Ithaca council advances ADU ordinance after public hearing as owner-occupancy debate continues

The Ithaca City Common Council voted to move a proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance, as drafted without an owner-occupancy requirement, to the common council voting meeting on May 7 for final consideration.

The proposed ordinance would legalize accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right across most residential zones. Supporters told council the measure would expand housing stock and give homeowners new income options. Opponents urged retaining an owner-occupancy requirement or carving out parts of the city where that rule would remain in place to protect long-standing single-family neighborhoods.

During an extended public hearing, residents and local professionals offered sharply different views. Sarah Curless, an organizer with the tenants union, said, “we have a desperate need for more housing in the city.” Several residents urged an owner-occupancy requirement to help keep single-family homes available to families. Rupert Spies, a Valley Road resident, told council he had spoken with local lenders and quoted a longtime local agent, saying, “I have been selling houses locally for almost 30 years and have never ever encountered a situation where an owner occupancy requirement held up financing for a buyer.”

Other speakers emphasized costs and practical limits of ADUs. Brent Kotsman, an associate real estate broker representing the Ithaca Board of Realtors, said current construction prices make many ADUs expensive: by his estimate, site-built construction at roughly $400 per square foot would produce an $320,000 cost for an 800-square‑foot ADU. Alderman Keel said in public debate that even the “lowest” cost ADU in Ithaca would need roughly $2,500 per month in rent just to cover costs, and several council members and speakers warned the measure alone would not solve broader affordability problems.

Some longtime residents argued an owner-occupancy rule would be necessary to slow investor purchases in certain neighborhoods. Andre Gardner, a local landlord who served on the zoning appeals board, countered that owner-occupancy requirements can suppress housing supply and that some existing ADUs would not have been created under an owner-occupancy rule.

Council debate reflected those tensions. Alderman Letterman and others urged moving the ordinance forward as written, saying the city’s planning staff had spent years drafting the measure, and that some regulatory requirements elsewhere — “poison pills” such as high parking or very strict open‑space rules — have prevented ADUs from appearing in other jurisdictions. Alderman Fabrizio, among others, said he supports ADUs but is sensitive to neighborhood-specific impacts and urged that council consider time for further public input in limited cases.

Motion and next step: council moved the ordinance “as written” and seconded the motion (seconded by Alderman Letterman). The referral to the May 7 common council voting meeting carried by a recorded tally of 7–2 in favor. The public hearing on the ordinance had been closed earlier by unanimous vote (8–0) before council debate.

Councilmembers and staff said the planning department will prepare preapproved ADU designs and implementation guidance should the ordinance advance; staff noted the city budget includes funds for preapproved plans intended to reduce design costs for homeowners. Several councilmembers and public speakers reiterated that ADUs are only one part of a broader housing strategy.

The ordinance text being considered permits ADUs without an owner-occupancy requirement as currently drafted. Councilmembers discussed but did not adopt a ward‑specific carve-out during the meeting; proponents and opponents agreed a range of follow-up options remain available if the ordinance is adopted.

Votes at a glance: Refer proposed ADU ordinance (as drafted, without owner-occupancy requirement) to common council voting meeting on May 7 — outcome: referred, tally 7 yes, 2 no.

Ending: If adopted at the May voting meeting, staff said the city would begin work on outreach, preapproved plans and implementation guidance, and would monitor the ordinance’s early effects on neighborhoods and housing supply.