Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals approves parking variance at 215–217 Prospect St., conditional on screening

The Ithaca City Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 4, 2025, voted 4–1 to grant variance number 3288 to Andrew Schreck, allowing a six-space off-street parking area at 215–217 Prospect Street, conditional on final Planning Board approval of screening and landscape compliance measures.

The variance had been requested after a recent certificate-of-compliance review listed the property as having zero off-street spaces. Megan Wilson, deputy director of planning and staff to the board, told members the parking area at the rear of the lot has been used for years and that staff recall aerial evidence showing rear-yard parking in place before 2010. Wilson advised the board that, under the city's review processes, site plan approval from the Planning Board would still be required if three or more spaces are provided outside the required rear-yard setback, and that landscape-compliance measures can include vegetation and, to a limited extent, fencing alongside natural screening.

The board's discussion split on neighborhood character and precedent. Board member Donna Fleming moved to deny the variance, citing stormwater, aesthetics, and the risk of perpetuating backyard parking in residential neighborhoods. Fleming said the proposal would “result in an undesirable change” and argued that the owner had alternatives, including providing three spaces outside the rear-yard setback, landscaping to keep six, or providing zero spaces.

Opponents of denial said there is established demand for tenant parking on South Hill and noted the site's topography and long-standing use as factors favoring approval. Several board members and staff referenced planning staff feedback that landscape-compliance methods might be ineffective at the site because of compacted soils and existing site conditions. Andre Gardner, who made the motion to grant the variance, described the site as having a unique topography and said the benefits to tenants and the neighborhood's functional parking needs outweighed harms, provided the Planning Board approves aesthetic mitigation.

The first motion—to deny the variance—failed on a 1–4 vote (Fleming yes; Michael Cannon, Joseph Kirby, David Barkin and Andre Gardner no). A subsequent motion to grant variance 3288 with the condition that the Planning Board approve screening and any required landscape compliance passed 4–1 (Cannon, Kirby, Barkin and Gardner yes; Fleming no). The board told the appellant it would issue a written decision by the end of the week.

The record shows competing concerns: the appellant, Andrew Schreck, said the variance is needed to support a pending sale because the current certificate-of-compliance listed no parking; neighbors and Fleming argued the variance would legitimize what some described as an undesirable backyard parking pattern. Planning staff noted that approval of a variance would not permanently obligate the property to preserve the parking layout in perpetuity but that once formalized the owner would no longer have the previously established right to provide zero parking without further variances or changes in zoning.

Administrative notes: the board chair said no new appeals were filed that evening and previewed potential items for the March meeting, including a use-variance resubmittal, a possible submission at 325 College Avenue, a preliminary presentation for 201 Oak Avenue, and a potential return of the Breeze (Lake Street) project.