A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Rome ZBA grants use variance for 217 N. Washington; board urges clearer definition of 'personal services'

August 07, 2025 | Rome, Oneida County, New York


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Rome ZBA grants use variance for 217 N. Washington; board urges clearer definition of 'personal services'
The City of Rome Zoning Board of Appeals on Aug. 6 approved a use variance that allows Michael Marrone to convert 217 North Washington Street into a personal services business and voted to recommend that the Common Council or planning department review and clarify the city’s definition of “personal services.”

Marrone, who identified himself as the property owner, said he purchased the building in 2025 intending to lease it for small businesses. He told the board he had invested in interior repairs and improvements — painting, a new water heater and other minor capital work — and that he had been unable to secure tenants because the RP zoning district does not list personal care or personal services as an allowed use.

Attorney Gabriel Hage, who represented Marrone, told the board the application included receipts documenting repairs and ongoing mortgage payments as evidence that the owner could not realize a reasonable return under current zoning. The board also conducted a short-form SEQR review; members moved that the short form be completed as a non‑coordinated review (short form) before considering the variance.

After discussion addressing the use-variance standards (financial hardship, uniqueness of the hardship, effect on neighborhood character, and whether the hardship was self-created), the board voted in favor of the variance. Board members noted that the surrounding area contains both residential and commercial uses and that similar personal-care businesses exist nearby. The board’s vote was unanimous.

Separately, board members discussed the broad language that defines “personal services” in city materials — which the chair read aloud to list examples such as beauty shops, barbershops, tanning salons, nail salons, laundromats and small repair shops — and agreed to recommend the planning department or Common Council review that definition and consider separating distinct uses (for example, laundromats or repair shops) out of a single “personal services” category.

Chair Raymond Tucker reminded Marrone to work with the codes office, obtain any required permits, and consult with staff before opening for business.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee