CITY OF GENEVA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2017
1. Roll Call: Present: James Richmond, Andrew Williams, Ellis Bozzolo, Joseph Commesso,
Shawn Beam, and Nicholas Gillotti
Excused: Robert Meyer
2. A Use Variance Application by Trinity Episcopal Church located at 520 S. Main St. to Re-Purpose the
Building into an Event Space, Inn & Restaurant.
Cam Miller, Priest at Trinity Church, told everyone that they are looking to get a use variance so they could
continue as a congregation and take care of much needed preservation work to their buildings. Funds
collected at the parish are not enough, and over the past 12 months, they have explored several
partnership options with the Historical Society, Hobart and William Smith Colleges and other congregations.
The plan they came up, the one before the board tonight, is the only one that would allow them to stay in
the church, and it has been endorsed by the entire congregation except one person. He concluded by
saying that even the Bishop and standing committee of the diocese approve of the plan.
Mark McGroarty said that the current zoning for the property is MRHD, and they are looking to put in an inn,
restaurant, and events center. He noted that the church has been around for over 200 years, and they
would like to continue to be a part of the City of Geneva. The applicant will retain ownership, and there will
be no additions to the buildings. They will be seeking DOT approval for a new access road, and they
currently have 75 parking spaces which conforms to the current zoning requirements.
He went on to say that the main sanctuary area will be used for church services and event space; there will
be a lobby and rooms for the inn. The lower level where the parish hall is will be 10 rooms for the inn and
the small chapel will be used for the restaurant. Below the sanctuary will be a kitchen, restrooms, space
for church meetings, and church offices. The existing rectory will be converted into 8 rooms for a total of 29
rooms for the inn. During construction, all vehicles will be kept on the property and not the street. Mr.
McGroarty referred to a letter the board received from Valerie Knoblauch of the Finger Lakes Visitors
Center who had looked at the project. In her letter she writes that their strategic plan states that a “dynamic
destination is in a constant state of growth and evolution to keep up with the changing tastes of the
traveling public,” and that the church’s adaptive reuse proposal fits in this category. She also stated that it
fits perfectly in relation to the HWS and downtown connectivity requirement for tourism development.
Lastly she said that tourism development has a long legacy of recognizing and implementing historic
preservation actions that help keep the character of a neighborhood and keep the buildings which visitors
will go to in tip-top shape and this proposal, as she reviewed, aligns with many elements of their strategic
plan and should be a great amenity for future visitors and residents.
He noted in their application they must satisfy economic hardship, that the hardship stems from a condition
that is unique to the property and not found in the ordinary zoning district, not created by the actions of the
applicant, granting of the variance will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or the health
and welfare of the residents. He handed the board their statement of hardship to review. He stated that
the current issue is unique to this property since this is one of only two churches in this zoning district
except for the chapel at HWS. The original church was built in 1806, but the existing church in use was
constructed in 1844. In 2007, the church requested a building condition report, and a copy of the report
was submitted with the application. The report reflected that although the buildings were in good condition,
they required significant work to the exterior limestone walls, stained glass windows, and repair of interior
walls. The church spent approximately $1,000,000 over the past 10 years in preservation and general
maintenance of its buildings and needs an additional $1.5 to $1.7 million not including updates to the
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical units. The church cannot do this with what they currently have.
Mr. McGroarty said that the church has had declining enrollment, and it’s not neglect, but the age of the
building, that has caused the issues they face. They will apply to have the property registered on the
National Register of Historic Places and apply for federal rehabilitation tax credits, and the buildings will
remain essentially the same. He noted that commercial entities have been part of this neighborhood for
over 200 years, and many single family homes have been converted to multi-family, offices, and other
business uses. The church is asking to be allowed to do the same. He noted that the City Assessor lists
38% of the property in that neighborhood as commercial enterprise, 34% as single family, 13% as multi
family, and 15% as community services. HWS owns 35 of 40 properties south of Hamilton Street to Jay
Street. He noted that the property types he just noted were assigned by the City Assessor, and all of those
properties are in the MRHD zoning district; with a significant number being commercial property.
He stated that uses may change, but character will not change. The buildings will remain the same, and
the project will have a positive impact on the environment opposed to the possible alternative; demolition of
the buildings. He also noted that this project will mean that the property will no longer be completely tax
exempt.
