Colgate Neighbors Lawsuit

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 2203455
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 53

MINDY LEE ZOGHLIN
300 State Street, Suite 502 Instrument: EFILING INDEX NUMBER
Rochester, NY 14614
Control #: 201909100182
Index #: E2019008556
Date: 09/10/2019
COLGATE NEIGHBORS Time: 8:05:54 AM

THOMPSON, ROBERT F
WILDER, LAURA
GLICK, STEWART
SCHWARTZ, LISA
CITY OF ROCHESTER
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER
INGRASSIA, ANGELO
ROC GOODMAN LLC
State Fee Index Number $165.00

County Fee Index Number $26.00
State Fee Cultural Education $14.25
State Fee Records $4.75 Employee: JM
Management
Total Fees Paid: $210.00
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
ADAM J BELLO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK

201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
STATEOFNEWYORK
SUPREMECOURT MONROECOUNTY
COLGATE NEIGHBORS, ROBERT F. THOMPSON,

LAURA WILDER, STEWART GLICK, LISA SCHWARTZ,
KEVIN FAGER, RAJESH SINGARAVELU,
MICHAEL LEACH, KEITH ABEL, ROBIN FISHER,
CHARLENE SHERWOOD, JOHN GRIFFITH,
RACHEL HALL, WILLIAM SKILLERN, ALISSA KARL,
PAUL BROOKES, DENNIS FOLEY, TERRY QUATAERT,
JOSEPH PUCEK, MATTHEWTURNER,
EDWARD ECKERT III, SHIELA MURPHY, AND
JEFFREYSCIORTINO,
Petitioners, INDEXNO.:
vs.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL,

CITY OF ROCHESTER MANAGER OF ZONING,
ANGELO INGRASSIA, ROCGOODMAN LLC,
COLGATE ROCHESTER CROZER DIVINITY SCHOOL,
JOHN DOES 1 - 20, AND ABC CORPS. 1 - 20,
Respondents.
SUMMONS
To the above named respondents:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the plaintiff's attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete
if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of
your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
Petitioners/Plaintiffs designate Monroe County as the place of trial pursuant to CPLR

§503(a), because one or more parties are residents of Monroe County, and 506(b) because this
is the judicial district in which the material events took place and plaintiffs reside in Monroe
County.
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
'?
Dated:
^
THEZOGHLINGRODPPLLC
Mindy L. Zoghlin, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioners-
Plaintiffs
Office and Post Office Address
300 State Street, Suite 502
Rochester, New York 14614
Tel.: (585) 434-0790
E-mail: Mindv@ZogLaw.com
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
STATEOFNEWYORK
SUPREMECOURT MONROE COUNTY
COLGATE NEIGHBORS, ROBERT F. THOMPSON,

LAURA WILDER, STEWART GLICK, LISA SCHWARTZ,
KEVIN FAGER, RAJESH SINGARAVELU,
MICHAEL LEACH, KEITH ABEL, ROBIN FISHER,
CHARLENE SHERWOOD, JOHN GRIFFITH,
RACHEL HALL, WILLIAM SKILLERN, ALISSA KARL,
PAUL BROOKES, DENNIS FOLEY, TERRY QUATAERT,
JOSEPH PUCEK, MATTHEWTURNER,
EDWARD ECKERT III, SHIELA MURPHY, AND
JEFFREYSCIORTINO, VERIFIED PETITION
Petitioners, INDEXNO.:
vs.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL,

CITY OF ROCHESTER MANAGER OF ZONING,
ANGELO INGRASSIA, ROCGOODMAN LLC,
COLGATE ROCHESTER CROZER DIVINITY SCHOOL,
JOHN DOES 1 - 20, AND ABC CORPS. 1 - 20,
Respondents.
Petitioners, by their attorneys The Zoghlin Group PLLC, complain of respondents as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This combined special proceeding / declaratory judgment action involves the
proposed redevelopment ofthe Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School Campus at 1100
"Divinity School
South Goodman Street in the City of Rochester, Monroe County, New York (the
Campus").
2. The Divinity School Campus is a 22.42-acre parcel of land formerly used as the
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.
Page lof50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
3. The Divinity School Campus is bordered by Highland Park to the west, low
density (R-l) residential zoning district to the north, medium density (R-2) zoning district to the
south and residential land in the Town of Brighton to the east.
4. 44% of the Divinity School Campus has steep slopes in excess of 15%.
5. The Divinity School Campus includes four buildings that are designated as local
landmarks, and eligible for listing in the State and National Registers1.
6. Respondents Angelo Ingrassia and ROC Goodman LLC (the "Developer") seek to
redevelop the Divinity School Campus with a combination of residential apartments, bed and
breakfast, a school, banquet facility, offices, hotel and/ or independent living facility (the
"Proposed Redevelopment Project").
7. This combined Article 78 and Declaratory Judgment proceeding challenges
respondent Zoning Manager's decision to issue a Neg Dec for the Proposed Redevelopment
Project and the City Council's decision to create the PDD #21 Vistas at Highland zoning district
"Rezoning
and Highland rezone the Divinity School Property to PDD #21 Vistas at Highland (the
Determinations").
8. In this action, petitioners seek:
a. An order annulling and vacating the Neg Dec pursuant to Article 78;
b. Annulling and vacating the Rezoning Determinations pursuant to Articles 31 and
78;
c. A preliminary injunction prohibiting respondents Angelo Ingrassia and ROC
1 The Local Landmark designation does not include the northeast

portion of the Divinity School Campus where the
two dormitory buildings were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's (Andrews House and Saunders House) and a
separate parcel at 117-125 Highland Parkwaywhich was subdivideds and sold off).
Page2of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
Goodman LLC ("ROC Goodman") from commencing any site work at the Divinity
School Campus;
d. A permanent injunction prohibiting Angelo Ingrassia and ROC Goodman from
commencing any site work at the Divinity School Campus; and
e. Attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.
THE DIVINITY SCHOOL CAMPUS and ENVIRONS
9. The Divinity School Campus was initially built in two stages in 1932 and 1936. It
was the work of locally prominent landscape architect Alling S. DeForest and nationally
prominent New York City architect James Gamble Rogers. The Campus is distinctive because of
its Collegiate Gothic and Tudor Revival architecture and its landscape architecture.
10. The Divinity School campus is also historically significant for its association with
numerous social and cultural figures and events. It has historically been a center of religious
and academic inquiry that educated, fostered, and supported many leaders in the Civil Rights
movement including Bernice Fisher, Mordecai Wyatt Johnston, Howard Thurman, and Malcolm
X.
11. In 2017 the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation determined
that the Divinity School Campus (including historic buildings as well as the overall landscaping)
are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
12. Directly to the west and south of the Divinity School Campus is Rochester's first
municipal park, Highland Park. Highland Park consists of 148 acres of manicured landscapes,
greenspace, an arboretum, walking trails, and informal sports fields.
13. A significant portion of the Divinity School Campus (primarily Montgomery Hall,
Page3of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
Strong Hall, and the historic south lawn and wooded western edge of the site are visible from
Highland Park.
14. The Divinity School Campus was designed to visually connect to Highland Park.
Monroe County Parks stated the "importance of the design and architecture of the buildings
"one with the landscape

