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

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.