Attorney for the City of Geneva, Emil Bove asked Mr. McGroarty if he affirmed that the statements he made
here tonight were true under the penalty of perjury, and he said they were, but he asked that two comments
in their application from HWS Colleges be deleted from their application. Mr. Bove asked Reverend Miller if
he affirmed his statements were true under the penalty of perjury, and Reverend Miller said that they were.
Mr. Bozzolo asked Mr. McGroarty what his professional background was as is relates to this project, and he
said that he has been a real estate developer for the past 40 years in commercial, residential and industrial
development. When Mr. Bozzolo asked about the information to be redacted from the application, Mr.
McGroarty handed the board an amended statement of hardship which were labeled Exhibits 1 and 2 with
the application being Exhibit 3. In Exhibit 2, he wished to delete the first sentence of the last paragraph on
page two and on page three of the same exhibit; the second paragraph has been deleted and substituted
for.
Mr. Bozzolo said he would like to question the statement of hardship and the financial aspects. He pointed
out the current average capital building expenditure over the past 10 years having been $108,000 and
asked if that was a payment for a loan they have for $485,000. Mr. McGroarty said that the church has
spent over $1,000,000 in the past 10 years, and the $485,000 is money they borrowed to help pay for part
of that. The church’s treasurer, Charlie Bauder, said it is the unpaid balance of that loan and is a demand
note where they pay interest only, and the payment is currently $1,000 per month.
Mr. Bozzolo asked about the church’s other options and what they would have cost. Mr. McGroarty
presented Exhibit 4 showing on page one the permitted uses: single family, 2-family, or multi-family
dwelling. It also shows agricultural, church, cultural facility, health services, hospital, institution or
philanthropic, sorority, fraternity, nursery, offices, funeral home, professional offices, or tourist homes. He
noted that most of these options do not offer the revenue they need to restore the building and the rest are
just not practical for this building. They did a rate of return analysis, and there is just no way that their
current income can take care of the debt that they currently have and cover the much-needed repairs.
Attorney Bove asked about other sources of income, and Reverend Miller said they have some income
from building use and some designated endowments for outreach along with an endowment for the building
of $1,000,000. Mr. Bove asked Mr. McGroarty about his experience, and he said that he has worked in the
US and Canada on religious buildings and has experience with the use of federal and state tax credits. He
noted that historic tax credits would work with apartments and offices, but the income would be only
$200,000 vs $1,500,000 with the proposed project.
Mr. Bozzolo asked about the events that would take place with this project, and Mr. McGroarty said that
they would mostly be on weekends, and attendees would park in the lot with the overflow parking
downtown and walking to the church. He noted the possibility of renting parking lots and using a shuttle to
get people to the event. Reverend Miller said that the church had three events last year with no issues.
When asked what the church will do if the application is denied, Reverend Miller said that they are trying to
avoid leaving the buildings empty; they are trying to be good citizens of the community. When asked about
ownership, Reverend Miller said that the congregation and diocese own it, and if the church can’t afford to
keep it open, ownership will revert to the diocese to unload. They will try to find someone to buy it, but
what often happens is the new owner can’t afford the upkeep and ends up abandoning the property. When
asked about other possible alternatives, Mr. McGroarty again stated that the other possibilities would not
generate the income needed to do the necessary work and pay off current debt.
Public Comment was opened at 8:05pm
Barb Roesch-Rokow of 459 S. Main said that her home was once the old music hall, and she has owned
the building since 1991. She is familiar with the difficulties that these buildings present. She provided the
board with some additional written argument and a couple articles before she began speaking, and then
said that the board must deny the application because the applicant has failed to prove that they cannot get
a reasonable economic return on their investment within the current use allowed. She asked if they had
proposals from several developers or if an RFP was sent out. She asked if the sale of the rectory
separately was considered. She noted that the burden of proof was on the applicant, and the board cannot
approve the project because the church wants to keep their services. She wondered if the church could get
fair market value if they chose the option to sell. She also noted that the homes in that area are multiresidential and not commercial as stated by Mr. McGroarty earlier. She also stated that the applicant has
not shown that the project will not adversely affect the neighborhood. She told the board that residents in
this neighborhood have one of the highest property tax rates in the city and there is currently not enough
parking. Ms. Roesch-Rokow stated that there are currently no restaurants, no event centers, and no hotels
in this area and this plan is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan which has no plan for
commercial development in the historic district. She questioned what would happen if the operation failed
and what other operation would come in. She stated that the applicant failed to meet the burden that they
cannot get an economic return on the property and the application must be denied. They have not
presented a market analysis and have failed to show this will not affect the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Gena Rangel said that she has worshipped at Trinity Church for 20 years and owns a house steps away.
She will be affected by the noise this proposal will generate. It will definitely change the character of the
neighborhood. She is concerned about the parking issue and hopes the church can find a better way within
the zoning laws.
Joanne Labate of 488 S. Main Street said she lives a block away from the church and went to the Ontario
County Planning Board meeting February 8th. She has seen both sides of the argument and knows the
character of S. Main Street has changed from single-family to multi-family and fraternities over the years.
However, she disagrees both that these homes are being referred to as commercial property and that this
project would not affect the character of the neighborhood. She asked the board to recognize the findings
of the Ontario County Planning Board.
Hans Buechler of 533 S. Main Street said he lives across the street from the church and stated there is no
indication that there will be no major changes to the church’s surroundings. If the church is pressured to
build more parking, that will drastically change the character of the neighborhood. Seventy-five spaces are
not enough.
Jane Donegan of 483 S. Main Street said her husband bought their home in 1966, and she has lived there
since 1981. She said it is a very beautiful neighborhood with very little parking; and even less parking in
the winter. She told the board that she is a historian and knows about change over time. This once
commercial neighborhood has moved to residential, and not the other way around. She said she is sad
about the church’s position and would like to see the building preserved, but not at the residents’ expense.
Lastly, she stated that she and her neighbors pay very high taxes and want to keep their neighborhood as it
is; there are better places in the city to put party houses and restaurants rather than S. Main Street.
Betty Bayer of 481 S. Main Street said that her row house along with the others are used to advertise
Geneva, and she rejects the project saying that the proposal is a failure of imagination. She feels the other
hotels and restaurants are not being filled to capacity and are struggling to stay open.
Cynthia Milspaw Kiss said she has been a long time resident of Geneva and said that having a restaurant
and hotel will not guarantee that this historical building will not change. This is a historical landmark.
Eileen Buckley said she bought the building at 496 S. Main Street in 2008, and her aunt lived there since
1965 before then. She noted that all of the houses on their side of the street are single family residences
and many on the other side as well. She feels using the term commercial is distorted. She said she has a
question about page 1 of the application where it states the proposal must be presented by an attorney,
accountant, or registered NYS design professional. She feels that since the new priest came to Geneva,
this plan was devised rather quickly. She would like to see them take more time noting they are looking for
$320,000 per year from tourists. Ms. Buckley noted that the City’s Comprehensive Plan that was just
approved deems this neighborhood be kept residential with its beautiful walking route. She also noted that
the Downtown Revitalization Initiative is looking to spend $10,000,000 on our downtown, and this proposal
could hurt the downtown businesses. She asked the board to look at the big picture to see what will work
for Geneva as a whole.
Joann Wisor asked anyone in the audience who was for this project to please stand up, and several people
stood to show their support. She told the board that she has been a member of the church since 1972 and
she knows the inner workings of the church. They have discussed combining with other churches with no
success. Ms. Wisor said that they have been good stewards of that property, but the needs of the property
have exceeded the ability of the congregation.
Mary Serafine stood up and asked how many of the people who approve of the project live in the
neighborhood saying this will not impact them.
Ted Aub, Professor of Art and Architecture, of 802 S. Main Street said that he doesn’t want the building
vacated, and it is important that it will sustain itself as a church. Without this project, the city will have a
vacant building that will eventually be torn down.
Charlie Bauder of 138 Oak Street said he has been the treasurer for the past 18 years, and the church has
gone through a million dollar maintaining the buildings. His main objective is to see the building preserved.
Enough buildings have been torn down in our city.
Attorney, Emil Bove, asked Mr. Bauder if the church sent out RFP’s, and Mr. Bauder did not know. Mr.
Bove told the church representatives that he will recommend the board ask more questions in order to
make a reasonable decision.
Tom Smart said he does not currently live in Geneva, but was born here. He spent a lot of time on S. Main
Street and remembers when church services at Trinity were full. Parking is not a new problem and should
not be a major issue. He now lives in PennYan, and they continue to build hotels that are full all the time.
He finished by saying that spaces are taken even when there isn’t an event.
