When the Green Code went into effect citywide on April 3, there was ample precedent to believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals would immediately sideline the document. In the six monthly meetings prior to the code’s implementation, the ZBA approved 81 percent of variance requests. The board rarely if ever put forth a rational basis for its decisions, and it would fair to say that the decisions lacked consistency.

Why would anything be different now?

The ZBA met on April 19, the second monthly meeting at which Green Code variances would be considered, and things were indeed different. The ZBA, now two meetings in a row, denied 100 percent of use variances (four in total). Of 12 projects seeking 14 variances, 50 percent of projects received a denial—a rate of denial that is likely unprecedented in the ZBA’s history. Of the approvals, all were decisions made with a rational basis, and all were for minor area variances.

For a full record of agendas and proceedings, visit the city’s meetings portal.

Here’s the play-by play-for each decision:

313 Rhode Island Street. An applicant, who didn’t show up for the public hearing, sought to establish a contractor’s storage yard in the N-2R Residential zone. The variance was denied because the applicant failed to prove financial hardship.

138 Colvin Avenue. An applicant sought approval for a front yard parking pad that had already been established for some time. The applicant, who is a recent owner of the property and not the person who installed the pad, could not prove that the parking pad was lawfully established by a previous owner. The variance was approved on the basis that on-street parking is prohibited in this section of Colvin Avenue due to the Colvin bus route.

129 Holden Street. LP Ciminelli, as part of the first phase of the Highland Park development, sought two minor area variances from parking lot perimeter landscape and driveway width standards. In the case of the Type C buffer yard required, the variance was approved on the basis that if the standard were not waived, the first phase of the project would essentially be buffering itself from future phases of the same project. In the case of the driveway width requirement, it’s more complicated. The UDO allows a maximum of 24 feet for a double-lane driveway, a standard likely put in place for a good reason: to minimize motor vehicle speeds over a sidewalk used by pedestrians. Here’s the weird part: The Fire Department, according to the applicant’s attorney, is requiring 26 feet in width to accommodate fire apparatus. The NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code may very well include this requirement, but the applicant was not able to cite the specific code for which a variance would be justified, or whether the building code allows for exceptions that are feasible for the applicant to pursue. Rather than table the item to seek answers, the ZBA approved the variance because it was minor (only two feet in width greater than allowed). In either case, the variance might not have been needed, since Section 1.1.7.C of the UDO specifies that the NYS building code is applicable and controlling at all times.

143 Wellington Road. An applicant sought to reestablish a rooming house in an N-4-30 Single Family zone that had been unlawfully operated previously. The variance was denied because the applicant failed to prove financial hardship.

385 Vermont. An applicant sought to establish a parking pad in the front yard. The variance was denied due to the adverse impact of removing a landscaped front lawn on the residential neighborhood, and because on-street parking is a feasible alternative.

355 Linwood Avenue. An applicant sought to establish a four-bay garage in the front yard of a house in the Linwood Historic District. The application was fiercely opposed by a handful of speakers, including Paul McDonnell of the Preservation Board and Leslie Edmiston of the Linwood Preservation District and Friends. The applicant threatened that he’d move back to the suburbs if the four-bay front yard garage was not approved, and it wasn’t. The ZBA determined that the code allowed for feasible alternatives that the applicant could pursue.

115 Plymouth Avenue. An applicant sought approval for a front yard parking pad that had already been in place. The parking pad is a sidewalk widened with a 20-inch gravel strip encroaching into the front yard, enabling a motor vehicle to be parked. Oddly, as a condition of approval, the variance was approved so long as the parking pad is expanded an additional two feet into the front yard so that a car is not parked over a required access easement adjacent to the neighbor’s property. This is one questionable decision.

49 Cottage. An applicant sought a minor area variance to allow for one additional dwelling unit, for a total of ten units, as part of the rehabilitation of the Coatsworth House. The N-2R Residential zone allows a maximum of one dwelling unit for each 1,250 square feet of lot area, which for this 11,550 square foot lot means a maximum of 9.24 units. The variance was granted on the basis that the benefit to the applicant outweighed any potential adverse effect on the neighborhood.

36 Massachusetts Avenue. An applicant sought to establish a food vending use, not allowed in the N-2R Residential zone. The variance was denied because the applicant failed to prove financial hardship.

470 West Delavan Avenue. An applicant sought approval for a front yard parking pad. The application was approved on the basis that no on-street parking exists directly adjacent to the house due to the Delavan bus route, and that seasonable restrictions on the south side of Delavan Avenue make parking there difficult, as well. This is a troubling decision, since every other house with no off-street parking on West Delavan Avenue meets the same criteria. If such decisions becomes a pattern, landscaped front yards along bus routes could become an endangered species.

730 West Avenue. An applicant sought a minor area variance for a 13-unit multi-family conversion at a former livery stable at 730 West Avenue, and a use variance for a fitness center at the adjacent 111 Hampshire Street. The density variance was minor and therefore granted, but the use variance was denied because the applicant failed to prove financial hardship.

145 Broadway. An applicant sought a minor area variance to install a stairwell and elevator shaft at the Colored Musicians Club that does not meet setback requirements. The variance was granted on the basis that the benefit to the applicant outweighed any potential adverse effect on the neighborhood.

Few if any of the decisions at the April 19 meeting were tough calls. When the Zoning Board of Appeals meets again on May 17, at least one controversial application, for multiple variances at a project at Elmwood and Forest avenues, may be a better measure of the ZBA’s capacity for reform. The Public will be watching.