Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board Meeting - June 4, 2026
Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board Meeting - June 4, 2026
The Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board met on June 4, 2026, to consider three items: a proposal for a mosque expansion at 925 Comstock Avenue, a certificate of appropriateness for exterior painting at 720 South Beech Street, and facade alterations at 713-15 East Genesee Street. Public comments were heard, and the board voted to deny the mosque expansion based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, approved the painting project, and provided positive feedback on the facade alterations with a recommendation for minor adjustments.
Public Comments & Testimony (Mosque Expansion)
- Kate (neighbor): Argued that the proposed expansion would dwarf historic houses to the east, that the copper-clad domes were incompatible with the historic district, and that the project's pavement and driveway would harm historic vegetation and character. She requested denial of the application.
- Bob Dacey (931 Comstock): Stated that Syracuse University sold the property for SU's Muslim students, but the trust was violated as the larger Muslim community took over, causing illegal parking. He argued the expansion should be stopped and the facility returned to its original purpose.
- Gary Engelhardt (117 Circle Road): Contended that the expansion is predicated on illegal parking; if parking restrictions are enforced, the building would be unusable. He called it "unwise" and warned against granting preferential treatment to religious organizations.
- Dr. Mohammed Mohammed (President, ISNI): Responded that the funeral services require the expansion and that parking is a city issue. He rejected calls to limit the mosque's congregation and noted the Jamesville site is for education, not burial.
- Ben Larson (Architect): Emphasized the religious necessity of proximity to the cemetery, the rapid revision timeline (two weeks), and that the proposal is a modest expansion for funeral services. He noted the cemetery at the Jamesville site was not approved, making this the only burial location.
Mosque Expansion (925 Comstock Avenue) – Discussion & Decision
- Board members expressed that the project's scale and massing are out of character with the historic residential district, citing Secretary of the Interior Standards #2 (retain historical character) and #9 (new construction must be compatible).
- Howard: Stated the spatial relationship with the environment and neighborhood scale are the main concerns; a smaller expansion or renovation from the inside out was not adequately considered.
- Nicole (recused): Noted the addition is out of touch with the historic character.
- Hillary: Questioned whether a smaller addition or interior renovation was considered.
- The board voted to deny the application, with a motion based on Standards #2 and #9, allowing the applicant to resubmit a revised design. The vote was 4-0-1 (one abstention). The motion carried, and the application was denied without prejudice.
Certificate of Appropriateness – 720 South Beech Street (Faro Christ Church)
- Applicant Able Ramirez and contractor William described a project to clean, repoint, and paint the exterior of the church, including pressure washing, mortar repair, and applying primer and two coats of weather-resistant paint. The brick will remain natural, with stucco areas painted a lighter color. Color swatches were provided.
- Sam Gruber (123 Clark Street, former Westcott Neighborhood Association president): Spoke in favor, highlighting the building's significance and urging protection of the stained glass windows by Henry Keck Studios. He supported cleaning but not painting the brick.
- The board raised questions about potential roof flashing leaks and requested historic standards for cleaning. They moved to approve the project as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
Facade Alterations – 713-15 East Genesee Street (Hampton Inn) – Continuation
- Applicant Nine Patel and architect Mark Moose presented a final window treatment: fiberglass/PVC composite fixed windows with a horizontal mullion to mimic double-hung style, set in the same location as original frames, with a warm stone color. Signage was also discussed: removal of old Parkview signs and new Hampton Inn signs on the canopy (front) and rear facade.
- The board expressed hesitation about the material longevity (30-year warranty vs. original wood lasting 100 years) but acknowledged cost constraints. They commented on the loss of brick sills on the rear building, where the proposed method would cut sills flush with brick and use aluminum panning. The board preferred retaining the sills or creating a thicker pan profile to maintain the shadow line. The architect agreed to adjust.
- Overall feedback was positive. The project will proceed to administrative approval through zoning.
Key Outcomes
- Mosque expansion at 925 Comstock Avenue: Denied (4-0-1), based on Secretary of the Interior Standards #2 and #9. The applicant may resubmit a revised design.
- 720 South Beech Street painting: Approved unanimously.