Jerry Buckley told the board that he is a native of Geneva and moved back after many years. He refutes
the idea that the building will be abandoned. He said that in terms of the marketplace, people go to church
for many reasons, and if you have a small number of members, you must look at the common good. There
is not a large enough population to merit the type of changes the church is requesting. He said that in
addition to the legal arguments made, people are looking to downsize and have to move out of Geneva
because there is no place here for them. He said that there are many event spaces in Geneva, and we
don’t hear them saying that they can’t book more events. Mr. Buckley said that he feels the developer is
not concerned with the rest of the businesses in Geneva, and the board has a responsibility to really look at
this monumental decision that has implications for generations to come and cannot be reversed next week.
Keren Tuxill told the board that she is one of the wardens of the church and she understands that the
neighborhood residents feel a personal interest. He said that her husband grew up in Geneva and she
feels strongly about the church and this proposal. She told the board that they tried to join together with St.
Peter’s Church, but all of their efforts did not work. Through the process, a developer in Syracuse wanted
to put apartments in the parish building, but that would not generate enough revenue. She said that they
are trying to grow the church and are receiving new members, and feels this project keeps with what is
going on in the city; it is becoming a destination with all of the hotels being completely booked. She went
on to explain that if the diocese takes over; they will have 5 months to sell or will have to start paying taxes.
If they sell, it will go to the lowest bidder.
Karen Osburn, City Historian, of 46 Park Place said that she has friends on both sides of the argument, and
noted that the city has changed consistently since it was built. Over the years, many churches have
converted to other uses. Since 2000, attendance in the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester has declined by
50%. She knows that not everyone will be happy, but eventually there will be change on S. Main Street.
She asked the board to weigh all of the arguments to make the best decision for all involved.
Derek Lustig of 549 S. Main Street said he came here in 2002, and he can look out his kitchen window to
see Trinity Church. He said he believes the people here are trying to protect two things; their place of
spiritual worship and the sanctuary of their home. He said that S. Main is very vibrant, very busy, and there
is a lot of foot traffic. As he looks at his neighborhood members, trying to preserve what is important to
Geneva, he wonders if they have looked at all of the options in a creative way. Mr. Lustig said that his main
concern is what he leaves his daughter.
Neal Braman, the City Planning and Zoning Coordinator, read emails he received about the project:
Robert Schick said that he is not against the commercial project, but he trusts the developer has a
viable parking plan. He knows the residents on S. Main Street struggle with parking; especially this time of
year when restricted/alternate parking rules are in force. With regard to the re-use of the building, he has
seen some stunning renovations of churches into commercial establishments that add charm and vibrancy
to their neighborhoods. If the renovation is done right, it will add another property on Geneva’s “must visit”
list for tourists. He noted that Geneva struggles with the amount of tax-exempt property in the City, and this
is an opportunity to put a property back on the tax rolls. This project will also generate sales tax and create
employment opportunities.
Jennifer Foe and Diane Wenz said that they are 100% against this new idea for the church just for
the simple reason of S. Main Street being already busy enough for this historic area. Parking is awful in
winter months and can be just as hard in the summer. Even if shuttle service is offered, people will arrive
looking for parking before driving to the shuttle pick up. She noted it takes forever to get out of the
driveway now with the traffic and will be a nightmare for people who live in the area.
Kathleen Carney said she is a member of the church and has worked with the Belhurst Castle who is
booking weddings a year and a half out. She sees this project as making the community flourish. When
she is at the Belhurst, she and other staff refer people to downtown businesses. She feels this project will
support downtown. She noted that wedding parties come from all over, so this project could put Geneva on
the map. Lastly, she said that saving the church would also be a positive addition to Geneva.
Action taken: Mr. Commesso made a motion to close the public comment portion of the meeting at
9:26pm, Mr. Beam seconded.
Roll call was done, and motion was APPROVED unanimously (6-1 excused).
Mr. Bozzolo, noting that this will still be a church facility, asked the applicants if there would be any
prohibitions as the types of ceremonies, and Reverend Miller said there would be none.
Mr. McGroarty said that this is clearly a complex problem and there is an issue with the number of requests
for work. He said that two different developers who have done church work looked at condominiums,
apartments, and office space, with apartments being considered, but that option cannot financially cover
the needed repairs. They also cannot do an interior subdivision of the sanctuary because they would no
longer qualify for historic tax credits.
Mr. Commesso noted that this is an unlisted action.
Mr. Gillotti said that the question remains whether they clearly looked at other alternatives and maybe
someone else would be willing to develop this property in a different way. Mr. McGroarty said that a new
developer would not buy because they would need to spend over a million dollars to make repairs, and they
would get no return for that investment. If the church leaves, the new buyer will need to come before the
board.