being designed plan" as discussed in the New York Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Resource Evaluation.
15. Directly adjacent to Highland Park is 193-acre Mt. Hope Cemetery, which has
served as public greenspace since its inception in 1838 (before public parks).
16. About 1400 feet east of the Divinity School Campus is Persimmon Park, an
approximately 10-acre forested park.
17. A few blocks north of the property is Ellwanger and Barry Park, a small
neighborhood park that has playground equipment for residents and their children to enjoy.
PARTIES
18. Petitioner COLGATE NEIGHBORS is an unincorporated association of individuals
who live in the vicinity of the Divinity School Campus. COLGATE NEIGHBORS was formed for
the purposes of, among other things, advancing by any legal means the betterment of the
community of the City of Rochester and Town of Brighton by: encouraging and advocating for
open, honest and transparent local government; adherence to local zoning, land use and other
laws; and education, litigation and advocacy related thereto. COLGATE NEIGHBORS's
constituents come from the entire city of Rochester community. Many COLGATE NEIGHBORS's
members reside in the immediate area that would be directly and adversely affected by the
facts and circumstances pleaded herein. Several of COLGATE NEIGHBORS's members reside
Page4of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
within 500 feet or less of the Divinity School Campus.
19. Petitioners LAURA WILDER and ROBERT F. THOMPSON own and reside at 1068
South Goodman Street, Rochester, New York. The Wilder/ Thompson residence was once part
of the Divinity School Property and is adjacent to the Divinity School Campus. Laura Wilder and
Robert F. Thompson will suffer adverse visual impacts from the Proposed Development,
including adverse impacts from the presence of Buildings 100 and 200 and excessive shadowing
over their property. The Proposed Development parking lot is within close proximity of the
Wilder/Thompson property and will cause a loss of privacy, noise and light pollution to their
rear yard. The loss of trees, construction of buildings and parking areas will further exacerbate
the erosion of a 45- degree steep slope that runs along the southern border of their property
both during and after construction. The Proposed Development will result in increased noise
and traffic at and around Laura Wilder and Robert F. Thompson's home and will degrade the
character of their neighborhood and their quality of life. Laura Wilder and Robert F. Thompson
are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
20. Petitioners STEWART GLICK and LISA SCHWARTZ own and reside at 33
Greenview Drive, Rochester, New York. Their property is in the immediate neighborhood
surrounding the Divinity School Campus. Stewart Glick and Lisa Schwartz will suffer adverse
visual impacts from the Proposed Development, including adverse impacts from the presence
of Buildings 100 and 200. The Proposed Development will result in increased noise from
proposed outdoor entertainment venues and commercial activities will impact the quiet
enjoyment of the Glick/ Schwartz home. Due to the poor ingress and egress from the Proposed
Development, an increase in traffic at and around the Glick /Schwartz home will occur as the
Page5of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
street they reside on will be used as a cut through and will degrade the character of their
neighborhood and their quality of life. Stewart Glick and Lisa Schwartz are Members of
COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
21. Petitioner KEVIN FAGER owns and resides at 34 Greenview Drive, Rochester,
New York. His property is across Greenview Drive from a heavily wooded area that comprises
the Divinity School Campus. Kevin Fager is a retired science and math teacher. The loss of over
100 trees, many of which are over 50 years old, will remove wildlife habitat and the extensive
root systems that anchor the fragile soils of the glacial moraine which in turn will affect the
stability of the slope. Storm runoff will saturate the remaining soils causing more erosion. The
loss of trees will eliminate the natural noise barrier they create and will affect the quiet
ambience in this neighborhood. Towering apartment buildings violate the character of this
neighborhood which is primarily single family, owner- occupied dwellings impacting his
property value and violate the aesthetics of the existing Divinity School Campus. The increase in
traffic will diminish the walkability of the neighborhood. The Proposed Development has
resulted in families leaving the street because ofthe prospect ofthis poorly conceived
development and resulting hazards. The Proposed Development will endanger the habitat of
screech owls, red tailed hawks, turkeyvultures, turkeys, song birds, rabbits, foxes, deer, coyote
and other assorted wildlife that make use of this greenway that he has observed and enjoyed.
Kevin Fager is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
22. Petitioner RAJESH SINGARAVELU owns and resides at 55 Highland Parkway,
Rochester, New York. The Singaravelu residence is adjacent to a heavily wooded area that is
part ofthe Divinity School Campus. Rajesh Singaravelu will suffer adverse visual impacts from
Page6of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
the Proposed Development, including adverse impacts from the presence of Buildings 100 and
200 and excessive shadowing and loss of natural direct sunlight over his property. The
Proposed Development will result in increased erosion on the steep slope of his property as
well as increased noise and light pollution from Building 100 especially, which will only be
exacerbated six months of the year when the trees are without full foliage. The Proposed
Development will also dramatically increase traffic at and around Rajesh Singaravelu's home
and will degrade the character of his neighborhood and his quality of life. The lack of significant
viable public transportation alternatives and infrastructure available at the top of the Campus
necessitates that luxury apartment dwellers will drive and add their cars to the traffic at a blind
intersection at Goodman Street S. and Pinetum Road. Rajesh Singaravelu is a Member of
COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
23. Petitioner MICHAEL LEACH owns and resides at 88 Highland Parkway, Rochester,
New York. His property is across Highland Parkway from a steeply sloped area that comprises
the Divinity School Campus. Michael Leach will suffer adverse impacts from the Proposed
Development proposed uses. Adverse impacts include excessive shadowing of his property,
light and noise pollution, and increased traffic due to the development and placement of
Buildings 100 and 200 and redevelopment ofAndrews and Saunders hlalls. The placement of
Buildings 100 and 200 and their parking lots will significantly adversely impact the flora, fauna,
and community recreation uses ofthe wooded areas on the steep slopes, and stabilityofthose
steep slopes themselves, at the western, northern, and eastern edges ofthe property The
Proposed Development will degrade the character of his neighborhood and quality of
life. Michael Leach is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
Page7of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
24. Petitioners KEITH ABEL and ROBIN FISHER own and reside at 45 Highland
Parkway, Rochester, New York. Their property is adjacent to a heavily wooded area that
comprises the Divinity School Campus. Keith Abel and Robin Fisher will suffer adverse visual
impacts from the Proposed Development, including adverse impacts from the presence of
Buildings 100 and 200 and excessive shadowing over their property. The Proposed
Development will result in increased noise and traffic at and around the Abel / Fisher home and
will degrade the character of their neighborhood and their quality of life. Keith Abel and Robin
Fisher are members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
25. Petitioners CHARLENE SHERWOOD and JOHN GRIFFITH own and reside at 171
Highland Parkway, Rochester, New York. Their property is within 500 feet ofthe area that
comprises the Divinity School Campus. Charlene Sherwood and John Griffith will suffer adverse
of Buildings 100 and 200 and excessive shadowing over their property. The Proposed
Development will result in increased noise and traffic at and around the Sherwood / Griffith
home and will degrade the character of their neighborhood and their quality of life. Charlene
Sherwood and John Griffith are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
26. Petitioners WILLIAM SKILLERN and RACHEL HALL own and reside at 7 Summit
Drive Rochester, New York. Their property is adjacent to a heavily wooded and steeply sloped
areas that comprise the East side of Divinity School Campus. William Skillern and Rachel Hall
will suffer adverse impacts from the Proposed Development's proposed uses. The Proposed
Development will increase erosion ofthe hillside both due to construction activities and from
snow removal to the severely minimized permeable areas compromising mature trees and
Page8of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
slopes, the current storm runoff system, neighboring septic fields and the Town of Brighton's
storm sewer. The Proposed Development's lighting plan and increased traffic will create both
glare and trespass spillage from the up-slope lighting greatly diminishing nighttime vision in
their deliberately dark street light free neighborhood. The Proposed Development will greatly
degrade the character of their neighborhood and their quality of life with new views greatly
inconsistent with the historic nature of the site including Building 200 towering 35 feet above
the east wing of Hope Lodge as well as the 16 foot high retaining wall and a large water feature
added to but totally inconsistent with the Olmstead inspired historic slopes. William Skillern
and Rachel Hall are Members ofCOLGATE NEIGHBORS.
27. Petitioner ALISSA KARL owns and resides at 100 Highland Parkway, Rochester,
New York, with her family. Her property faces the north ridge of the Divinity School campus.
Alissa Karl will suffer adverse visual impacts from the Proposed Development, including adverse
impacts from excessive shadowing of her property created by the presence of Buildings 100 and
200, and light pollution from the lighting necessary and proposed for the Planned
