Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Offstreet Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing continued for 215–217 Prospect Street parking request; BZA tables decision to Feb. 4
Summary
Applicant requested six off-street parking spaces behind 215–217 Prospect Street; the Board of Zoning Appeals opened the public hearing, heard a written objection, and voted to table the item to the Feb. 4 meeting pending additional materials and corrected notice signage.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 7 opened a public hearing on an appeal to allow six off-street parking spaces behind 215–217 Prospect Street but continued consideration to the Feb. 4 meeting.
Appellant Andrew Schreck said he seeks to add six parking spots behind 215–217 Prospect to serve tenants, telling the board, “I have 6 tenants that have owned that property each year since I've owned it. And, and they're in need of parking.” He said the rear area has been used informally for parking and that multiple neighboring properties have similar rear parking arrangements.
Staff read a written comment from John Graves, a nearby property owner, opposing the proposal. The letter said in part: “I believe the addition of 6 parking spaces is excessive because the backyards of 215 and 217 are already a huge parking lot, which should not become a permanent fixture on South Hill. The city of Ithaca should be discouraging residents from owning automobiles…” The objector also said the notice sign at the property had been vandalized and was unreadable.
Board members discussed zoning constraints. Staff said Section 325-20f of the city zoning code prohibits parking areas in required rear and side yards once an owner provides three or more off-street spaces unless landscape/mitigation methods are approved by the planning board. Planning staff said the planning board has given preliminary approval but cannot take final action until the BZA acts; the planning board sometimes conditions permits so applicants cannot pull building permits until other approvals are complete.
Members raised competing concerns: several noted the long-term informal use of rear yards for parking in the neighborhood, while others warned that precedent and impervious-surface/stormwater concerns counsel against approving additional yard parking. The board and applicant discussed signage requirements; staff advised that the posted notice must be legible and visible from the public way and suggested placing it in a window if vandalism is a problem.
The board voted to table the appeal to the Feb. 4 meeting to allow staff and the applicant time to provide corrected notice and any additional information requested. Staff said it will re-send the 200-foot mailing and work with the applicant on signage; the public hearing remains open.
