The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is writing to follow-up our telephone conversation about the project noted above, which is currently before the Aurora Village Planning Board for review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). We appreciate the opportunity to explain that our lack of comment does not represent a lack of interest in the project or its impacts to historic resources. On the contrary, OPRHP would like to comment as an interested party under SEQRA, and appreciates the planning board chair requesting our in-depth review of the HOLT submission for the project.
The Aurora Inn and Vanderipe Building
The Aurora Inn was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on November 19, 1980 as part of the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District. The Vanderipe Building was also listed at that time. Both structures are cited as contributing components to the district.
The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) makes it clear that an action to be directly undertaken, funded or approved by an agency will be considered a Type 1 action if it is an "Unlisted Action (unless the action is designed for the preservation of the facility or site) occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any historic building, structure, facility, site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places...." 617.4(b)(9).
Thus, the buildings' status means that they must be considered "historic" by municipal agencies conducting reviews under SEQRA, by federal agencies obligated to consider the impacts under the National Historic Preservation Act, and by state agencies required to evaluate project impacts under Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.
Furthermore, the Aurora Inn is an extremely rare and intact surviving example of an early 19th century inn in New York State. It is one of only a handful of this building type----including a former inn in Lewiston, the Union Hotel in Sacketts Harbor and the Spring House in Pittsford. As such, its protection deserves every consideration under applicable state and federal laws.
While the Inn has been renovated at various times in its history, most of these changes are additive---not subtractive---and are easily reversed. (This concept was explained when Mr. Hoard first called our office to discuss the project. Additive changes are those that rehabilitate a building without removing historic material, much like the work executed to create an accessible room at the Inn's first floor: the arches were filled with studs and sheetrock, but the trim was retained and the original condition is easily discerned.) The floor plan is also largely intact: each floor contains the broad front-to-back central hall that is typical of Federal period architecture.
It also appears that some portions of the building may have received very high-quality Colonial Revival improvements. If this is the case, these, too, have acquired significance in their own right and are as worthy of protection as the original Federal-era features.
For these reasons, OPRHP considers the Inn to be extremely significant and its integrity very high.
Incorrect Assumptions
It appears that some of the planning performed by HOLT and the decisions made by the Village may be based on incorrect information. For example:
a) The Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Community Preservation Panel (CPP) states that the board considered "the pertinent historical significance of the structures, which we have determined that although they are old and we are used to them, are not particularly rare or unique or wonderful in their own right, as defined by the phrase 'Historical Significance' (sic)." As stated above, both buildings are considered "historic" under state and federal environmental review laws.
b) The April 12, 2001 HOLT report "Proposed Renovation of the Aurora Inn" states "Although the Inn and the Vanderipe Building are not listed as ocal or national landmarks, the Village of Aurora is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, automatically triggering historic review of the project" (page 1). The buildings are recognized as historic at the national evel (see above).
c) The HOLT report also states on page 6 that "...the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") does not grandfather existing conditions. The ADA requires building owners to make buildings accessible to the maximum extent feasible." While part of that statement is correct---buildings are not grandfathered under ADA---it does not explain that historic buildings are exempt from ADA's provisions when full compliance would threaten or destroy significant historic character or fabric. OPRHP, in its role as the State Historic Preservation Office or SHPO, is the authority designated under federal law to provide that finding. No such request was received for this project.
Impacts to Historic Resources
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties define Restoration as "the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period."
The HOLT report uses the term "interior restoration" to describe the proposed work, which is misleading because the submitted plans indicate that this is a "gut rehab" in which all interior walls and features---even original or later historic walls, trim, doors and character-defining elements like fireplace mantels---will be removed. The new proposal bears no resemblance to the historic condition: even the characteristic front-to-back hall will be rotated 90 degrees so as to run from side-to-side. Work of this nature, which essentially ignores the significant qualities of an historic building, cannot be characterized as restoration, preservation or even appropriate rehabilitation.
Any one of the following would trigger a finding of Adverse Effect/Impact under state or federal law:
a) The razing of the Vanderipe Building, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing component of the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District;
b) The complete gutting of the Aurora Inn, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing component of the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District;
c)The proposal to impose a new plan on the Aurora Inn that bears no relationship to this significant structure's historic character.
We also note that none of the material submitted by HOLT or the Village documents the structural deficiencies noted in the CPP approval. In fact, photographs submitted by HOLT indicate that this is (or was recently) a functioning grocery with coolers and other heavy equipment in place.
The building proposed to replace the Vanderipe Building does not reflect the proportions or detailing of historic structures from this period. If the Vanderipe Building is unsound, or its rehabilitation and reuse is documented to be infeasible for other reasons, this part of the larger project should be revised to better reflect conditions in the historic district.
OPRHP can also advise you that most of the Village and the historic district is archeologically sensitive, and that an archeological survey by archeologists meeting federal professional criteria is recommended unless substantial prior ground disturbance can be documented (see attached archeology comments).
Recommendations
OPRHP recommends that the sponsor work with our office to revise the current plan and develop a scheme that respects the Aurora Inn and the Vanderipe Buildings' historic significance and meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the project remains unrevised, we feel that it exceeds the Type I thresholds defined by SEQRA and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared.
Coordination with other Agencies
While the HOLT report justifies much of the work is necessary to meet applicable building codes, OPRHP understands that Wells College has submitted a petition for relief from the provisions of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code regarding fire-safety requirements, including construction type of the lowest level of an existing building, opening protectives, stair width, balconies of combustible construction, combustible eaves and fire area.
Per our agreement with the Department of State, which administers the Code, OPRHP advises that agency that this project, as proposed, cannot be considered a "preservation project" and therefore does not qualify for any of the exemptions allowed by the Uniform Code for projects at historic properties where work meets the preservation standards.
OPRHP also requests the opportunity to comment on this undertaking as an Interested Agency under SEQRA, and asks that all OPRHP correspondence for the project be incorporated in the official SEQRA record for it.
We also remind the Village and the sponsor that the involvement of a federal or state agency---through funding, guarantees, licenses, permits or approvals, or through work performed pursuant to federal delegation or mandate---triggers formal review by this office under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, respectively. This would include actions like the construction of a dock, which has been discussed in the Village since the National Register-listed Aurora Grist Mill was partially razed in 1992 without proper permits or review.
Given the persistence of this rumor, even as part of this proposal, OPRHP recommends that the sponsor commit its pledge to not build a dock at this property, and that the pledge become part of any permits, approvals or findings issued by the Planning Board or other municipal entities in the Village of Aurora.
While OPRHP was looking forward to this afternoon's meeting and the chance to discuss preservation issues with the Village, the sponsor and their consultants, we are pleased to learn that the Village has retained an attorney to assist with its SEQRA responsibilities, that it has decided to classify the undertaking as a Type I action and start the SEQRA process anew, and that it will not allow any work- including removals or preparatory demolition- to occur until the SEQRA process is complete. Because we understand that the stop work order may have been lifted, we ask that you coordinate that matter with other Village officials to see that historic resources are protected. We appreciate your commitment to work with us to resolve this matter, and look forward to a productive working relationship.
OPRHP appreciates the opportunity to comment on this undertaking and looks forward to discussing procedural issues and technical/design concerns with you at today's meeting. Please telephone me at ... with any questions you may have...
Sincerely,
Richard M. Lord
Historic Sites Restoration Coorinator
Index at Top of Page
___________________
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York� 12188-0189
July 12, 2001
Village of Aurora Planning Board
Aurora, New York 13026
Faxed this day to...
Dear Ms. Gil:
Since we were unable to connect by telephone today, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is writing to clarify one aspect of our July 11, 2001 letter for the project noted above, which is currently before the Aurora Village Planning Board for review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The page 3 statement "While the HOLT report justifies much of the work is necessary to meet applicable building codes...." should have read "While the HOLT report references ADA and the applicable building codes to justify much of the work...."