Development. The Proposed Development will create increased noise from outdoor seating
establishments that are permitted by the zoning ofthe Proposed Development; the Proposed
Development will also create increased traffic on Alissa Karl's street, resulting in both noise and
increased threats to the safety of her school-aged child. The Proposed Development will
degrade the character of her neighborhood and her quality of life. Alissa Karl is a Member of
COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
28. Petitioner PAUL BROOKES resides at 30 Howland Avenue in the town of
Brighton, New York. His property is to the east of the Divinity School Campus. He and his family
Page 9 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
will suffer adverse visual and quality-of-life impacts. The Summit/Howland neighborhood which
comprises the eastern boundary ofthe site has no street-lighting and is dark at night, so light
pollution from the proposed development will be significant. In addition, Howland Avenue has
no sidewalks, such that any additional traffic in the vicinity of the development will increase
hazard to pedestrians. Summit/Howland is largely rural (average lot size % acre), so the
proposed development of high-density housing will radically alter the character of the
neighborhood. Paul Brookes is a member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
29. Petitioners DENNIS FOLEY and TERRY QUATAERT own and reside at 180 Highland
Parkway, Rochester, New York. Their property is adjacent to a heavily wooded area that
comprises the Divinity School Campus. Dennis Foley and Terry Q.uataert will suffer adverse
of Buildings 100 and 200 and excessive shadowing overtheir property. The Proposed
Development will result in increased noise and traffic at and around the Foley / Quataert home
and witl degrade the character of their neighborhood and their quality of life. Dennis Foley and
Terry Quataert are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
30. Petitioners JOSEPH PUCEK and MATTHEW TURNER own and reside at 83
Highland Park, Rochester, New York. Their property is adjacent to a steeply sloped area that
comprises the Divinity School Campus. They will suffer adverse impacts from the Proposed
Development proposed uses. The hillside is approximately 65-degree incline. The Pucek/
Turner property line is 13 feet behind the Divinity School Campus. Their 20-foot-high garage is
buried with 10 feet of soil erosion that has accumulated over the past several years. The
Proposed Development will increase the erosion of the hillside during construction and
Page 10 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
thereafter. The Proposed Development will endanger the health of many of the mature trees
that assist in stabilizing the soils endangering a garage and other structures on the Pucek/
Turner property. The Proposed Development will result in increased traffic and noise at and
around the Pucek / Turner household and will degrade the character of their neighborhood and
quality of life. The lighting necessary and proposed for the Planned Development will result in
light spillage into the Pucek/ Turner yard and create a nuisance. Joseph Pucek and Matthew
Turner are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
31. Petitioner EDWARD ECKERT III owns and resides at 80 Highland Parkway,
Rochester, New York. His property is across Highland Parkway from a heavily wooded area that
comprises the Divinity School Campus. Edward Eckert III will suffer adverse visual impacts from
the Proposed Development/including adverse impacts from the presence of Buildings 100 and
200 and excessive shadowing over his property. The Proposed Development will result in
increased noise and traffic at and around Edward Eckert lll's home and will degrade the
character of his neighborhood and his quality of life. Edward Eckert III is a Member of COLGATE
NEIGHBORS.
32. Petitioner SHEILA MURPHY owns and resides at 129 Highland Parkway,
Rochester, New York. Her property is north of the area that comprises the Divinity School
Campus. Sheila Murphy will suffer adverse visual impacts from the Proposed Development,
including adverse impacts from the presence of Buildings 100 and 200 and light pollution from
the lighting necessary for the Proposed Planned Development. This light pollution will
irrevocably change the nature of the Divinity School Campus and negatively impact the
neighborhood as well as the wildlife that lives on and travels through the 22.4 acres, especially
Page 11 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
migrating birds that use Cobbs Hill Park, Pinnacle Hill, Persimmon Park, Divinity School Campus,
Highland Park and Mt. Hope Cemetery as a resting stops along their migratory paths. Sheila
Murphy decries the loss of green space within a city as well as the loss of habitat for wildlife.
Sheila Murphy has observed a variety of wildlife on the Campus including foxes, deer, rabbits
and a variety of birds including hawks, vultures, screech owls, rose-breasted grosbeaks, orioles
and red-bellied, hairy, downy and pileated woodpeckers. Sheila Murphy feels strongly that the
connected areas of glacial moraine and green-space need to be protected for wildlife and
people and that these are threatened by the Proposed Development. The loss of trees whether
small, medium or large is short-sighted as the trees provide habitat, beauty/shade and the tree
roots help to prevent erosion on the fragile glacial moraine and steep hill. The potential loss of
the specimen trees as well as the largest trees including the elder and iconic sycamores is not in
the best interest of this property and this city. The Proposed Development will result in
increased noise, including from HVAC systems, cars and people as well as from outdoor seating
establishments, etc., that are permitted by the zoning of the Proposed Development and
increased traffic at and around Sheila Murphy's home and will degrade the character of her
neighborhood and her quality of life. Sheila Murphy has great concerns regarding the egress
near Maison Properties that exits onto Highland Parkway; ifthis is opened fortraffic
(construction, delivery and tenant use), it will completely change her quality of life and that of
her neighbors. As a person who walks her dog multiple times daily, Sheila Murphy can attest
that there are many dog walkers, bike riders, runners and walkers, ranging from very young to
elderly, and that neighbors, including many children on Highland Parkway and surrounding
streets, including Brighton streets to the east, spend time on their front lawns and in the
Page 12 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
Triangle Park, socializing, interacting, playing and, helping each other. Their sense of
community is strong and increased traffic resulting from the Proposed Development will impact
the safety and well-being of all. The increased traffic will also impact the ability to safely cross
Goodman St. to visit Highland Park. Sheila Murphy has strong convictions that the Proposed
Planned Development is not consistent with the tranquil nature ofthis historically significant
and rare site within the city. Sheila Murphy is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
33. Petitioner JEFFREY SCIORTINO owns and resides at 22 Highland Parkway,
Rochester, New York. His property faces the Divinity School Campus. Jeffrey Sciortino will suffer
adverse impactsfrom the Proposed Development proposed uses. The Proposed Development
allows commercial scale buildings bordering the Rl district neighborhood will negatively impact
the property value of Sciortino's residence by increasing noise and traffic in a low-density
residential neighborhood. The Proposed Development, specifically Building 100 and Buitding
200, will create a significant visual impact particularly in the 5 months a year when there will be
no shielding from tree foliage, and will shade the street and neighborhood. The Proposed
Development will degrade the character of his neighborhood and quality of life. Jeffrey
Sciortino is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.
34. Upon information and belief, Respondent CITY OF ROCHESTER is a municipality
organized and existing under New York General City Law.
35. Upon information and belief, Respondent CITY OF ROCHESTER MANAGER OF
ZONING is the City officer, agent or employee created by Rochester Code section 120-182.
36. Upon information and belief, CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL is the governing
body ofthe CITY OF ROCHESTER.
Page 13 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
37. Upon information and belief, ANGELO INGRASSIA is an individual residing in
Monroe County and co-applicant for the Proposed Development Project.
38. Upon information and belief, ROC GOODMAN LLC is a domestic limited liability
company formed on April 3, 2018 and co-applicant for the Proposed Redevelopment Project
39. Upon information and belief, the COLGATE ROCHESTER DIVINITY SCHOOL is a
New York educational corporation and owns the Divinity School Campus by virtue of a deed
recorded on September 11,1928 in the Monroe County Clerk's Office at liber 1454, page 139.
40. JOHN DOES are other persons or entities that may be necessary parties to this
action that have not yet presently been identified.
41. ABC CORPS. are other persons or entities that may be necessary parties to this
action that have not yet presently been identified.
THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
42. The Proposed Redevelopment Project involves the rezoning of the Divinity
School Campus from Institutional Planned Development District - Colgate Divinity School, to
Planned Development District #21 - Colgate (PD#21).
43. The PD is intended to facilitate the reuse of five existing buildings and the
construction of a four-story 52-unit multifamily building without underground parking, a 4-story
52-unit multifamily dwelling with 32 underground parking spaces.
44. The Developer proposes to reuse the remaining existing historic structures as
some combination ofresidential, lodging, office, independent livingfacility, banquet,
conference and other non-residential uses.
45. The proposal includes the subdivision of the Divinity School parcel into six
Page 14 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
parcels.
46. The Rezoning Resotution authorizes the following uses on PD #21:
Lotl Lot2 Lot3 Lot4 Lot5 Lot6
^ multifamily multifamily singlefamily schools, independent Subarea 1:

