeting said the motion carried on the main motion and later reporting indicated referral to the May meeting carried (audio record: “That carries … 7 to 2” and later “That carries 9 0” during procedural votes reported on the floor).

Why it matters: ADU rules change who can build and how property owners can use single‑family lots; the council must weigh modest increases in supply against neighborhood character, tree canopy and displacement concerns. Council members emphasized that if they move the ordinance forward it will return for a full vote at the May council meeting, where any final amendments or conditions could be added.

What’s next: The ordinance will appear on the Common Council voting agenda in May. Planning staff said they have budgeted funds for pre‑approved ADU designs to lower building costs; council members suggested follow‑up work on targeted protections (for example, an overlay or carve‑out for parts of Ward 3) and additional outreach before the full vote.

Ending: The committee’s vote to advance the ordinance sends a widely discussed, contested draft to the full council in May, where councilors will make the final determination on whether to adopt ADUs without an owner‑occupancy requirement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","04-09-2025 Common Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Aldermen and dozens of residents filled the April 9 Committee of the Whole to hear a public hearing and debate on a staff‑drafted accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance that would allow ADUs by right across most residential zones and does not include an owner‑occupancy requirement.","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},6079853,"City staff propose temporary Southwest parcel campground, navigation hub partnerships and phased 'pilot' improvements",2531,8002000,10533000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb&start=8002&end=10533","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb/thumbnail_8002000.jpg","/articles/6079853/New-York/City-staff-propose-temporary-Southwest-parcel-campground-navigation-hub-partnerships-and-phased-pilot-improvements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079853-01cd38babd6c5e4bcbff750ba012b99f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052921&Signature=abuekp-ZGbdj5oTjjVJlv1BEqsD2HxtEcU6tmfMlo4WwSlbb52qs~KxXa4CSrPUF9Luv3ILIOPF1jRxvboRUUbQ3Wrw0DZrKYk8ar6jo9v0bsUkKuxlKA8yGJM1f9BakfMgpPZuhsDHEKZeCWZj5CWLyqvdDtrrF~z6yRjmZfRLX6N0qh9PSjaDz5luEzdqbR-jnRj36gSJXR9v~Dtdv63GeQU0XQuIz1iFPgYL7Iz9CTAMBbb7nYVerM4RkWMI12h3C49xLWcrWSxezl1kW5WKX9XCtTQKE12ef5sUrdo9UbSH7Ohnt~1~LbyHmT3Oodiq0XK9XZTuTGfkNGWkowQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented a revised encampment response report that recommends a time‑limited pilot to manage camping on the city’s Southwest parcel, pair an on‑site amenities area with an off‑site navigation hub, and invest in phased site improvements intended to reduce hazards and improve access to services.

Deputy City Manager Liddy and the encampment response coordinator outlined changes to the pilot since the March briefing: staff added stronger language on fire prevention, clarified that navigation‑hub services should be available to all people experiencing housing insecurity (not only those who live in encampments), and tightened site mapping so that wet and hard‑to‑access areas would be excluded from any temporary camping footprint.

On site design, staff proposed scattered, leveled 1,250‑square‑foot camping plots, tree‑mounted solar lighting along access routes, marked grid addressing for emergency response and a centralized amenities area for potable water, toilets and storage. The presentation included a conceptual map and a focus on responder access; fire officials recommended a 20‑foot access road and smaller, off‑road suppression apparatus to handle brush and small fires more quickly than a full pumper truck. Staff said campground permits may require waivers or variances from environmental health standards but that nearby navigation‑hub services could satisfy public‑health objectives in lieu of on‑site infrastructure such as showers.

A navigation hub concept would offer showers, laundry, storage and on‑site case managers or county partners who could provide entitlement assistance. Staff said the city will pursue county partnerships for staffing and program delivery because operational funds are limited: a small capital appropriation could pay for site improvements, while ongoing hub staffing would likely need partner or county funding.

Budget and timing: staff provided a rough two‑year, phased estimate for Southwest parcel improvements of about $380,000 and noted that amount is “less than half of what was set aside” in council capital funds for encampment response work. The deputy city manager said a resolution accepting the report and updated policy language will come to the council voting meeting on May 7; if council accepts the direction staff would begin phased implementation informed by environmental‑health permit conversations and by coordination with Tompkins County.

Councilors pressed staff on public outreach, the fire‑safety strategy and staffing for non‑police outreach (a new policing‑alternatives unit). Staff said they will present additional details at upcoming meetings and seek operational partnerships with the county; the county’s shelter plans and strategic goals were referenced repeatedly as important partners in any temporary camping program.

Why it matters: the report is a near‑term operational plan for how the city will respond to people living outside — balancing outreach, public health, safety and neighborhood impacts while the county plans longer‑term shelter capacity. The pilot emphasizes temporary status and repeated review, with staff recommending a phased approach and continued public engagement.