This is a minor distinction, but one that OPRHP feels is important because we did not want to leave you with the impression that the HOLT report justifies the gutting of the extremely rare and largely intact National Register-listed Aurora Inn or the demolition of the National Register-listed Vanderipe Building.
Demolishing and/or gutting these two properties, which are both listed in the National Register of Historic Places, will have a significant negative impact on both the properties and the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District: if approved, the work will result in the automatic removal of the Vanderipe Building from the National Register of Historic Places, and would be grounds for the Keeper of the Register to consider removing the Aurora Inn as well. In short, the proposal would destroy one historic structure completely and remove nearly all of the other's historic materials and character.
With that knowledge, OPRHP hopes you can understand why we feel that the project as currently configured would have a significant and irreversible adverse impact on the Historic District.
While I appreciate last evening's voice mail offer to tour the Inn with you next week, I am afraid that it would be difficult for me to travel to Aurora on such short notice. It took some juggling to free my calendar for yesterday's meeting---which was cancelled by the College's attorney more than two hours after I'd already left for Syracuse---and while I was in the field 10 projects with sponsors just as anxious for a response arrived on my desk. While you indicated that you would not be available for an additional two weeks after next, perhaps we could arrange something after you return to the Village? If that does not work for the Village or the sponsor, OPRHP would be pleased to host a meeting in our Waterford offices.
OPRHP wants to assure you that the HOLT submission was very comprehensive in its depiction of existing conditions at the Inn and Vanderipe Building. Also, Mark Peckham, who heads our National Register Program in New York State, has visited the Inn and the Village and assisted in drafting our letter. However, even if our office were not so familiar with the Village of Aurora, its significant historic resources or its special character, you should know that on a basic philosophical level we cannot endorse the demolition or gutting of any intact National Register-listed structures without a full analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives. (This approach is consistent with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and other environmental review procedures.) Neither the Village nor the sponsor has provided any material to indicate that alternatives were considered.
Since this may be the largest project in the Village for some time, it might be helpful for Planning Board members to familiarize themselves with the SEQRA process. The regulations can be downloaded from DEC's web page (www.dec.state.ny.us) and describe a simple but comprehensive process that can be valuable to the Village: SEQRA evaluates and compares the economic, social and environmental impacts of a range of possible alternatives---and that is exactly what the Village, the College and its consultants must do to select and develop "the best" proposal for the community. SEQRA is really just good planning, which evaluates possible scenarios before project implementation to avoid more significant delays or surprises once construction has begun.
An informational brochure recently received for the Peace Bridge project connecting Buffalo to Fort Erie, Canada, explains that the Bridge Commission's Public Involvement Program is built upon the premise that the public has the right to be informed and involved throughout the environmental process, and that this "will lead to better decisions, a greater acceptance of the project and an achievement of common goals."
This is also consistent with OPRHP's experience: sponsors who take advantage of the expertise offered by interested agencies and solicit and consider public input nearly always feel that their project was improved by the process. Given the fairly spirited debate that has occurred for the Aurora Inn project, it seems that a similar approach in Aurora might provide a better understanding of the goals of the College and its benefactor and garner public support for the proposal.
Again, OPRHP appreciates your requesting our comments for this undertaking and asks that this letter be included in the official SEQRA record for the project..............
Sincerely,
Richard M. Lord
Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator
Index at Top of Page
__________________
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Division of Environmental Permits
615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204-2400
August 7, 2001
Village of Aurora Planning Board
Box 456 Main Street
Aurora, NY 113026
Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE
Dear Ms. Gil:
Per your August 2, 2001 lead agency coordination under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review: SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and 6 NYCRR Part 617, be advised of the following:
DEC PERMITS: None have been identified from the project description provided.
SEQR CLASSIFICATION: DEC concurs with the classification as Type I.
DEC POSITION: The DEC has no objection to your agency serving as Lead Agency.