d uses dwellings dwellings dwellings, banquet and living makes
and and officesand conference facilities, driveways,
independen independe bed and facilities, hotelsand parking
t living nt living breakfasts places of outdoor lots,
facilities facilities lodging worship, terraces loading
establishment multifamily permitted spaces,
s (including dwellings, accessory
outdoor independent storage
seating) living buildings
facilities, and
officesand certain
outdoor other
terraces accessory
structures
Subarea 2:
accessory
buildings
and
structures
and
stormwat
er
detention
or
retention
ponds
Special Commerci None. Within Within Within Subarea
permit aluses in Montgomery StrongHall: Trevor Hall: 1:
uses multifamil Hall: Day Day care community ancillary
y care centers, centers, centers, parking
dwellings health clubs, health clubs, private clubs garages.
artist studios artiststudios and lodges, Subarea
and galleries, and galleries, daycare 2: None.
museums, museums, centers,
community community health clubs,
centers, centers, clinics,
private clubs private clubs offices,
and lodges,
Page 15 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
retail sales and lodges, multi-family

and service, clinics. dwellings.
restaurants, Limited Limited
live-work outdoor outdoor
space. entertainme entertainme
Limited nt and music nt and music
outdoor
entertainme
nt and music
47. The Rezoning Resolution makes "solar cotlectors" and "wind energy conversion
systems" among the permitted accessory uses throughout the PD #21 district.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
SEQRA
48. On March 11, 2019 the Developer submitted a Full Environmental Assessment
Form ("FEAF") to the City to commence the environmental review process under the New York
State Environmental Quality Revie Act ("SEQRA").
49. On June 30, 2019 and July 26, 2019, the Developer submitted revised FEAFs to
the City.
50. On August12,2019, the City of Rochester Manager of Zoning ("Zoning
Manager") issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the Proposed
"Neg Dec"). A copy of the Neg Dec is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Redevelopment Project (the
REZONING
51. On May 24, 2019 the Developer submitted an application to the City of
Rochester to rezone the Divinity School from Institutional Planned Development to a new
Planned Development District.
52. The Divinity School Campus has been zoned Institutional Planned development
Page 16 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
(IPD) since the 1975 City f Rochester Code.
53. The IPD zoning district was not incorporated into the present Zoning Code that
went into effect in 2003.
54. The 2003 Zoning Map redesignate the Divinity School Campus into one of the
new zoning districts that now exist.
55. The Divinity School Campus was not considered in the Rochester 2010:
Renaissance Plan.
56. On August 20,2019, the City of Rochester passed resolutions to amend the
Zoning Code to add Planned Development District No. 21 - The Vistas at Highland and to
change the zoning classification of the Divinity School Campus to Planned Development District
No.21.
PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES
47. Petitioners have exhausted their administrative remedies.
48. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.
49. No previous application has been made for the relief sought herein.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY FAILED TO TAKE A "HARD LOOK"
AT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
50. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 - 49 as if set forth herein at length.
51. The basic purpose of SEQRA is to incorporate the consideration of environmental
factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of state and local government
agencies at the "earliest possible time." To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all
agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a
Page 17 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
significant effect on the environment. When an action may have a significant effect, the agency
must minimize adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable. ECL 8-0103;
6NYCRR617.1(c).
"To
52. Early environmental review of a proposed action serves three purposes:
relate environmental considerations to the inception ofthe planning process, to inform the
public and other public agencies as early as possible about proposed actions that may
significantly affect the quality of the environment, and to solicit comments which will assist the
agency in the decision-making process in determining the environmental consequences of a
proposed action." ECL 8-0109(4).
53. SEQRA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS")
"may
when a proposed project have a significant effect on the environment." ECL 8-0109[2]
and6NYCRR617.7(b)(3).
"may," there
54. Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is
is a relatively low threshotd for issuance of a Pos Dec and preparation of an EIS. Matter of
Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v. Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 (1995); (Omni Partners LP
(/. County ofNassau, 237 AD2d 440 (2d Dept. 1997).
55. Moreover, a Type 1 action (as is the one here) carries with it the presumption
that it is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the environment and may require an EIS.
An EIS is required when the lead agency determines that the action as proposed may include
the potential for at least one significant adverse impact to the environment.
Pagel8of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
"No agency involved in any action shall