Ending: Council will consider a resolution to accept the report and policy updates on May 7. Staff said additional public outreach and further coordination with county partners will continue before and after any implementation steps.","City staff presented a revised encampment response report that recommends a time‑limited pilot to manage camping on the city’s Southwest parcel, pair an on‑site amenities area with an off‑site navigation hub, and invest in phased site improvements.",{"_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},6079858,"Council reviews repeal/replace of Local Law 186 to adopt new FEMA maps; staff outlines CRS cost/benefit",1225,4934000,6159000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb&start=4934&end=6159","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2953633-9b510941d4f50fbef78209f4e914a6fb/thumbnail_4934000.jpg","/articles/6079858/New-York/Council-reviews-repealreplace-of-Local-Law-186-to-adopt-new-FEMA-maps-staff-outlines-CRS-costbenefit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6079858-32cf39c7bb2089d6ad835f67d32e7ce2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771052921&Signature=Xc7UTVVc-7xR8Xoe1kOmKJ-eyEC4rW-lpeP-SVLnvt1TnFZpTsNsLIlxKfR9d3j9RAmROOWav55G~MCqRf33-oB2vy0Jqs1xHFEnkYSWFo~vPwUWkgOJPwM8kGKEs2ggLBjpAbG1AZDnMWYoW2aZ4a0SQH4dKu8d9BMjoJeqYR0HXTRvfNkrIeXg2bvP-OyqkzhZGnCJPyeRe95tclQh5z6h9CkRuFZxTM9yzV5EEjbE0Iul98ULBUCalLG~T0kTylrIdzuS~kej3gLD5FR3hhWSxSC~eirvNjG8a0tnWBNdTvreVOcOhIRtZCfbeFWsAQQYKm4Jp97I1RMUQOz6gA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Common Council committee reviewed a staff proposal to repeal and replace Local Law 186 (Flood Damage Prevention) to adopt newly released FEMA flood hazard maps and update floodplain development standards.

Planning director and staff explained the change is required for the city to remain a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). “This local law must be adopted and sent with documentation that's adopted to DEC by May 19, which is 30 days before the effective date of the maps, which is June 18,” staff told the committee. The staff memo warned that a failure to adopt the local law would cause immediate suspension from the NFIP, which provides federally backed flood insurance to property owners in the 100‑year floodplain.

Staff described the local law as largely aligning municipal regulations with FEMA/DEC minimum standards while adding clarified definitions (accessory structure, crawl space, substantial damage) and reorganizing language to aid administration. Staff also proposed a $150 floodplain development permit fee to cover increased workload as more properties will be in regulated floodplain areas under the new maps.

During the presentation, staff noted FEMA’s new Tompkins County maps expand the number of residential parcels in the mapped 100‑year floodplain from roughly 100 to about 750 residential properties; that expansion drives the need for clearer permits, records and outreach. Planning staff said they had submitted proposed local law text to DEC for review and had integrated DEC’s suggested minor changes.

The committee also received a briefing on the Community Rating System (CRS), a voluntary FEMA program that can reduce premiums for policyholders who hold federally backed flood insurance. City staff and consultants found that with current city practices the city could likely achieve CRS Class 8 or 9 (a 5–10% discount on federally backed flood insurance premiums). Under a scenario in which the city did not pursue or did not complete a proposed flood‑mitigation project, staff estimated cumulative premium savings to policyholders of roughly $1.6 million over 20 years. If a flood‑mitigation project fully removed many parcels from the mapped floodplain, CRS savings would shrink and in some modeled scenarios applying for CRS would not be cost‑effective.

Council members asked about public notice, the phase‑in of premiums, the relationship between federal and private flood insurance, and whether the city could pursue higher CRS classes (which would require adopting more restrictive land‑use rules and significant staff time). Staff emphasized the city is already performing many CRS‑eligible activities and that the next step would be to determine which activities the city would formally claim and to staff an application process. The report said an application and annual reporting would require dedicated staff time (estimated part‑time) and ongoing administration.

Procedure: The committee moved the local law forward and referred it to the May Common Council voting meeting; the clerk recorded the motion carrying and later reported “All those in favor of moving this to our May meeting. That carries 9 0.” Staff said the law and related documentation must be sent to the DEC by May 19 to meet FEMA’s effective date of June 18 for the new maps.

Why it matters: Adopting the updated local law is a prerequisite for homeowners and lenders to retain access to federally backed flood insurance. It also triggers permit requirements for a larger set of properties and will increase the city’s administrative load; planning staff proposed a modest permit fee to cover review costs.

Ending: The committee sent the repeal/replace local law to the May council meeting; staff will proceed with application of the new maps and follow DEC’s filing timeline while refining CRS planning and public outreach.","The Common Council committee reviewed a staff proposal to repeal and replace Local Law 186 (Flood Damage Prevention) to adopt newly released FEMA flood hazard maps and update floodplain development standards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ithaca council hears hours of public testimony on ADU ordinance; moves measure to full council for May vote

City staff propose temporary Southwest parcel campground, navigation hub partnerships and phased 'pilot' improvements

Council reviews repeal/replace of Local Law 186 to adopt new FEMA maps; staff outlines CRS cost/benefit