The City of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals voted 6-1 on Nov. 19 to deny a variance request from Robert Marvin, owner of 228 North Main Street, who sought to allow a patio to extend directly to the side yard property line, in violation of the city’s required three-foot setback.
Board members deliberated for over an hour, ultimately concluding that the request failed several elements of the state-mandated five-part test for variances. The variance was sought after construction of the patio had already been completed.
Public hearing and neighborhood objections
During the public hearing, Donna Bennett, who resides at 222 North Main Street, objected to the variance, citing drainage issues, the removal of mature trees, and loss of privacy and neighborhood character. She stated, “While property improvements are generally positive, they must not come at the expense of neighboring properties or the integrity of our zoning regulations.”
Bennett also raised concerns about noncompliance with an earlier approved site plan, which she said had shown more than the minimum setback, including green space and trees. She noted the patio had been built in defiance of a stop work order.
Her husband also spoke briefly in opposition, stating that the three-foot zoning setback should be respected.
Zoning Board members noted they had received nine letters about the application. Two were in support of the variance; the rest were opposed.
Applicant attempts to make case
Marvin, who attended the meeting virtually, explained that the patio replaced an old concrete wall and extended to where he would have otherwise installed a fence. He said drainage systems had been installed around the property, including four-inch laterals connected to a six-inch outlet in his driveway, to prevent water runoff. He also said the patio included a built-in water trough to assist with drainage.
He explained that the finished patio was based on a rendering he submitted, which he claimed had been misplaced by city staff. He also expressed frustration over the level of neighborhood opposition, asserting that he had made significant improvements to the home.
Deliberations and five-part test
During deliberations, board members reviewed each part of the required five-part balancing test.
Several members agreed that granting the variance would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, especially in a part of Main Street where green space buffers are typical. They said eliminating the three-foot buffer undermines the traditional spacing between properties.
On the second test — whether the benefit could be achieved by other means — members said Marvin could have constructed a smaller patio or used alternative materials to maintain the buffer. They also noted that artificial turf, mulch, or other landscaping options could have satisfied the zoning code while still offering a low-maintenance solution.
The board considered the extent of the variance substantial because the request would eliminate the entire three-foot buffer on two sides of the property. One member observed that reducing a setback from three feet to zero represented a 100% reduction.
Several members discussed drainage but said there was insufficient engineering information available to determine whether the existing system was adequate or posed a risk to adjacent properties. Concerns raised in public comments included stormwater runoff and water intrusion into neighboring basements.
The board also found the hardship to be self-created. Members pointed out that the applicant had other design options that could have preserved the required buffer while still allowing for substantial outdoor space.
Motion and vote
Board member Carol Henshaw moved to deny the application, citing failures in four of the five tests. Her motion was seconded and passed 6-1, with Chair Joseph Bader casting the sole dissenting vote. Vice Chair Ryan Wilmer and members Tiffany Tomzak, John Squires Jr., Julie Harris, and John Roberts all voted in favor of the denial.