56. Compliance with SEQRA is mandatory.
carry out, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of SEQRA." 6
NYCRR617.3(a).
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Adverse Environmental Impacts to Steep
Slopes
57. According to the FEAF, 44% of the Project site has steep slopes of 15% or
greater. FEAF, Part 1,para. E(2)(f).
58. Construction on steep slopes (greater than 15%) often results in adverse impacts
including land slippage, erosion, changes to stormwater runoff quantity and location, visual
impacts, and safety issues forvehicular access. Upstream and downstream habitats and
resources can be affected by erosion and sedimentation. Unstable soils can cause landslides or
slippage after construction, creating ecological damage as well as unsafe conditions.
59. Construction on steep slopes can change the pattern of runoff and the quantity
of runoff, thus impacting soil stability and down slope areas.
60. Steep slopes are usually part of a significant landscape characteristic (including
the ridgelines) that when altered, can change the visual quality of the area. Providing access for
sites on steep slopes can cause any of the above issues as well as be a safety issue.
61. Projects with extensive areas of steep slopes greater than 15% pose a higher risk
of stormwater runoff and erosion valley streams and water bodies and typically warrant
classification as having a potentially large environmental impact.
Page 19 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
62. The Neg Dec must be set aside because the Lead Agency failed to take a hard
look at potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to steep slopes caused by siting
the Project at the Divinity School Campus.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take A "Hard Look" At Adverse Environmental Impacts Associated
With the Removal And Excavation Of More Than 1,000 Tons Of Natural Material, Much Of
Which In Landmark Protected Areas
63. According to the Developer, the Project would involve excavation of 15,500
cubic yards of material, and 4703 cubic yards of net excavation. FEAF, Part 1 D(2)((a)(ii).
64. The excavations would encroach on the following Landmark protected areas:
o Area cut for building 100 and parking lot area in north west part of Site;
o Proposed retaining walls along norther Site boundary;
o Areas of fill for parking lot expansion ion south east part of Site;
o Proposed retaining wall in south east part of Site;
o Areas of fill for parking area near President's House in south west part of Site;
and
o Earth moving activities in west part of Site.
o Excavation necessary to construct a retention pond in the south west corner of

the site (not detailed on excavation map).
o Excavation to connect drainage piping from the north side of the Site to the
retention pond in the south west corner ofthe site (not detailed on excavation
map).
o Excavation to construct sidewalks on the west and south side of the site (not
detailed on excavation map).
65. The excavation encroachments into Landmark protected areas have the
potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Page 20 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
66. A Mined-Land Reclamation permit may be required because the Project calls for
excavation of more than 750 cubic yards.
67. In any event, proposed projects that are much larger in scale, and near sensitive
environmental features typically have large environmental impacts.
look at potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with excavating and
removing over 1000 tons of natural material from the Divinity School Campus, much of which is
in Landmark Protected areas.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Adverse Environmental Impacts to Unique
and Sensitive Geologic Features
69. The FEAF admits that the Site includes unique and sensitive geological features
such as glacial moraine2, steep slopes, undulating topography and heavily wooded areas on
slopes. FEAF Part 1 (E)(2)(g).
70. Moreover, the Project proposes sewer lines extensions dedicated to the RPWD
to serve multiple lots, even though the FEAF Part 1 D(2)(d)(iii) explicitly states that no sewer
line extension will be necessary.
71. The Lead Agency failed to take a hard look at potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts associated with trenching the sewer lines.
look at potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to unique and sensitive geological
2 A moraine is an accumulation of earth and stones carried and finally deposited by a

glacier.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moraine
Page 21 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
features such as glacial moraine, steep slopes, undulating topography, and heavily wooded
areas on steep slopes.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts to
Wildlife
73. The Divinity School Campus sits directly in a "green ribbon" extending from the
Genesee River to Cobbs Hill Park.
74. The Proposed Development will allow the use of wind and solar generators.
Wind generation systems will endanger the birds of prey that now inhabit the Bell Tower on the
site.
75. The Divinity School Campus is an important wildlife corridor habitat frequented
by deer, turkey, foxes, herons, falcons, red tail hawks, screech owls, and other species.
76. The Divinity Schoot Campus supports habitat those species.
77. The Project will disturb this unique space and result in loss of wildlife habitat for
non-endangered plant and animal species, causing a large adverse impact to land.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take A "Hard Look" at Adverse Noise and Visual Impacts
Associated with Tree Removal
78. The Project will remove existing treed areas that presently act as a noise and
light buffer for adjacent residential properties. FEAF Part 1, D(2)(m) and (n). T
79. This will result in potentially significant noise and light impacts to those homes.
look at potentially significant adverse noise and visual impacts associated with tree removal.
Page 22 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Recreation Impacts
81. The Project contains minimal pedestrian circulation that connects buildings to
each otherand the neighborhood.
82. The Divinity School Campus is a critical link in establishing a trail facility that
would connect many City neighborhoods and parks.
look at potentially significant adverse recreation impacts.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take A "Hard Look" at Adverse Visual Impacts to Adjacent
Properties
84. The Project will remove existing treed areas that presently act as a noise and
light buffer for adjacent residential properties. FEAF Part 1, D(2)(m) and (n).
85. Upon information and belief, the Proposed Development will cast shadows on to
the adjacent single-family residences to the north, northwest, and east ofthe Divinity School
Campus. The grounds for this belief are the City Planning Commission Meeting minutes of
August 20,2019,page 17 - 18 of 27, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
86. Moreover, building 100 will block sunlight for some of the adjacent properties
during times of the year when the trees are without leaves and the sun is low in the sky. See
Letters from Laura Wilder and Bob Thompson with enclosures dated June 26, 2019 and July 1,
2019, copies ofwhich is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
87. Upon information and belief, the proposed development will place tall buildings
towering about 100 feet above the backyard of adjacent properties. The grounds for this belief
are the City Planning Commission Meeting minutes of August 20, 2019,page 20 of 27, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Page23of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
The Lead Agency Failed to Take A "Hard Look" at Increased Erosion from Physical Disturbance
88. The Project has the potential to cause significant erosion impacts from
stormwater runoff because 15,500 CY of earth will be moved in and/or adjacent to a Site that
has 44% steep slopes over 15% grade.,
look at potentially significant adverse erosion impacts associated with the physical disturbance
ofland.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a Hard Look at Increased Risk of Flooding
90. The construction of additional impervious surfaces adjacent to a Site with 44%
steep slopes over 15% grade has the potential for moderate to large flooding impacts.
91. The Neg Dec must be set aside because the Lead Agency failed to take a hard look
at potentially significant adverse ftooding impacts associated with the Project.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Aesthetic Impacts to Officially Designated
Local Scenic or Aesthetic Resources.
92. Cotgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School campus features architecturally and
historically significant buildings as well as a historic designed landscape.
93. The Collegiate Gothic style buildings, which include a chapel, dormitories,
classroom building, and President's residence, were designed by noted architect James Gamble
Rogers in the 1930s.
94. The tandscape was designed by noted Rochester landscape architect, Alling
DeForest.
Page 24 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
95. The Divinity School Campus was specifically designed to place a single tower
between Cobbs Hills and the University library in order to symbolically link the intellectual,
aesthetic and divine aspects of the community. The Divinity School's first President, Dr.
Beaven, explained the landscape design as follows:
After many years of planning and work, we come this week