- 713-15 East Genesee Street facade alterations: Received positive comments; administrative approval to follow. The architect will address sill retention or adjustment.
Meeting Transcript
Require the mosque to remove the parking pavers used illegally for years on the current property. Thank you. Given its placement on the site, the expanded building would indeed dwarf these lower elevation historic houses to the east. Claiming that the large copper clad domes mimic characteristics in the historic district is at best humorous and at worst gaslighting. The size of the lot and the extent of construction activity would prohibit effective measures to protect this vegetation. Second pavement, removing the parking north of the proposed addition would mean less pavement than originally proposed, but the location and appearance of the driveway, and most importantly, its very purpose would be wholly inconsistent with the residential character of the historic district. Emergency vehicular access around the building might be someone's preference, but it is not required by regulation or law, and implying that is the case is disingenuous. Pavement along the eastern boundary would involve unavoidable soil compaction of the root systems for historic hedges and trees and the adjacent properties, leading to their decline in death. And third, the landscape. The revised proposal shows the property's most significant open space bifurcated by the proposed driveway, with no evidence of national intentional landscape design adjacent to it, nor is there any for the balance of the property. In addition, three other components are worthy of brief mention. A boundary fence of inappropriate design is still proposed, and it's unclear if it would provide effective screening. The proposed plantings outside this fence would serve no practical purpose, nor do they reflect historic character, and they would likely die in this location, which would only lead to a degrading of the historic character of the budding properties. Also, the applicant now offers to minimize light spill, but doesn't give a comprehensive view of how that would happen. And lastly, dumpsters, although perhaps necessary, are not features typical in this residential district, and it's unclear if their location and treatment would be appropriate. It's critical that these identified negative impacts be addressed in concert, for it's their cumulative effect that must be mitigated. Unfortunately, neither the original nor revised proposal does that. If the applicant had modified the existing building footprint to achieve a larger, regular, rectangular but still angled form, there would be a net increase in usable building space, and perhaps only a minor addition might be necessary. The resulting overall smaller footprint combined with a robust landscape design and elimination of the internal driveway might conform to the Secretary's standards, and in turn allow this board to meet its obligation under the zoning ordinance as well as avoid a negative declaration pursuant to seeker. But the proposal doesn't do that, and therefore I ask that you deny this application. Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak against or in opposition to the proposal? Come forward. Thank you. Bob Dacey, 931 Comstock, that's two doors down from the south of the mosque. Um the basic issue is that I'll just read from this thing. Um the Shaw administration, Syracuse University, sold that property in good faith that it would be used for its stated purpose as a place for SU's Muslim students to gather to socialize and worship. That's its purpose. That's why it was sold to them. That trust was soon violated as the larger Syracuse Muslim community took advantage of this facility. Parking was expanded into the front yard in the grassy area next to the driveway. What followed was a consistent breach of trust and lack of respect for the neighborhood. Constant expansion of the mosque congregation has caused illegal parking problems south to Manley Field House, north to Stratford, and around the block into the neighboring east of uh Comstock, excuse me. When the second lock was purchased, promises were made that it would not be developed or used as a parking lot immediately. That promise was broken. Cars were often parked there to test through the residence resolve. Now, a huge edifice is planned for uh for further to further disrupt the character of this preservation neighborhood. This is not a time for expansion. It is a time to honor the purpose of the agreement to service the now 200 Muslim students at Syracuse University. Is a time to reduce this facility's impact on the neighborhood and permanently move the expanded congregation to one of their more fitting facilities and return the Comstock building back to its intended facility and function. Thank you. Please stop this. Thank you. Anyone else here wishing to speak in opposition? Gary Engelhardt 117 Circle Road. So again, if we step back just for a moment and we look at all the comments that have been given to you, what we see is I think kind of an overwhelming case for you guys to reject this application. Now let's just for the moment say that you've you you you disagreed with my assessment and you thought that it was it was worthy of of being uh approved. Uh let's uh what I want you to consider is the distinction between is it legal versus is it wise? Is it a wise decision to let this go forward? And let me give you let me give you uh a reason why I think it's very unwise to do this.
openpublica.com