Syracuse council tables proposed property-maintenance code after debate over scope and enforceability

Syracuse City Council members voted unanimously to table proposed ordinance 25-36, which would amend Syracuse City Municipal Code section 6.10 on property maintenance, after a lengthy discussion about how far the city should go in specifying maintenance standards and how the rules could be enforced.

Councilmember Paul A. Cutler, who moved to table the item, said he had circulated suggested language earlier and remains concerned that the draft moves “from one extreme to the other,” shifting enforcement from obvious public-safety items such as weeds over six inches and dead trees to requirements about paint, specific plant species and lawn fertilization.

“No, I still have a bit of a concern with the language of the the code,” Cutler said. “My main concern is that we seem to be taking going from one extreme to the other.”

Noah, the staff presenter, told the council the draft had been revised after the work session to add phrases such as “normal wear and tear” and to adjust fines. “We did make some alterations to the proposed text based off of our conversation, to put in some keywords like, let's see, normal wear and tear. We did adjust some of the fine stuff. I worked with Colin to get get that as we discussed last time. So that hopefully, what is in the packet reflects what we discussed last time,” Noah said.

The city’s counsel said they had not seen Cutler’s email with alternate language before the meeting and warned against limiting the ordinance to only safety-based enforcement. “I didn't see the emails, prior to the meeting. I think the big thing here is I don't wanna limit this just to safety concerns,” counsel said.

Council debate centered on whether the draft was an appropriate municipal standard for commercial property upkeep or an overreach that details actions city staff could not reliably enforce. Some members said stronger standards were needed to prevent neglect that affects neighboring properties; others said requirements that would get down to fertilizing, treating, or replacing specific plant species would be unenforceable and should be removed or softened.

Examples discussed included mowing and basic upkeep, which several members supported keeping, versus requirements such as “treating, fertilizing lawn, clipping deadheads, replacing dead shrubs with exactly the same type” that several members called overly prescriptive and impractical.

Cutler moved to table the ordinance and send it back for further work-session discussion; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The council directed that the item be returned to a work session later in the month to revise verbiage and enforcement approaches.

The council also closed discussion of other agenda items and proceeded with the rest of the meeting.