[October 31,1932] to the fulfillment of a dream and the
completion of a task as we dedicate these buildings. We decided
early that there must be a tower overtopping whatever buildings
should be erected. This range of hills on the south side ofthe city,
reaching from East Avenue to the ne university campus,
constitutes the dominating natural features ofthe city. At one
end is Cobbs Hill. At the other end of that same range of hills is
the great dome of the University library. We early felt that if a
tower could be erected midway between the monument to
intellectual culture on the one side and that ofthe aesthetic and
beautiful in the other, it might supplement and unify the two with
its silent tribute to the central place of spiritual and religious
realities in the life ofthe community.
96. The construction of Buildings 100 and 200 will detract from the historicat
significance ofthis landscape.
97. The campus is also historically significant for its association with numerous social
and cultural figures and events.
98. The Divinity School Campus has historically been a center of religious and
academic inquiry that educated, fostered, and supported many leaders in the Civil Rights
movement including Bernice Fisher, Mordecai Wyatt Johnston, Howard Thurman, and Malcolm
X.
99. If approved, the Project will take place directly on top of this Site. The height of
the proposed new buildings 100 and 200 is disproportionate to the surrounding structures
(particularly Strong Hall) and would dominate and destroy the historic Site.
Page 25 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
100. The Project design is too focused on automobile access, such that the first thing
a visitor will see is parking. Parking should be subservient to, not dominate, the landscape.
101. The Project will be visible to commuters travelling South Goodman Street,
hlighland Avenue and Highland Parkway. It will be visible to and so situated as to change the
visual aspect ofthis scenic resource.
102. The Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School was designed to visually connect to
Highland Park.
103. Monroe County Parks stated the "importance of the design and architecture of
"one
the buildings being designed with the landscape ptan" as discussed in the New York Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation Resource Evaluation.
104. The Project will be visible all year round from Highland Park, which lies directly
to its west and result in a more densely developed land use that is in sharp contrast to the
surrounding low and medium density residential uses.
105. The Neg Dec must be set aside because the Lead Agency failed to take a hard look
at aesthetic impacts to officially designated local scenic or aesthetic resources.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Impacts to Historic Resources
106. The City of Rochester designated the Divinity School Campus as a Local
Landmark and four of its buildings, as well as landscaping, are eligible for inclusion in the state
and federal register of historic structures.
107. This project will change the character and view of important aesthetic recourses
and may introduce architectural designs that are not consistent with the Site's historic
character or the City's long-term vision for this area.
Page 26 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
look at potentially significant adverse impacts to historic resources.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Impacts to Critical Environmental Areas
109. The FEAF admits that the Project Site is located within a Critical Environmental
Area. FEAF, Part 1 E(3)(d). The City-designated CEA encompasses the slopes and crests of a series
of glacial formations that extend from the Mt. Hope Cemetery, through Highland Park, the
Divinity School Campus (PD-21 site), Pinnacle and Cobbs Hills and the lesser hills, comprised of
kames3, kettles4 and eskers5.
110. For the reasons set forth above, the Project is incompatible with the reasons for
designating the CEA and therefore will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of this
Critical Environmental Area.
111. The soils that comprise glacial moraine are by their very nature unstable.
112. The Lead Agency failed to take a hard look at whether the steep slopes and glacial
moraine are able to support the Proposed Development.
look at potentially significant adverse impacts associated with siting the Project in a critical
environmental area.
3 A kame is a short ridge, hill, or mound of stratified drift deposited by

glacial meltwater.
https://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/kame.
4 A kettle is a steep-sided hollow without surface drainage especially in a deposit of

glacial drift.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/kettle.
5 An esker is a long narrow ridge or mound of sand,

gravel, and boulders deposited by a stream
flowing on, within, or beneath a stagnant glacier. https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/esker.
Page 27 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Traffic Impacts
114. The FEAF admits that the Project will result in a substantial increase in traffic
above present levels. FEAF, Part 1 D(2)(j).
115. The FEAF further indicates that the Project will add 104 multiple family units to
theSite. FEAF D(l)(f).
116. The Developer's Traffic Report states that an average of 150 cars per hour will
traverse the vicinity between 7 am and 9 am.
117. Upon information and belief, the New York State Department of Transportation
data available online states that between 300 and 350 cars will traverse the project vicinity
between 7 am and 2 pm, with spikes to 450- 600 after 2pm. The grounds or this belief are the
City Planning Commission Meeting minutes of August 20,2019,page 14 of 27, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
118. The developer's traffic engineer states that the Project will generate only 97
entering/ 65 exiting vehicle trips during the Am peak hour and 113 entering/ 95 exiting vehicle
trips during the PM peak hour.
119. Since families typically have at least 2 cars, the traffic estimate may understate
anticipated vehicle trips during the peak hours.
120. The Developer's traffic pedestrian counts from May 2, 2019 were too early to
capture the higher number of pedestrians that can be reasonably anticipated during high
spring, summer and fall, as well as during the Lilac Festival.
121. Upon information and belief, the Developer's traffic studies suffer from many
other errors and omissions.
Page 28 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
122. For example, the Developer's traffic study does not consider the number and
frequency of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian accidents at and near the south Goodman/
Campus Drive / Pinetum Drive intersection, and other intersections nearby.
123. The Developer's traffic study does not consider the likelihood that many of the
Project residents will likely be employed by or at businesses associated with the University of
Rochester and travel to and from work during the peak hours.
124. Even with these unrealistically favorable estimates, the developer's traffic
engineer concludes that the Elmwood Avenue southbound right turn movement is projected to
"F" under full development

