Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rehearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee member urges rehearing of variance for Brighter Day Recovery residential facility
Summary
At a Rochester City Council meeting, a committee member asked the board to rehear a zoning variance request for Brighter Day Recovery Corp.'s proposed short-term residential facility at 11 Lincoln Street, citing safety concerns and a claimed 40,000-square-foot lot-size requirement; other members said rehearing is not warranted and no formal vote was recorded in the provided transcript.
A committee member asked the Rochester City Council to rehear a zoning variance for Brighter Day Recovery Corp.'s proposed residential facility at 11 Lincoln Street, saying the board should reconsider evidence and ask more questions before denying the application.
The rehearing request concerns Z25-36, a variance from Table 18A that would allow a residential facility at 11 Lincoln Street (Map 125, Lot 132) in the R2 zone. The chair introduced the rehearing request at the start of the item and opened the floor for discussion.
The committee member argued the board should rehear the case because the applicant’s Appendix B was correct and the initial hearing left unresolved safety and site‑size questions. "If someone is immobile, it'd be unsafe to put them on the higher floors because in the event of a fire or similar emergency, they wouldn't be able to use the elevator and due to their disability, wouldn't be able to navigate the stairs," the committee member said, citing evacuation concerns for residents with mobility limitations. The same speaker said, according to "Director Creighton," the lot would need an additional 40,000 square feet to meet the code requirement for the requested use (the transcript does not identify Director Creighton’s department).
That committee member also described the proposed occupants as transitional residents with stays of about 90 days who need support: "They've been told no enough times already," the member said in urging additional consideration.
Other members pushed back on the scope of the discussion. One member said the conversation should focus on whether a rehearing is legally warranted—not on whether the application ultimately meets variance or special‑exception criteria. "The conversation really should be focused on what is the reason for a rehearing, not whether or not you believe it meets the variance or special exception criteria," that member said.
The chair told the meeting he was "fine with not rehearing," and another member said they agreed the case should not be reheard based on what the applicant provided. The provided transcript ends without a recorded motion or vote to grant or deny the rehearing request.
Next steps were not specified in the available transcript; the record does not show a formal vote, any condition or amendment, nor a scheduling decision for a rehearing.
