Case: Vacant Properties on Crosman Terrace
In August, 2024 Several neighbors along Crosman Terrace invited UMNA to see four properties that have become vacant on the street and discuss ideas for addressing property code compliance concerns.
314 Crosman Terrace
320 Crosman Terrace
324 Crosman Terrace
330 Crosman Terrace
250 Crosman Terrace (Not adjacent to the other four but controlled by same owner and located in the same block as the others. Added to the list recently.)
All five properties are owned by the same entity: "South Wedge Properties, LLC". A cursory inspection from the public sidewalk reveals numerous code violations in plain view.
Update on October, 23, 2025
On Wednesday, October 22nd at 10:00 AM a delegation from Upper Monroe led by Fatima Razic and Valerie McPherson that included Shae Hanford Rome Celli and John Capp met with the City of Rochester's Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Service Center (SE NSC) administrator, John McMahon, in a conference room at the SE NSC offices to get an update on the status of these properties and talk about next steps.
John shared the official list of unresolved code violations for all of the vacant properties on Crosman Terrace. (See below.) Due to the long list of the violations and the accumulated fines he said the situation came to attention of the City of Rochester's law department and that a court case had been scheduled. The matter will be heard by a City Court Judge in Rochester Housing Court on November 20, 2025. If the court rules in the City's favor and the owner does not comply, the owner could face a contempt of court charge.
UMNA is now exploring what role, if any, community input might play in a Housing Court proceeding. If there is an opportunity to submit an impacts statement, UMNA will do so. In any event, one or more community representatives would be present at the hearing on November 20th.
In addition, the group discussed a recent unsettling trespassing incident at one of the vacant properties and the potential safety hazards associated with those properties.
Questions related to the soon-to-be-reviewed-and-approved new city zoning code (commonly known as the Zoning Alignment Project or ZAP) were not addressed at this meeting. The SE NSC is not a party to the development zoning codes.
Update on October, 15, 2025
On Monday, October 13th David Walsh, Fatima Razic, Oliver Pickford, Judy Peer, Kathryn O'Dell, Valerie McPherson, Shae Hanford and Rome Celli met to review the current status of vacant homes on Crosman Terrace; learn about how anticipated changes to Rochester's Zoning Code (colloquially known as "ZAP") might affect those properties and plan our next steps. The formal discussion lasted for one hour (after which Fatima provided a delicious and abundant array of nibbles). What follows is a summary report:
Updates
Not much, if any, improvement to the exteriors have been made by the owner since the meeting with City representatives at Valerie's house in March;
We believe all of the vacant houses have been officially registered with the city as "vacant";
Trespassers were chased out of at least one of the vacant house by police. Since then some access points vulnerable to break-ins have been boarded up;
The City of Rochester has not fulfilled a promise to share an accounting of City enforcement actions; and
City representatives have verbally indicated enforcement has been taking place "behind the scenes" including involvement by the office of the Deputy Mayor.
The proposed new zoning code is expected to be reviewed by Rochester City Council later this fall (not before election day). Public hearings will be held. Council may make modifications before voting up/down sometime before the year's end;
Among other things, ZAP is informed by the City's long term plan (Vision 2034) and significant trends apparent today and anticipated over the foreseeable future such as climate change/migration, increased housing needs, an anticipated shift away from cars by younger residents. In short and with respect to vacant houses on Crosman, ZAP encourages EASIER development (FEWER rules for developers to follow), MORE density and requires LESS off-street parking.
While the new zoning district in the area where the vacant houses are located will be similar to what it is today it won't be the same and it will encourage development in a way that it has not been encouraged for the past 20+ years making the chances of redevelopment of the vacant house more likely. Some redevelopment outcomes may be desirable and some may be undesirable. As a result, neighbors will need to monitor the situation closely and be willing to actively engage at every stage.
Immediate Next Steps
First, and foremost, it is very, VERY important for neighbors to dig in on ZAP right away! Neighbors - WE/YOU - will probably need to advocate for changes to ZAP in the near future. Numbers matter. This sort of thing cannot be delegated or put off.
Second, Fatima will lead a group of neighbors in a follow-up meeting with John McMahon at his office on Wednesday, October 22 at 10 AM. Valery and Rome have both agreed to go with Fatima. YOU are welcome to join in. If you are interested, please reply to this message.
