ADUs and Community Based Legislation

Comment submitted to Common Council's 4/16/25 public hearing on the proposed ADU zoning

From the AARP guide on ADUs: https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/housing/info-2019/adus-come-in-many-shapes-and-styles.html

----------------------------------------------

Hello Common Council, I am writing this in hopes Council members will amend the current ADU legislation, to create a zoning plan that is community centered and broadly addresses concerns of all our Wards. I believe it is possible to amend the current proposal so that it satisfies the goals of both Common Council and those concerned about owner-occupancy zoning, namely, the South Hill/Bell Sherman neighborhoods. While I can’t say that I speak for everyone in these neighborhoods, owner-occupancy has been a perennial request by much of the 3rd Ward and represents a majority view of most of the residents I have spoken with.

Goals:

From discussion at public meetings, it is clear Common Council’s explicit goal in ADU adoption is to increase housing, and the underlying reason for this is to reduce overall cost-of-living in the city. There are other fringe benefits that come from ADUs: extra rental income, housing for family members, downsizing without moving, etc. But I think it is correct to characterize these as fringe, and not the driving force behind this legislation. Ultimately, Common Council is trying to bring down the overall cost of living in Ithaca by increasing housing stock.

The goal for the South Hill/Belle Sherman neighborhoods is to increase/maintain single-family housing stock. There are multiple reasons for this, but the most important is to preserve neighborhood character and afford a diversity of living opportunities.

Using Housing to Reduce Cost-of-living

It is important to note that both stakeholders have the common goal of increasing housing opportunity in the city. The difference is what type of housing this legislation would be incentivizing. Over the last few years, Common Council has focused exclusively on increasing the quantity of housing, and arguably, this has been largely successful. A non-comprehensive list of large-scale apartment buildings that have come on line over the last few years shows considerable growth in rental opportunities: The Asteria (218 units); Library Place (66 Units); The Dean (46 units); and Catherine Commons (365 units) – roughly 700 new units. Additionally, another 363 units are in the process of being built throughout the city with another 684 in the planning stages[1].

However, this substantial increase in apartment options has failed to reduce our cost of living over the same time-period. Using the Living Wage calculator as an indicator for cost of living, prices increased 34.5% since 2023, largely driven by housing costs. At the same time, four of the largest new rental locations; The Asteria, Catherine Commons, Library Place, and The Dean are all under-rented with vacancy rates as high as 30%[2].

Meanwhile, the availability of single-family houses has stayed relatively flat over the same period. Owner-occupancy zoning seeks to maintain single-family housing options for residents. We want Ithacans to live in ways that best suit their needs, and right now, it is extremely difficult for the average family to purchase a home.

The fact that there are multiple apartment buildings with high vacancy rates indicates that the high cost of housing is more than a supply issue. A better explanation is the extraordinary increase in property taxes, which landlords are passing directly on to renters. As long as property taxes continue to outpace inflation, additional housing alone is not going to solve our cost-of-living problem.

If Common Council’s ultimate goal is to reduce cost-of-living by increasing housing, the addition of ADUs is not going to have a material impact. The handful of new housing opportunities available in the next few years will not meaningfully affect our overall housing stock, but these units will be subject to the same property tax pressure as every other housing development.

This is not to argue against ADUs, they have other fringe benefits and most residents support them. But it is important to recognize that the current concern driving this, reducing housing costs, is not being realistically addressed by this legislation.

Adopting an Owner-Occupancy Carve-Out

The main concern from our community about this legislation is not ADU’s per se, but adding owner-occupancy requirements, specifically for the South Hill/Belle Sherman neighborhoods. This is backed up by community surveys and public hearings, where the overwhelming number of comments have come from these areas and the 3rd Ward generally.

Because of their proximity to two of Ithaca’s excellent primary schools, these neighborhoods are highly attractive to young families. However, the neighborhood’s proximity to Ithaca’s excellent Universities also means they are subject to tremendous student housing pressure. Over the years, we have seen families lose out to developers with deep pockets who can pay cash in an increasingly unaffordable market, and the additional attraction of ADU developments further incentivizes absentee landlordism while eroding single-family housing options.

