Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 4, 2026

Note: The agenda and minutes list the meeting date as June 3, 2026, but the provided date for this summary is June 4, 2026. This discrepancy is noted.

The Zoning Board of Appeals met to consider four variance requests and one appeal. After public hearings and deliberation, the board denied three variances, approved one variance, and granted one appeal, with vote tallies reflecting the board's findings under the Unified Development Code (UDC).

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of May 6, 2026: Approved unanimously (4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Bailey K Perreault abstaining and two members absent).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Variance No. CD2026-005VAR (621 Center St LLC): Two members of the public spoke in opposition. Kaia Yngve, an adjacent property owner, presented a signed statement from 13 neighbors opposing the requested variances due to concerns about privacy, noise, neighborhood character, and safety. Bob Nordman argued that neighborhood protection standards were a key selling point of the UDC and that granting the variances would be precedent-setting, urging the board to require the applicant to acquire additional lots if they wished to build a larger project.
• No public comments were made on the other agenda items.

Discussion Items

6.A. Variance No. CD2026-002VAR – Broadway Enterprises LLC

• Applicant Request: Eight variances to allow a multi-tenant commercial building (including a bank, restaurant, and professional services) to be developed under the former Land Development Manual (LDM) standards rather than the current UDC, citing a previously approved site plan (2018-019 SDP) that lapsed during the pandemic. Variances sought included reduced building height (23 ft vs. 40 ft), reduced glazing (50% vs. 65%), reduced parking (39 spaces vs. 80), and others.
• Staff Recommendation: Denial, finding that criteria A and C of the variance findings were not met: the proposal was not in harmony with the comprehensive plan and UDC, and the practical difficulties were not unique to the property.
• Applicant Position: John Beatty (Dunlap and Seeger) and Ryan Schoenfelder (WSE Engineering) argued that the project was part of an integrated two-phase development (Starbucks already built), that external factors (pandemic, Broadway reconstruction) caused delays, and that the UDC standards would produce a building out of character with the neighborhood. They emphasized the site's pedestrian amenities and argued that the variances were not precedent-setting.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners noted that the practical difficulties were primarily self-created by the development and not unique to the property. The board agreed with staff that criteria A and C were not satisfied.
• Outcome: Motion to deny passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioner Daniel E Bucknell recused himself; two members absent).

6.B. Variance No. CD2026-003VAR – Elias Construction

• Applicant Request: Reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet to construct a garage at 829 Fifth Street SW, within the Pill Hill Historic District. The applicant had already obtained a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Heritage Preservation Commission.
• Staff Recommendation: Approval, finding that all variance criteria were satisfied.
• Applicant Position: Zachary and Joanna Kozak stated they worked closely with city staff and neighbors, and the project suits the home and historic district.
• Public Comment: None.
• Board Discussion: No significant concerns; the board noted the unique lot configuration and historic district constraints.
• Outcome: Motion to approve passed unanimously (5-0, two absent).

6.C. Variance No. CD2026-004VAR – Matthew Boshcka

• Applicant Request: Reduce the required separation distance between a proposed retail cannabis dispensary and an existing child daycare facility from 500 feet to 375 feet at 1620 Broadway Avenue S. The measured straight-line distance was approximately 465 feet, but the applicant argued a large hotel building created a physical barrier.
• Staff Recommendation: Denial, finding that criteria A and C were not met: the variance was not in harmony with the UDC and state statute (which also mandates 500 feet), and the practical difficulties were not unique to the property.
• Applicant Position: Matthew Boshcka and Luke Coyler (North Leaf Dispensary) argued that the hotel provides a natural buffer, that actual walking routes exceed 700 feet, and that they have successful operations in other states. They submitted a landlord support letter and emphasized security measures. They noted they had contacted the daycare but received no response.
• Board Discussion: The board clarified that the measurement is lot-line-to-lot-line in a straight line. Commissioners questioned whether the hotel's presence creates a difficulty or actually provides a benefit. The board concluded that the site's constraints are not unique and that the variance would conflict with state statute.
• Outcome: Motion to deny passed unanimously (5-0, two absent).

6.D. Variance No. CD2026-005VAR – 621 Center St LLC

• Applicant Request: Three variances for a 12-unit multi-family infill development at 621 Center Street E (zoned R3/R2X): reduce the neighborhood protection standard setback from 25 ft to 10 ft on the east side, reduce the buffer yard from 25 ft to 5 ft (north) and 10 ft (east), and reduce the required driveway width from 23 ft to 20 ft.
• Staff Recommendation: Denial, finding criteria A and C not met: the variances conflict with the comprehensive plan's emphasis on compatible infill, and alternative developments (e.g., fourplexes) could be built without variances.
• Applicant Position: Josh Huglen, John Cummings, and a consultant from SEH argued that the lot is uniquely constrained (L-shaped, small, adjacent to protected lots), that the proposed project enhances the neighborhood with landscaping and trees that would not be required for a smaller development, and that the 20 ft driveway is safe and necessary due to site constraints. They noted that the neighbors to the north and east had no objections to the project.
• Public Opposition: Kaia Yngve and Bob Nordman spoke against the variances, citing concerns about privacy, noise, and precedent (see Public Comments).
• Board Discussion: Commissioners focused on criteria A and C, noting that the lot's irregular shape could be addressed through lot line adjustments and that alternative development (e.g., two fourplexes) would not require the requested variances. The board acknowledged the applicants' efforts but found the difficulties not unique.
• Outcome: Motion to deny passed 4-1 (Commissioner Bucknell dissenting; two absent).

6.E. Appeal No. CD2026-001AP – Regency Consolidated Residential, LLC

• Applicant Request: Appeal of the Community Development Director's interpretation that the front facade of a proposed 90-unit apartment building (Bakery Flats) at 310 11th Avenue NW is the yellow-highlighted wall, not the blue-highlighted colonnade/amenity deck. The interpretation affected whether parking spaces could be located under the colonnade between the street and the building. The applicant argued that the colonnade constitutes the facade, so parking under it is permitted.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal, asserting that the colonnade is an architectural feature (like a porte-cochere) and not a facade as defined in the UDC. The facade is the wall behind the colonnade, which is set back 18 feet.
• Applicant Position: Mark Welch (G-Cubed) and Jose Rivas (CRW Architecture) argued that the colonnade is an integral part of the building's facade, with brick arches and columns, and that the parking spaces are necessary for ADA-compliant drop-offs and visitor parking. They provided renderings and email correspondence to show their interpretation was consistent with the UDC definition.
• Board Discussion: Commissioners reviewed the definition of facade: "exterior walls of a building exposed to public view… the wall visible from a public street… and used as the main public access or has distinguishing architectural features will be considered the primary facade." The board found that the colonnade meets this definition because it is a distinguishing architectural feature, open to view, and provides the main public access. The gap between the colonnade and the rear wall did not disqualify it.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the appeal passed 4-1 (Commissioner Bucknell dissenting; two absent), based on the board's interpretation of the facade definition.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Agenda: Approved (minutes of May 6, 2026).
• Variance CD2026-002VAR (Broadway Enterprises LLC): Denied (4-0-2-1 with one recusal).
• Variance CD2026-003VAR (Elias Construction): Approved unanimously (5-0).
• Variance CD2026-004VAR (Matthew Boshcka): Denied unanimously (5-0).
• Variance CD2026-005VAR (621 Center St LLC): Denied (4-1).
• Appeal CD2026-001AP (Regency Consolidated Residential, LLC): Granted (4-1), allowing the applicant to proceed with parking under the colonnade as proposed.
• The meeting was adjourned after all business was completed.