Rochester’s Zoning Overhaul: What Are Owners and Investors Watching in ZAP?

Question

If you own or invest in Rochester real estate, are you looking at what the proposed zoning changes could mean for your actual properties?

The City’s Zoning Alignment Project—ZAP—includes a proposed replacement zoning code and map. It’s still moving through the public review process, with official City Council hearings scheduled for October 21 and 22 at 5 PM.

I work in Rochester across brokerage, investment ownership, property management and construction. What interests me is how the proposed rules could change the practical options for a particular building or lot.

For example:

• Could an underused commercial building support a different use?
• Could a residential property accommodate additional housing?
• How would the proposed district, permitted uses and development standards affect a renovation or redevelopment?
• Would an opportunity actually work once construction costs, financing and achievable rents are considered?

A different color on the zoning map doesn’t automatically create a profitable project. But it could change what’s worth investigating.

My starting point is comparing the current and proposed zoning for the parcel, then reading the applicable rules. I’d want to understand the approval path and physical constraints before assigning value to any potential change.

For Rochester owners, investors and developers: have you found a specific proposed change that could materially affect a property you own—or a project you’ve been considering?

I’m interested in both opportunities and provisions that could make a worthwhile project harder to execute. What should we be paying attention to before the hearings?

Official draft code and maps:https://rochesterzap.com/04_documents-presentations/

City Council meeting schedule:https://www.cityofrochester.gov/departments/city-council/access-city-council-public-meetings

Matthew Morrow · Answer

@Mark Updegraff That developer's caution is spot on. Original drawings are a starting point, but they don't show what decades of settling, water, and past "improvements" did. In Allentown, most folks bring in a structural engineer early instead of trusting the plans, and the city's gotten stricter on permits, so you need that documentation anyway. Starting inside the existing envelope is the smart move. Trust but verify everything. One correction on my reply yesterday: my team is established in the Elmira and Binghamton markets and working north, but they don't have as much Rochester experience as I originally thought. Happy to connect you all either way if you'd like. Which building type are you looking at first?

Mark Updegraff · Answer

@Matthew Morrow Thanks for clearing that up. Elmira and Binghamton could still be useful connections. Happy to meet them, and if they’re working their way toward Rochester, I’m glad to compare notes on this market.

I’d probably start with a smaller mixed-use building with vacant or underused upper floors. Something where we can work within the existing footprint and keep a viable commercial tenant downstairs.

The catch is whether the upstairs can be converted at a cost the rents support. Stairs, utilities and fire separation can eat up the budget before you get to the apartments themselves.

I don’t have a particular building picked out yet. That’s the type I’d investigate first. Have you seen any smaller conversions work in Allentown, or has most of the activity been larger projects?

Matthew Morrow · Answer

@Mark Updegraff Allentown just went through a big zoning rewrite that took effect in January, including bonus height for buildings that add affordable units. We're big supporters of zoning that allows more density when it's tied to real housing supply, as long as the math still works after construction costs. We've got investor-agents on our team who work the Rochester area. Happy to ping them for the specifics on ZAP if you'd like. Are you seeing anything in the proposed map that actually unlocks extra units in a way that pencils?

Mark Updegraff · Answer

@Matthew Morrow That’s exactly the distinction I’m interested in: more permitted density versus additional units that actually make economic sense.

My interest here is especially in converting existing buildings or changing how underused space can be used. We operate across brokerage, property management and general contracting in Rochester, so I look at it from both the rental-income side and the cost of getting the building there.

I don’t have a parcel-specific example I can point to yet where I’ve verified both the proposed zoning and the complete project economics. That’s what I’d want to establish before calling something an opportunity.

Even if the zoning opens the door, the existing layout, access, utilities, fire protection and construction costs can determine whether the extra units work.

I’d be happy to compare notes with your Rochester team. Are they looking at any specific conversion opportunities?

And in Allentown, have you seen projects actually move forward because of the rewrite, or is it still mostly potential at this stage?

Matthew Morrow · Answer

@Mark Updegraff Let me reach out and see if our Rochester agents are tracking anything specific there. Give me a bit to line that up. In Allentown, investors are actively taking advantage of the rewrite. If the footprint already exists, going vertical is fairly cheap by comparison. It has to be a pretty significant project per building, since adding floors with tenants in place below can be tough, but it's definitely sparking redevelopment interest. Honestly, I think it's a great move by the city, and I hope other municipalities and zoning boards follow suit. It adds units, helps lower-income residents, and the city benefits too. Kind of striking how good the idea is. What kinds of buildings are you watching for conversions?

Mark Updegraff · Answer

@Matthew Morrow

I’m particularly interested in underused commercial and mixed-use buildings where we could convert existing space—vacant upper floors, oversized commercial areas, or layouts that could accommodate housing while retaining a viable commercial use.

A developer I know raised a caution about going vertical here: even buildings originally designed with extra capacity can be difficult to expand. I don’t remember the exact sticking point on their project, so I wouldn’t want to misstate it, but I believe it involved verifying the existing foundation or structural capacity despite having original drawings.

That’s why I’m initially more interested in what we can accomplish within the existing building. We handle brokerage, property management and GC work, so I’m looking at both achievable rents and the full cost of making the conversion work.

Have the Allentown projects you’re seeing needed substantial structural upgrades, or have developers been able to document sufficient existing capacity?

Rochester’s Zoning Overhaul: What Are Owners and Investors Watching in ZAP?

6 Replies