COMMENTS: The following concerns are noted:
1. The EAF (B,1,f) notes "parking to be provided in another project" raises the question as to whether the full project is being assessed at this time. SEQR regulations (6 NYCRR 617.3 (g) (1) note that "Considering only a part or segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR." At face value, parking for a renovated Inn project would appear to be part of the present action and should be evaluated with the Inn renovations.
2. The Department has received unconfirmed reports from citizens in the community which claim that there is a larger project envisioned by some "master plan" proposed by the project sponsor or some related entity. By some accounts, the larger plan includes a marina and other aspects of development. A marina or other increased development on portions of the property made available as a result of the Inn renovations could affect both the nature of the environmental review and the Department's jurisdiction in the matter. Similar to item #1, your record as lead agency, assuming your confirmation, should establish that other elements of "plan" implementation either 1) are properly included in this review or 2) clearly stand alone as independent actions.
3. The Department would like to underscore the importance of the Aurora Inn and the associated historic district, as noted in several communications to you from the State Historic Preservation Office of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. SEQR regulations clearly identify "criteria for determining significance" ( 6 NYCRR 617.7 ( c ) (1)) which are to be considered in the environmental review. More specifically, criterion (v) speaks to historic resources and community character, which DEC believes are very real and important issues in the matter.
I hope that this response is helpful in guiding your board through the environmental review. If the review identifies other elements of the present development proposal which involve DEC jurisdiction, I ask that you keep me posted. Significant omissions of other elements, intentional or not, could necessitate that the environmental review be supplemented or otherwise reopened.
For the benefit of the record and the best overall legal defensibility of the project, I encourage a thorough review and documentation of the historic preservation issues. If DEC can be of some assistance to that end, please do not hesitate to ask.
You may contact me at...
Respectfully,
Ralph Manna, Jr.
Regional Permit Administrator
Index at Top of Page
_______________________
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Division of Environmental Permits
615 Erie Boulevard West, Syracuse, NY 13204-2400
-VIA FAX MACHINE ONLY-
August 16, 2001
Bonnie Bennett, Chair
Village of Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals...
Nancy Gil Chair
Village of Aurora Planning Board...
Re: Aurora Inn Project
Dear Ms. Bennett and Ms. Gil:
This is is response to a telephone call from Ms. Bennett, of this date.
I have attempted to provide guidance on the procedural questions put to me by each of you in as timely and professional a manner as possible. The two major themes which seem to continue to come up are the full extent of the SEQR review obligation and the appropriateness of the historic preservation issues within the review.
With regard to the former, I now understand that my lead agency coordination response of August 7th has been interpreted to mean that the Inn's interior is not subject to consideration in the environmental review. That is certainly not my position. It is also completely contrary to the intent of the law and the various references in regulations which I have repeatedly provided regarding the requirement to examine the entirety of the project.
All related aspects of the project, including interior considerations, should be examined in the environmental review and a conclusion should be drawn based on the record of that review. In a similar vein, I will again note that the examination of parking needs as a separate element of the review (per the EAF) appears not to be adequately justified for the record. I also understand that the transfer of village owned or claimed property has also been removed from the consideration, apparently without justification in the record.
With regard to the latter issue, DEC continues to underscore the importance of the Inn and the Aurora Historic District as set forth quite clearly by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. The environmental review should reflect those resources, accordingly.
Given the gravity of the issues and the lack of clear justification in the current record, I hope that these informational gaps will be filled and due consideration given to the historic environment before any irrevocable steps ar taken.
I hope this addresses your questions. Thank you for your cooperation and interest.
Respectfully,
Ralph Manna, Jr.
Regional Permit Administrator
Index at Top of Page
Return toVillage Project Page
Return HOME
_______________________
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York� 12188-0189
August 16, 2001
Ms. Nancy Gil, Chair
Village of Aurora Planning Board
sent this day to 315-364-7293...
