News Blog
North Winton Aldi clears court hurdle
A State Supreme Court ruling (see below) appears to clear the way for an Aldi store at the corner of North Winton and Blossom roads in the North Winton Village neighborhood.
The City of Rochester’s Zoning Board approved the store late last year, over the objections of some in the North Winton and Browncroft neighborhoods who said that the store would be too big and out of step with the urban-village character of the area.
A group calling itself Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Development, along with IGATOPSFY, LLC, sued the city, the Zoning Board, the city’s Planning Commission, Aldi, and other parties to try to stop the store.
The groups said that the project didn’t get an adequate environmental review, and that variances granted for the project and for the store’s parking are in violation of the city’s zoning code.
State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Stander in his April 28 decision dismissed some of the petitioners’ claims outright because they lacked the standing to make them, he said.
Stander rejected the requests to annul the project approvals that were granted by the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission.
“The record contains sufficient evidence to find that the [Zoning Board’s] determination to grant the area variances was rational and not arbitrary,” the ruling says.
The City of Rochester’s Zoning Board approved the store late last year, over the objections of some in the North Winton and Browncroft neighborhoods who said that the store would be too big and out of step with the urban-village character of the area.
A group calling itself Rochester Eastside Residents for Appropriate Development, along with IGATOPSFY, LLC, sued the city, the Zoning Board, the city’s Planning Commission, Aldi, and other parties to try to stop the store.
The groups said that the project didn’t get an adequate environmental review, and that variances granted for the project and for the store’s parking are in violation of the city’s zoning code.
State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Stander in his April 28 decision dismissed some of the petitioners’ claims outright because they lacked the standing to make them, he said.
Stander rejected the requests to annul the project approvals that were granted by the Zoning Board and the Planning Commission.
“The record contains sufficient evidence to find that the [Zoning Board’s] determination to grant the area variances was rational and not arbitrary,” the ruling says.