For these two areas, neighborhoods that abut both elementary schools and Universities, there is a strong desire/need for owner-occupancy zoning. This is unique to these two areas in the 3rd ward, and justifies the addition of an owner-occupancy carve out for these areas.

Community Based Legislation

The current legislation treats zoning rules as an all-or-nothing proposition. But our zoning needs are diverse, and should reflect the character of our unique neighborhoods. We need legislation that takes this into account, using a community approach rather than forcing our city into a one-size-fits-all model.

Keeping the ADU legislation as-is, with the addition of owner-occupancy requirements in the 3rd Ward, does this. It allows for a blanket ADU policy, which has broad support, while addressing the strong concerns raised by neighborhoods in the 3rd Ward. It allows Common Council to move forward with its goal of increasing housing, while also addressing the issue of eroding affordable single-family housing stock plaguing the 3rd Ward. It is the rare win-win scenario which we can embrace.

Addressing the Concerns of an Owner-Occupancy Carve Out

At the last public meeting there were several concerns raised. I have addressed these below.

Owner-Occupancy is a “poison pill” for ADUs: There is good reason to think that owner-occupancy requirements significantly reduce the attraction of building ADUs. Let’s assume this is true. It would still be the case that the proposed carve-out would have little impact on ADU development. Because the carve-out is limited to a specific area, over 80% of the city would not be owner-occupied. This has little impact on the number of ADUs that will potentially be built, and no impact at all on lowering housing costs (see Using Housing to Reduce Cost-of-living).

Owner-Occupancy is Exclusionary: There is an argument that owner-occupancy requirements limit the ability of people to live where they want, specifically renters and/or those who cannot afford homes.

Happily, this concern is unwarranted. Renters can still live in owner-occupied housing so long as the owner lives there as well (our house is a case in point). Whether it is affordable or not depends on the circumstances of the owner, property taxes, etc. not whether the owner lives on-site. In short, owner-occupancy requirements have no impact on what the owner will charge, nor does it discourage renting in such neighborhoods. 

Additionally, property maintenance and landlord responsiveness are directly related to whether landlords live on site. Owner-occupancy requirements go hand-in-hand with better living conditions for neighborhoods and renters alike.

An Owner-occupancy Carve-Out is not Fair to other Neighborhoods.

Another concern raised at public comments was that other neighborhoods may find it unfair that only the 3rd Ward is receiving a carve-out. As mentioned above, there is little to no expressed interest in having owner-occupancy requirements in other neighborhoods, so it is hard to see why this is a concern.

Nevertheless, this carveout is based on the specific situation of the neighborhoods in question, they both abut elementary schools and intense University housing pressures. These unique characteristics justify an owner-occupancy carve-out in the way that does not apply to other neighborhoods, which is probably why no one else shows an interest in pursuing this owner-occupancy.[3]

Final Note

One of the points raised multiple times at the public hearing was that we would have been better off if ADU zoning had not been rejected by Common Council five years ago. A major reason it was rejected at that time was Common Council insisted an all-or-nothing approach.

This uncompromising position was a poor choice then, and it was also unnecessary. Then, as now, Common Council has the ability to exercise nuance in policy making, and to create community-based legislation that recognizes the different needs of our neighborhoods .

I appeal to Common Council to amend this legislation, and enact owner-occupancy requirements in the 3rd Ward.

Pat Sewell

South Hill

[1] The Breeze (77 units); The William (29 units); The Aurora Apartments (42 units); Northside Townhomes (82 units); Market View Apts. (42 units); 215 College Ave (91 units) are currently available. In the works are State Street Graduate Apts (373 units); 325 College Ave (53 units); The Stately Apartments (58 units); Water’s Edge (200 Units)

[2] Both The Dean and Library Place on the market because they are unable to fill vacancies.

[3] Alderperson Lederman (5th Ward) voiced concern that Cornell Heights might be interested in owner-occupancy. It should be noted that Cornell Heights is classified as a Historic District and already subject to intense zoning regulation, likely preventing ADU development there regardless.