Dear Ms. Gil:
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is writing to provide additional information for the project noted above, which is currently before the Aurora Village Planning Board for review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). As the state agency responsible for coordinating state and federal preservation programs and encouraging local preservation efforts, OPRHP would like to provide the comments below to assist in fulfilling your responsibilities under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
1. SEQRA Part 617.3(g)(1) speaks to the scope of review for Lead Agencies:
Actions commonly consist of a set of activities or steps. The entire set of activities or steps must be considered the action, whether the agency decision-making relates to the action as a whole or to only a part of it. Considering only part or a segment of an action is contrary to the intent of SEQR.
This seems clear that the Planning Board must consider the impact of the entire undertaking---including interior work---when considering impacts or their significance under SEQRA, regardless of its specific jurisdiction. (For example, if your purview is site plan review, you must still consider all other aspects of the project when determining the undertaking's type and significance under SEQTA.)
2. SEQRA Part 617.7(a) speaks to the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS):
The lead agency must determine the significance of any Type I or Unlisted action in writing in accordance with this section. To require an EIS for a proposed action the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact. To determine that an EIS will not be required for an action, the lead agency must determine either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant (emphasis added).
3. SEQRA Part 617.7(c)(1) speaks to the criteria for determining significance:
To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the impacts that may reasonably be expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Criterion (v) of that subdivision states:
the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
The subdivision goes on to state:
For the purpose of determining whether an action may cause one of the consequences listed in paragraph (1) of this subdivision, the lead agency must consider reasonably related long-term, short-term, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including other simultaneous or subsequent actions which are: included in any long-range plan of which the action under consideration is a part; likely to be undertaken as a result thereof; dependent thereon.
The significance of a likely consequence (i.e. whether it is material, substantial, large or important) should be assessed in connection with: its setting (e.g. urban or rural); its probability of occurrence; its duration; its irreversibility; its geographic scope; its magnitude; and the number of people affected.
4. Taking these items in sequence, OPRHP feels that the Planning Board:
a.) should consider all related work in its SEQRA review, including the proposal to gut the Aurora Inn, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places;
b.) should require an EIS if it identifies an adverse environmental impact under SEQRA;
c.) should determine that the gutting of the Inn, the removal of an historic addition that contributes to its significance, and the razing of the Vanderipe Building---a property also listed in the National Register of Historic Places and therefore considered significant and of value under SEQRA---will have a significant and irreversible adverse impact on the environment under SEQRA.
5. OPRHP would also like to call your attention to the fact that the Planning Board's notice declaring its intent to establish itself as lead agency did not include the Village's Environmental Assessment Form/EAF (we received a copy from a member of the public), did not provide the required 30-day timeframe for making this decision, and was not initially copied to all parties identified in your EAF. It did also not include the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) as a potentially involved party, even though the issue of an easement had been identified at the time the EAF was prepared. This appears to be inconsistent with the requirements of 617.6(b)(3)(I) and 617.3(d), which states that "the lead agency will make every reasonable effort to involve project sponsors, other agencies and the public in the SEQR process." Because this may be considered a procedural flaw in the context of SEQRA, you might want to bring this to the attention of your counsel.
6. To ensure the overall defensibility of this process and the Village's environmental review record, OPRHP again offers its assistance to help you identify impacts to historic resources and identify feasible alternatives, and encourages you to contact Ralph Manna, Jr. at the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to discuss appropriate SEQRA procedures.
While we could not connect yesterday or today, and have as of this writing been unable to arrange for a tour of the properties in question, I look forward to meeting you at tonight's Planning Board meeting in the Village. Please telephone me at...
