Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rome zoning board denies use variance for proposed Henry Street convenience store
Summary
The Rome zoning board voted to deny a use variance for 324 Henry Street after neighbors raised safety and building‑condition concerns and board members found the request failed to meet required variance standards, including whether the hardship was self‑created.
The Rome zoning board on May 15 denied a request to convert 324 Henry Street into a mixed‑use building with a convenience store and a 50‑square‑foot sign, concluding the applicant did not meet the four legal standards for a use variance.
Board members said the application failed to show the change would preserve the essential character of the residential neighborhood and that the hardship was not self‑created. Chair (speaker 2) summarized the board’s view: "it just doesn't hit the standards that we have to consider." The board also voted earlier to issue a SEQR negative declaration for the project, clearing the environmental review step.
The applicant, owner Malik Sherryer, and his adviser described plans for a deli counter, a 9 a.m.–9 p.m. neighborhood market and accessible parking. Verghese, the applicant’s adviser, told the board the store would serve local residents after nearby grocery closures and outlined interior and exterior improvements the team proposes. Neighbors said the building needs repair and that a store would bring traffic and noise. "We do not feel that there's any need," said Barb Riley, who lives across the street, arguing the store would create late‑night activity near bedroom windows. Another neighbor, Laurie Malek, said the building’s side remains damaged from a prior tornado and raised mold and safety concerns.
Board members debated whether converting to apartments — an allowed use — would provide a reasonable return versus the proposed convenience store. Some members urged caution about prior realtor representations and whether the applicant was misled; city staff reminded the board that the prior dance studio lost preexisting nonconforming rights after being vacant longer than 12 months, which affects whether the hardship was self‑created.
During questions, the board flagged that the written application listed beer among inventory items and warned that alcohol sales would be a materially different regulatory step: the applicant said any beer license would be pursued later if warranted. The SEQR negative declaration was approved by the members present; when the board moved to decide the variance itself, the majority concluded the request did not meet all four statutory standards and voted to deny the use variance.
The board encouraged the applicants to consider other options for the property that better align with allowed uses in the R‑2 zone and to supply any documentary evidence (such as realtor listings) that could bear on whether the hardship was truly not self‑created. No formal alternative approval or conditional direction was given; the application was denied.