Thanks to everyone who took time to talk about this stubborn, frustrating situation. The topic isn't in any way "sexy". On it's own a discussion about zoning can be downright boring BUT when it's applied to a situation like this one, it's stimulating and interesting. We had a productive conversation with lots of great input from everyone. Enormous thanks to our host for providing a congenial location to meet and filling our bellies (well, at least mine) to capacity after the discussion! The host's warmth, generosity and leadership are greatly appreciated.
Update on March 28, 2025
Attendees from the UM area included Chris Stevens, Fatima Razic, Judy Peer, Valerie McPherson, Jason McCaffery, Dale O'Dell, Mary Charipar and Rome Celli.
Neighbors met in the living room of a private home in Upper Monroe near the site of four long-vacant homes on Crosman Terrace to discuss options & ideas for improving the situation with John McMahon, Chief Administration of the City of Rochester Southeast Neighborhood Service Center (SE-NSC), and his deputy, Manuel Ortolaza. McMahon started with a detailed update on the status of these properties and outlined a new, more aggressive plan of action including escalating fines for code violations. He pledged to develop and share a dedicated spreadsheet with neighbors that will serve to inform our community as the new plan takes affect.
UMNA rep, Rome Celli, shared research on the properties obtained from the City of Rochester website. In some cases the research showed outstanding violations have been recorded by the City code enforcement department.
Neighbors peppered the city representatives with questions once the update was completed. There were a number of well founded concerns expressed and discussed in some detail. Attendees shared ideas that extended beyond what the SE-NSC is working on. Those ideas ranged in type from "carrot" to "stick" including: more research with departments at City Hall; engaging the Mayor's office for support and looking for other opportunities to influence a positive outcome from a variety of angles. After the City reps left neighbors dedicated about 30 minutes to discuss tactics and plans going forward.
Action Steps - Fall, 2025
Update on November 14, 2024
The following is an excerpt from an email sent to the president of UMNA, Rome Celli, from the City of Rochester's Southeast Neighborhood Service Center Administrator, John McMahon.
"I checked out the 4 properties on Crosman Terrace and it was pretty alarming. These are now super high priority to me as they are perfect examples of what neighborhood preservation needs to address.
"I have talked to the Inspector, Anita and to Anne Wallace, Manager of Code Enforcement as well as Mike Furlano in the Law Department. I wanted Law to seek an abandonment action where the city takes the houses but they are not candidates due to the fact that they are being kept secure by the owner. If they come to a point where the city has to secure them, we might be able to go the abandonment route.
"For now, the plan is to step up code enforcement and fines to a point where repairing and occupying (or selling) the properties is the only option that makes financial sense.
"Three out of the four have been cited for failure to register with the vacant building registry and the fourth one will be. There was no open case for 320 but there is now and violations will be added this week. Thanks to Ms. McPherson for leading the effort and please share my contact information with her."
Update on September 11, 2024
314 Crosman - The property was officially marked as VACANT by the City in April of this year. However, the owner has not yet registered the property as vacant and, therefore, has not paid the fee associated with keeping a property vacant. (The owner must register a vacant property voluntarily. The fee is $100/year if there is an intent to re-rent in the near term or $500/year if the owner does not intend to re-rent anytime in the foreseeable future. Failure to register voluntarily results in a penalty on top of the annual fee.) Notices calling for action by the owner went out by email and by US mail. The C of O is current and in force until the fall of 2026. This does not absolve the owner of responsibility to address new issues/violations. Numerous violations have been cited. No workplan has been established. If the owner files a workplan, the clock stops on fines but another clock starts on the workplan. Failure to adhere to the workplan results in fines.
320 Crosman - The property had NOT YET been marked as VACANT. Our calls have resulted in a work order to send out the code inspector and establish its status as a vacant property. This triggers an immediate exterior inspection to cite violations. (Apparently, such inspections took place at 314, 324, 330 hence the violations noted on those properties.) An interior inspection may result as well - depending on the owner's (lack of) responsiveness. Like 314, the C of O is current and in force until the fall of 2026 and, again, this fact does not absolve the owner of responsibility to address new issues/violations. No current violations because there hasn't yet been an inspection related to the property's current status (vacant).
324 Crosman - Similar status as 314 CROSMAN except this property was marked VACANT in May of this year.
330 Crosman - Similar status as 314 CROSMAN except this property was marked VACANT but the notes from this conversation weren't clear on the date.
Last updated
Was this helpful?