Sincerely,
Richard M. Lord
Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator
cc: Mr. Ralph Manna, Jr., NYS DEC, Syracuse
Mayor Thomas Gunderson, Village of Aurora
Ms. Nancy Yann, Aurora Village Clerk
Ms. Bonnie Bennett, Chair, Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr. Avery Ayers, Chair, Community Preservation Panel
Mr. Ken Kabelac, Aurora Village Planning Board
Mr. James Orman, Aurora Village Planning Board
Ms. Patricia Rittenhouse, Aurora Village Planning Board
Mr. Robert Fitzgerald, Aurora Village Planning Board
Mr. Ed Brockner, Aurora CEO and Building Inspector
Ms. Lisa Ryerson, President, Wells College
Aurora Coalition, Aurora
Tania Werbizky, Preservation League of New York State
Index at Top of Page
______________________
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York� 12188-0189
August 21, 2001
Mr. Mark Blanke
Department of State
Codes Division
41 State Street
Albany, New York 12231
Dear Mr. Blanke:
The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is writing to follow up our conversation yesterday morning about the project proposed for the Aurora Inn, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
From that discussion, it appears that different arms of government may be receiving contradictory information from the project sponsor. On one hand Wells and their consultants have advised the Village that they must completely gut the historic Aurora Inn to meet the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code), an assertion documented in the official Planning Board resolution issued under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Conversely, their petition to your agency states that they need a variance, in part, to meet preservation goals.
It is this office's opinion that neither statement is accurate. OPRHP is writing to advise you that no variance should be allowed for this project on preservation grounds, and that any representation by Wells College or their consultants that this project achieves preservation objectives is misleading. In fact, the project constitutes an irreversible Adverse Effect to the National Register-listed Aurora Inn and Vanderipe Building, which will be demolished as part of this proposal.
OPRHP would like to review the application and meet with appropriate Department of State (DOS) staff to discuss the accuracy of the statements contained therein before your agency issues its formal written findings.
We understand that the applicant Wells College (and/or Holt Architects on behalf of Wells College) sought variances from the Uniform Code to meet another New York State mandate, namely historic preservation. You advised that the petition states that Wells does not want to install a code-compliant interior stair at the Inn because it would prevent them from achieving preservation goals. This statement is both troubling and confusing: there should be no problem installing a stair of the code-mandated width because they are gutting the historic building.) This office also understands that the petition requests other variances on preservation grounds, and appreciates your willingness to mail or fax a copy of the College's application as requested prior to our meeting.
While this may be an unusual request, OPRHP feels that it is consistent with our agencies' long-standing cooperative relationship with respect to variances at historic properties and would like to explain our basis for making it.
Our cooperative relationship began early on when we realized that applicants were requesting variances on historic preservation grounds when they were in fact gutting the structure or performing other work that did not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.
This is not the first time that Wells or its consultants have misrepresented the preservation issues relating to this project. Holt Architects contacted us early to advise that they wanted to work closely with our office to address historic preservation issues given the project's location within the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. While we placed Holt's formal submission on hold pending receipt of more current information after we learned that the proposal had been revised, no additional information was ever provided. In the meantime, a Wells representative who had never contacted our office inaccurately advised the Village that OPRHP's lack of comment meant that we had no preservation concerns. (Our June 20, 2001 letter explains this in greater detail.)
Because we were waiting for the College's consultants to submit the requested information, we did not provide comments for your hearing.
While DEC regulations Part 617.5(c)(19) state that issues of compliance or noncompliance with the relevant local building are considered Type II actions, the granting of variances to the Uniform Code seems by definition to be a nonministerial or discretionary action. If granted, your Department's discretionary variance approval would enable three significant adverse impacts to two National Register-listed properties: the demolition of the Vanderipe Building, the complete gutting of the Aurora Inn, and the removal of historic additions that contribute to its significance (these facts are explained in our July 11 and 12, 2001 letters to Nancy Gil, Chair of the Aurora Planning Board, copies enclosed).
We also think you should know that this high-profile project has been very closely monitored by the community, the press and state representatives; the proposal to gut the National Register-listed Aurora Inn and raze the National Register-listed Vanderipe Building has also generated interest by state and national preservation organizations. For all these reasons OPRHP would like to review the College's petition and discuss this matter with the appropriate staff before you issue final written permits or approvals.