deteriorate from LOS "E" under background conditions to LOS
conditions. See SRF Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Assessment updated July 2019, pages v
and 8,9and 11.
125. The applicant's traffic impact study did not consider the schedule of shift
workers at the University of Rochester, Strong or Highland hlospitals and, therefore,
understated the traffic impacts.
126. Upon information and belief, school buses will not pick up children at the top of
the hill at the Divinity School Campus. i
127. Upon information and belief, children who reside in the apartment buildings at
the proposed Development will have to walk to the intersection of Pinetum and Goodman
Street South (accompanied or not) to pick up a school bus.
128. Upon information and belief, there is a significant adverse traffic and safety
impact with respect to the line-of-sight traffic at Pinetum and Goodman.
Page 29 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
look at potentially significant adverse traffic impacts.
The Lead Agency Failed to Take a "Hard Look" at Impacts to Community Character
130. The Divinity School Campus is located in a neighborhood that is comprised of
older, well-maintained single-family homes, a small, two-story condominium building and the
historic Divinity School Campus.
131. The mass, scale and uniformity of the Project's new buildings are inconsistent
with the neighborhood and communitycharacter.
132. The Project will displace the American Cancer Society's Hope Lodge, which offers
30 guest rooms free of charge for cancer patients and their caregivers.
133. The Developer's Parking Summary ignores the fact that 36 parking spaces near
Building 200 are dedicated by lease for use by Hope Lodge. It also misrepresents that 32
parking spaces under Building 200 will be shared even though they will be dedicated to the
exclusive use of Building 200.
134. Upon information and belief, Hope Lodge has a right of first refusal on the
purchase of Trevor Hall. The Lead Agency failed to take a hard look at potentially significant
adverse impacts if Hope Lodge is forced to relocate.
look at potentially significant adverse impacts to community character.
The Lead Agency Failed to Consider Cumulative Impacts
136. The Developer's traffic study does not take into account the entire South
Goodman corridor.
Page 30 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
137. Upon information and belief, the Terrance Building at the end of South
Goodman is zoned to allow 500 apartment units.
138. Upon information and belief, there are already 100 new apartments already
under construction at 625 South Goodman.
look at cumulative traffic impacts.
The Lead Agency Failed to Consider Aviation Impacts
140. The Divinity School Campus is directly on the flight path to and from the
Rochester International Airport.
141. Upon information and belief, the Lead Agency failed to consider potentially
significant aviation impacts associated with the Project.
142. By reason of the forgoing, the Lead Agency failed to make a Pos Dec even though
the proposed action has the potential to result in at least one potentially significant adverse
environmental impact.
143. The FEAF and Neg Dec failed to adequately address all potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project.
144. The Neg Dec must be set aside because the Lead Agency:
A. failed to take a "Hard Look" at whether the Project may include the potential for at least
one potentially significant adverse environmental impact, as required by 6 NYCRR
617.7(a)(l);
Page 31 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
B. failed to thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to
determine ifthe action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as
required by 6 NYCRR 617.7(b)(3);
C. failed to set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a
reasoned elaboration and providing reference to any supporting documentation, as
required by 6 NYCRR 617.7(b)(4); and
D. failed to issue a positive declaration of environmental significance, as required by 6
NYCRR 617.7(c);
145. Since the Lead Agency failed to comply with SEQRA, the Rezoning
Determinations are invalid.
146. By reason of the forgoing, petitioners are entitled to an order vacating the Neg
Dec and Site Plan Approval.
look at potentially significant adverse impacts to aviation.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD A6ENCY ILLEGALLY ISSUED A CND FOR A TYPE 1 ACTION
148. Petitioners repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -147 as
if set forth herein at length.
149. The Lead Agency may not issue a Conditioned Negative Declaration ("CND") for a
Type 1 action. 6 NYCRR 617.7(d).
150. The Neg Dec includes seven mitigation measures for adverse impacts to land
(Neg Dec, p. 3-4), five mitigation measures for adverse impacts on geologic features and CEA
Page 32 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
(Neg Dec, p. 5), two mitigation measures for adverse impacts on surface water (Neg Dec, p. 7),
five mitigation measures for adverse impacts on plants and animals (Neg Dec, p. 9), seven
mitigation measures for adverse impacts on aesthetic resources (Neg Dec, p. 11), eleven
mitigation measures for adverse impacts on historic and archeological resources (Neg Dec, p.
13 -14), three mitigation measures for adverse impacts on open space and recreation (Neg
Dec, p. 15), five mitigation measures for adverse impacts on transportation (Neg Dec, p. 18), six
mitigation measures for adverse impacts on community plans and community character (Neg
Dec, p. 22-23).
151. The Neg Dec herein is based on fifty-one environmental mitigation measures
and, as such, is the substantive equivalent of a CND.
152. The Lead Agency and applicant agreed to mitigation measures in a closed
bilateral negotiation process that bypassed the open, comprehensive weighing of
environmental impacts required by SEQRA.
153. By reason ofthe foregoing, petitioners are entitled to an ordervacatingand
annulling the Neg Dec and any subsequent municipal approval based on it.
THIRDCAUSEOFACTION
THE LEAD AGENCY IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO OTHERS
155. The lead agency must determine the significance of an action. 6 NYCRR 617.6(3).
156. The Lead Agency improperly delegated its review authority to the applicant and
interested agencies.
Page 33 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
157. The Lead Agency issued a negative declaration of environmental significance for
the Project subject to assurances by the developer that potential stormwater impacts would be
mitigated by a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan approved the NYS DEC.
158. However, the purpose of a SWPPP is to mitigate impacts during construction
only, not to evaluate whether and to what extent an impact will occur as required under
SEQRA. Because the Project site disturbs more than one acre it requires a SWPPP approved by
NYSDEC. However, a SWPPP does not address potential stormwater pollution post-
construction.
159. Additionally, while the Department of Environmental Conservation reviews
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and issues stormwater permitsfor
construction activity, these activities are governed by laws and standards that are separate
from the SEQ.RA review process. These agencies are interested agencies for the purpose of
SEQ.RA review; they do not have the authority to determine whether the project may result in
potentially significant environmental impacts.
160. A lead agency may not delegate its decision-making authority under SEQRA to
another agency involved in an environmental permitting, such as the DEC. Consequently,
mitigating measures proposed by the developer cannot be incorporated into the FEAF and
required by the lead agency as a condition precedent to Issuing the negative declaration.
161. By reason of the foregoing, petitioners are entitled to an order vacating and
annullingthe Neg Dec and anysubsequent municipal approval based on it.
Page 34 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY IMPROPERLY NEGOTIATED OF SEQRA MITIGATION
OUTSIDE OF THE SEQRA PROCESS
162. Petitioners repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 161 as
163. The environmental review process was not meant to be a bilateral negotiation
between a developer and a lead agency but, rather, an open process that also involves other
interested agencies and the public.
164. The lead agency violated the letter and spirit of SEQRA by negotiating mitigation
measures for potentially significant adverse environmental impacts outside of the SEQRA
review process and then incorporating them as conditions to the Neg Dec.
165. Upon information and belief, the Lead Agency failed to notify or consult with the
Town of Brighton about the Project, even though the eastern boundary of the Divinity School
Campus borders the Town of Brighton.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT
168. 1268 South Clinton Avenue is a 2.98-acre parcel of land located at the corner of
South Clinton Avenue and Field Street.
Page 35 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
169. 1268 South Clinton and the Divinity School Property both occupy lands that are
part of the Pinnacle Hill Range of the Albion-Rochester Glacial Moraine.
170. 1268 South Clinton and the Divinity School Property share similar soils, wildlife,
steep slopes and heavily wooded areas.
171. 1268South Clinton and the DivinitySchool Propertyare both Critical
Environmental Areas.
172. On March 5,1998 the Lead Agency issued a positive declaration of
environmental significance for the proposed development of a 1268 South Clinton Avenue for
11 single family detached dwellings (the "1268 South Clinton Pos Dec"), a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
173. The Lead Agency issued a Pos Dec for 1268 South Clinton Avenue based, in part,
on the following findings:
• Disturbance of unique open space composed of glacial morainal feature with
steep slopes and heavytree cover.
• Potential erosion, loss of natural habitat of non-endangered animal and plant
species
• Potential loss of archeological resources
• Permanent foreclosure of recreational space.
174. It was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion for the Lead Agency to
issue a Neg Dec for the Proposed Development because it issued a Pos Dec for 1268 South
Clinton based on substantially similar facts.
Page 36 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION IS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW
ifset forth herein at length.
177. Upon information and belief, the City Attorney advised the City Planning
Commission that is was not required to consider potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts when it made a recommendation to the Lead Agency. The grounds for this belief are
the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 20,2019, page 13 of 27, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
178. By reason of the foregoing, petitioners are entitled to an order annulling the Neg
Dec.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY FAILED TO INVOLVE SHPO IN COORDINATED REVIEW UNDER SEQRA
179. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 178 as if set forth herein at
length.
180. In 2017 the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation ("SHPO")
determined that the Divinity School Campus is eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places because the Divinity School Campus (initially built in two stages in 1932 and
1936) is the work of locally prominent landscape architect Alling S. DeForest and nationally
prominent New York City based architect James Gamble Rogers and is distinctive due to its
Collegiate Gothic and Tudor Revival architecture and its landscape architecture.
Page 37 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
181. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 14.09 of the
New York State Historic Preservation Act authorize SHPO to participate in the review
environmental process to ensure that effects or impacts on eligible or listed properties are
considered and avoided or mitigated during the project planning process.
182. The Lead Agency failed to identify ShlPO as an Involved Agency and did not give
SHPO an opportunityto participate in coordinated reviewofthe Project, as required by6
NYCRR 617.6.
183. By reason of the foregoing, petitioners are entitled to an order annulling the Neg
Dec.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD
length.
185. The County's decision to issue a Neg Dec is not supported by substantial
evidence on the record.
186. Moreover, Part 1 ofthe FEAF contained false and misleading information
provided by the Developer. See Letter from Robert F. Thompson to the Lead Agency dated
August 8, 2019, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
187. The Lead Agency relied on the false and misteading information in making a
determination of insignificance.
188. By reason of the forgoing, petitioners are entitled to an order vacating the Neg
Dec and Site Plan Approval.
Page 38 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE REZONING DETERMINATIONSARE
INCONSISTENTWITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
length.
190. The Divinity School Campus was zoned Institutional Planned Development -
Colgate Divinity School ("IPD") in 1975 and remained that classification until the 2019 rezoning.
191. While IPD is the mapped district classification, no development plan concept
plan was ever devised.
192. Until 2003, the Divinity School Campus was governed by the Rochester City Code
regulations (Section 115-69 ofthe 1975 Ordinance) forthose PD Districts where no
development concept plan had been adopted.
193. The IPD designation was not carried over into the present Zoning Code that went
into effect on 2003.
194. The 2003 Zoning Map did not redesignate the Divinity School Campus into one of
the new zoning district designations that now apply.
195. The IPD designation is obsolete.
196. The present Zoning Code contains no relevant goals, standards or objectives for
the Divinity School Campus.
197. The Divinity School Campus was not specifically addressed in the Rochester 2034
Plan.
198. The Project and PDD #21 were conceptualized and developed by the Applicant.
199. The City's decision to rezone the Divinity School campus to PD #21 is not
Page 39 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, which includes Rochester 2010: Renaissance Plan (the
"Rochester 2010 Plan")6, Zoning