Mr. Bozzolo said he does not see the numbers, and would like to see the numbers for an events center vs.
a multifamily building. He would like to see more evidence. He added that a lot of information and
concerns have been raised tonight, but there is not enough information to make an informed decision.
{At this point in the meeting, Mr. Commesso asked the applicant if they wished to proceed to a vote or
request the vote be tabled until March 23rd in order for them to provide additional financial evidence in
support of their application and to give the board additional time to look over the material.}
While the board was waiting for a decision from the applicant, Barb Roesch-Rokow told the ZBA members
that additional concerns were raised after the public comment when questions were asked of the applicant,
and she has a rebuttal to the answers given by the applicant.
When the applicants returned to the meeting, Mr. McGroarty said that the numbers don’t lie, and they have
done their due diligence. He asked the board to vote tonight.
Action taken: Mr. Commesso made a motion to designate the Geneva City Zoning Board lead agency for
review, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call was done, and motion was APPROVED unanimously (6-1excused)
Mr. Commesso allowed Ms. Roesch-Rokow to come forward with her rebuttal. She said that as far as
federal historic tax credit, rentals qualify for that tax credit.
Mr. Commesso proceeded to read the SEQRA review list of questions:
1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict within adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?
Membership unanimously said no or small impact
2. Will the proposed action result in change in the use or intensity of use of land?
Mr. Bozzolo said moderate while the remaining membership said no
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
Membership unanimously said no
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that could cause
the establishment of a critical environmental area?
Membership unanimously said no
5. Will the proposed action result in adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing
infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
Mr. Beam said no with clarity related directly to traffic and not parking while the remaining
membership said no
6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy, and if it fails, to incorporate
reasonable available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
Membership unanimously said no
7. Will the proposed action impact existing a) public/private water systems, b) public/private water
treatment utilities?
Membership unanimously said no to both a and b
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of a historic, agricultural, ecological, or
any esthetic resources?
Membership unanimously said no
9. Will the proposed action impact an adverse change to natural resources (i.e. wetlands, water
bodies, ground water, air quality, flora and fauna?
Membership unanimously said no
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or draining
problems?
Membership unanimously said no
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environment resources or human health?
Membership unanimously said no
After reading the short environmental assessment part 1, Mr. Bozzolo asked what agency number 2 was
referring to, and Mr. Braman said it is the ZBA, Planning Board, and the City of Geneva building permits.
Mr. Commesso asked the board, based on what they have heard, do they feel the project could have a
significant adverse environmental impact, and the membership said no.
Attorney Emil Bove told the board that they have a final consideration asking the following questions:
Motion 1.
Action taken: Mr. Beam made a motion to grant the application since literal application of the zoning
ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call: Aye - James Richmond, Andrew Williams, Joseph Commesso, and Shawn Beam
Nay - Ellis Bozzolo and Nicholas Gillotti
Excused - Robert Meyer
motion APPROVED
Motion 2.
Action taken: Mr. Beam made a motion to grant the application since the land in question cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call: Aye - Andrew Williams, Joseph Commesso, and Shawn Beam
Nay - James Richmond, Ellis Bozzolo and Nicholas Gillotti
Excused - Robert Meyer
motion DENIED
Motion 3.
Action taken: Mr. Beam made a motion to grant the application since the plight of the owner is due to
unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the
unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call: Aye - Andrew Williams, Joseph Commesso, and Shawn Beam
Nay - James Richmond, Ellis Bozzolo and Nicholas Gillotti
Excused - Robert Meyer
motion DENIED
Motion 4.
Action taken: Mr. Beam made a motion to grant the application since the use to be authorized by the
variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call: Aye - Andrew Williams and Joseph Commesso
Nay - Shawn Beam, James Richmond, Ellis Bozzolo and Nicholas Gillotti
Excused - Robert Meyer
motion DENIED
The application was DENIED based on the four criteria voted on.
3. Approval of Minutes
Action taken: Mr. Commesso made a motion to approve the January 24, 2017 minutes as
prepared, Mr. Williams seconded.
Roll call - Aye: Andrew Williams, Ellis Bozzolo, James Richmond, Nicholas Gillotti and
Joseph Commesso
Abstain: Shawn Beam
Excused: Robert Meyer
motion APPROVED
4. Adjournment.
Action taken: Mr. Commesso made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:12pm, Mr. Richmond
seconded.
Roll call was done, and motion was APPROVED unanimously (6-1 excused).
Respectfully submitted by Lori Guinan, Deputy City Clerk