By copy of this letter we are advising the Village of this office's concern over the apparent misrepresentation of preservation issues in official documents submitted to the Department of State. Because this may cloud the validity of the variance process for this undertaking, we encourage the Village to refrain from permitting any work at these structures until this issue is resolved and a final, written decision regarding the applicant's request for variances is issued by your agency.
Thank you again for speaking with me yesterday. OPRHP looks forward to receiving a copy of the petition and the opportunity to discuss these procedural concerns with you. Please telephone me ...
Sincerely,
Richard M. Lord
Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator
Index at Top of Page
______________________________
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York� 12188-0189
August 24, 2001
Aurora Coalition
P.O. Box 334
Aurora, New York 13026
Dear Ms. Hindenlang:
Thank you for telephoning the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) to discuss the project noted above, which was reviewed by the Aurora Planning Board under pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). OPRHP shares your concern over what appear to be severe and substantive procedural flaws evident in the Planning Board's review of this undertaking.
OPRHP's interest in this undertaking and its impact to the Village of Aurora is not strictly procedural. OPRHP assisted with the 1980 listing of the Aurora Village-Wells College Historic District in the National Register of Historic Places, has been actively involved in the few preservation issues that arise---including Wells College's demolition of the individually-listed Aurora Grist Mill in 1992 without proper permits or environmental review---and provided technical assistance and grant administration services for the rehabilitation of the spectacular Public Library/Morgan Opera House facility.
The Auburn Citizen's August 19 editorial focused on some especially troubling aspects of the undertaking and suggested that "a little more caution, and a willingness to listen to dissenting opinion, would serve Aurora well." OPRHP appreciates that observation. As you know, the sponsor's architects expressed a desire to work with us given the properties' historic status; however, the dialogue ended when our position was misconstrued by another consultant who had never contacted our office, and we corrected the record by advising the Village that we were waiting for requested information that had never been received.
Similarly, the Planning Board Chair never responded to our request to comment as an Interested Party under SEQRA, never provided project information requested so that we could comment in that capacity, and, after our first two conversations, did not respond to letters or calls. This office and the public had no opportunity to comment on the final plans as they were provided just one day before the final hearing; even if we had, those comments could not have been considered because the Board ratified a resolution the Chair had prepared three days before the meeting. The fact that the public was prevented from commenting on the new plans at the August 16 is particularly unfortunate.
Most troubling was the reading of correspondence from Ralph Manna, Jr. of the Syracuse Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) office regarding issues of segmentation and the subsequent statement that the Board would ignore that counsel because DEC has no jurisdiction. While future events may yet prove that assertion inaccurate, the Board should realize that DEC's lack of permitting authority in no way diminishes its advisory role as the agency promulgating SEQRA regulations.
It is regrettable that a project intended to save the historic Aurora Inn will destroy its historic character in the process. One hopes that an institution of Wells' caliber would recognize its important stewardship role in a village with an architectural legacy so rich and intact. Many communities have watershed events that served to galvanize a preservation constituency: in New York it was the loss of Pennsylvania Station, and in Albany the demolition of thousands of nineteenth century rowhouses to make way for the Empire State Plaza. It appears that future generations may look back on the demolition of the Vanderipe Building, the partial demolition of the Aurora Inn, and the complete gutting of that remarkably intact structure as a most unfortunate period in the Village's past.
On the positive side, the Aurora Coalition---and you particularly---should be very, very proud of what you have accomplished in such a short time. Villagers who place a value on their architectural heritage and all aspects of the natural and built environment owe you a big "thank you" for responding to inaccurate and anecdotal information circulating in the community and keeping this issue in the forefront. OPRHP wishes you and the Coalition much success in your future endeavors.
As requested, I have attached a list of this office's concerns about the SEQRA review. As the Coalition considers its options for this and future undertakings that may affect Aurora's historic properties and special community character, I hope that you will call on OPRHP if we can assist in any way.
Thank you again for your special interest in preserving New York State's irreplaceable historic resources. Please telephone me at...
Sincerely,
Richard M. Lord
Index at Top of Page
Return to Village Project Page