Ithaca council hears wide public comment on proposed zoning change to allow ADUs by right

The Ithaca Common Council on April 9 held a public hearing and debated a proposed ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, by right across much of the city. The measure as drafted by city staff would legalize ADU construction without an owner-occupancy requirement; council members voted to send the item to the May common council voting meeting for final consideration.

Supporters told the council ADUs could marginally increase housing supply and help homeowners afford property costs. Sarah Curless, a resident and organizer with the Tenants Union, said the city “desperately need[s] more housing” and supported the bill, adding she appreciated that the draft removes a parking requirement. David Barkin, who said he is a realtor, contractor and landlord, urged the council to “vote this out of committee and then proceed to vote in favor of this policy” and described ADUs as an adaptive way for homeowners to add housing and generate income.

Opponents and cautious speakers urged council to keep or create an owner-occupancy requirement to prevent investor-owned properties and protect neighborhood character. Rupert Spies, a 209 Valley Road resident, recommended retaining owner-occupancy after consulting local lenders and said he had not found owner-occupancy to block financing. Several South Hill and Bell Sherman residents — including a line of speakers who described student housing pressure in Ward 3 — urged a carve-out or overlay limiting sales to nonowner investors in certain neighborhoods.

Council members framed the discussion around housing supply, neighborhood character and practical tradeoffs. Alderperson Keel said ADUs are unlikely to be inexpensive housing, estimating a frequently cited minimum construction threshold and saying an ADU would likely “pencil” at several hundreds of dollars per square foot in Ithaca’s market, so an ADU alone may not be a solution to deep affordability problems. Alderperson David West, an urban planner and homeowner, told colleagues the ordinance avoids “poison pill” provisions—such as high parking or owner-occupancy requirements—that often prevent ADUs from being built elsewhere.

The committee opened the public hearing and allotted three minutes per speaker. After public comment and further council debate, a motion was put and seconded to refer the ADU ordinance to the May common council voting meeting; the chair stated the motion carried with recorded support (the audio record shows a final favorable tally cited by the chair). Council members also discussed offering another public-comment opportunity at next week’s regular meeting before the item reaches the May vote.

Discussion points raised repeatedly at the meeting included: whether ADUs will meaningfully increase permanently affordable housing versus adding market-rate rental units; the likely construction cost (speakers offered figures such as $400 per square foot and that an 800-square-foot ADU would cost roughly $320,000 to build); whether an owner-occupancy requirement would block lenders (several local realtors said it would not); and whether targeted carve-outs (for example, retaining owner-occupancy in Ward 3/South Hill) could protect neighborhood character while allowing ADUs elsewhere.

The planning department told council it would produce preapproved ADU designs funded in the 2025 budget to reduce design costs (staff estimated design savings might be up to about $10,000 per homeowner who used a preapproved plan). Councilmembers and members of the public also raised state-level action: one member noted a proposal in the governor’s budget that would limit private equity purchases of single-family homes for an initial listing period, and the council’s earlier letter to the legislature supporting the concept was referenced.

No final ordinance was adopted at the April 9 committee meeting. The council’s votes on April 9 moved the ordinance forward for full council consideration in May; the committee also agreed to provide an additional opportunity for public comment at an upcoming meeting before the final vote.

For now, the record shows continued debate between housing advocates who favor removing barriers to ADU construction and neighborhood residents who favor owner-occupancy or other targeted protections. Councilmembers indicated they expect additional public outreach and that staff will provide follow-up materials (cost estimates, model plans, and zoning/implementation clarifications) before the May vote.