Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Binghamton ZBA denies variance for nearly 1,900‑sq‑ft garage at 30 Larchmont
Summary
After hours of public comment and questions about scale, use and precedent, the City of Binghamton Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–0 to deny a request to build a roughly 1,900‑square‑foot detached garage at 30 Larchmont Avenue, citing neighborhood character and insufficient justification.
The City of Binghamton Zoning Board of Appeals on July 14 denied an area‑variance request for a proposed 1,900‑square‑foot detached garage at 30 Larchmont Avenue by a 3–0 vote. Chair Giovanni Scaringe moved to deny the application and Member Molly McManus seconded; the board said the size and scale were inconsistent with the R‑1 single‑unit district and risked setting an undesirable precedent.
Board members repeatedly questioned how the project advanced the ordinance’s variance criteria. Member Molly McManus told the applicants that a smaller, zoning‑compliant garage or lesser variance would be a reasonable alternative, and stressed the board’s duty "to the community, to safety, to the character of existing neighborhoods." Chair Scaringe emphasized the scale change, saying the proposal would move "from about 500 square feet to almost 2,000 square feet," effectively quadrupling the existing garage footprint.
Applicants’ architects said the owner aims to expand the house for extended family needs and wants enclosed storage for vehicles and equipment; they stressed the garage would be residential in use and that the corrected peak height would be about 13 ft. 8 in. Neighbors, however, submitted photos and oral testimony arguing the structure would be "unusually large relative to other accessory structures" and would damage neighborhood character. In the hearing, residents raised concerns about blight, vehicle storage, lot coverage, tree removal and safety hazards on the property.
The board also read advisory comments from the Broome County Department of Planning and Economic Development, which called the variances "substantial" and recommended additional site‑plan detail and potential conditions if any variance were granted. The board classified the application as a Type II action for SEQR (no further environmental review) before closing public comment and voting to deny.