Code and Map, and other documents adopted by the City
Council.
200. The Rezoning Determinations are inconsistent with the Rochester 2010 Plan
campaigns and goals as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Campaign or Goal How it is Inconsistent
130-5(A)(1). Engage the widest array of our The City did not provide
citizens in the safety, upkeep opportunities for citizens to work
and renewal ofour together to plan for their
neighborhoodsand collective future and to take
community, to provide actions to realize that future.
opportunities for citizens to Rather, it merely provided citizens
work together to plan for their with the applicant's vision for the
collective future and to take Divinity School Campus and
actions to realize that future, sought comments on that Project
to celebrate the positive without engaging the citizens in
aspects of community life and proactive future planning.
to support citizens taking
responsibility for using these
opportunities to enhance their
^r"
community.
Government to demonstrate City was not accountable to
accountabilitythrough its citizens. Instead ofproactively
actions and relationship to planning for the future use of the
citizens. Divinity School Campus that
would serve the community's best
interest, it accepted the
applicant's vision for the Divinity
School Campus.
130-5(A)(2)(c). Create an ongoing community The rezoning did not involve any
planning and development community planning, did not
review process that actively consider emerging land use
involves citizens, anticipates trends, and utterly failed to weigh
emerging land use trends, and consider competing land use
appropriately weighs and and development interests. Little
considers competing land use to no consideration was given to
' The Rochester 2010: Renaissance Plan is codified in Rochester City Code section 130-5.
Page 40 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182

section
and development interests as local and regional perspectives.
well as local and regional The result was neither fair nor
perspectives and results in fair equitable.
and equitable decisions.
130-5(A)(2)(d). Inform and listen to citizens Citizensand neighborhoodswere
and neighborhoods about informed ofthe project at the last
opportunities, issues and minute, and their issues and
concernsfaced bythem. concerns were merely paid lip
service.
130-5(A)(2)(f). Support and coordinate public Citizens were not provided timely
meetings, discussions and information about the Project, the
other informational Project was fast-tracked despite
opportunities for our citizens in citizen requests to slow down so
an efficient and productive that they could contribute in a
manner that provides meaningful fashion, and,
essential, timely information consequently, they lacked
and reaches the appropriate essential, timely information that
audience. would have fostered substantive
participation.
130-5(C)(1). Support citizens and families in The City ignored citizens' concerns
leading healthy and safe lives. about shadow impacts to single
family residences and traffic.
130-5©(2)(b). Create the safest community in The City ignored or minimized
New York State in terms of per legitimate concerns about
capita rate of accidents. vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
accidents that would result from
the Project.
130-5©(2)(c). Create a positive perception of The City created a negative
our public safety institutions perception of public safety
and our community's safety, institutions and community safety
security and quality of life and by ignoring or minimizing
create an adequate level of legitimate concerns about
communication and vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
knowledge, among our accidentsthatwould resultfrom
citizens, about public safety the Project.
issues ahd concerns facing our
community.
130-5(D)(1). Maintain and enhance the The City failed to take a hard look
City's unique and historic parks at potentially significant adverse
system, open space areas and environmental impacts (as set
urban forest. forth above) and, therefore, will
Page41of50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182

section
neither maintain nor enhance
them.
130-5(D)(2)© Encourage, undertake and The City failed review the
review development and development proposal for the
activities in a waythat protects Divinity School Campus in a way
and sustains our varied that protected and sustained the
ecosystems and neighborhood varied ecosystems and
environments. neighborhood environments.
Rather, it merely accepted the
developer's vision for the Divinity
School Campus without
proactively planning for how
future development ofthat parcel
would protect and sustain the
ecosystems and neighborhood
environments. Moreover, the City
did not take a hard look at
potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts (as set
forth above) and, therefore, will
be unable to maintain and
enhancethem.
130-5(D)(2)(f) Preserve and enhance parks, Because of the actions and
urban forest, recreation and omissions set forth herein, the
open space areas through a City's rezoning determinations do
regional no-net-loss approach not preserve or enhance parks,
and maximized environmental urban forest, recreation and open
benefits derived from those space areas through a regional no-
resourcesand assets. net-loss approach. It did not
maximize environmental benefits
derived from those resources and
assets.
130-5(D)(2)(g). Support constituencies that For the reasons set forth above,
promote recognition, the City ignored constituents who
preservation and enhancement raised concerns about preserving
of City parks, recreation and and enhancing City parks,
open space system and other recreation and open space system
environmental assets. and other environmental assets.
130-5€(1) Seek out opportunities to plan City failed and refused to inform
and communicate effectively the Town of Brighton about the
and work together with other proposed redevelopment ofthe
Page 42 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182

section
governments to develop DivinitySchool Campus, even
solutions to our common though it bordersthattown.
problems, in a waythat
recognizes a collaborative
neighborhood/regional/global
perspective ratherthan a
city/state/nation perspective.
130-5€(2)(a) Encourage governmental As set forth herein, the City
agencies at the municipal, neitherfollowed its
regional, state and federal Comprehensive Plan nor
level to embrace our City's encouraged othergovernmental
Comprehensive Plan, respect agenciesto do so.
its visions, policies and
strategies and consider them
in their own planning,
budgetary and land use
development/regulatory
activitles.
130-5€(2)(c) Support the development of a As set forth herein, the City's
county and regional land use or actions and omissions did not
development plan that support the development of a
incorporates an appropriate county and regional land use or
roleforourCityin the development plan that
"Community of Monroe." incorporates an appropriate role
for our City in the "Community of
Monroe."
Actively engage and support all The Rezoning Determinations
levels of government, resulted from the Project
businesses and citizens and developer'sfinancial goals, not
existing regional planning any governmentat planning effort.
agencies in regional Moreover, the City failed to
collaboration, communication involve the Town of Brighton or
and cooperation around critical re-refer the project to Monroe
issues and opportunities. County Planning after substantial
changes were made to it.
130-5€(g) Support a collaborative As set forth herein, the City
approach by organizations and collaborated with the project
area governments to developer, but not the area
communicate positive images governments or citizens.
of our City and region to our
citizens and prospective
visitors and residents.
Page 43 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
130-5(H)(2)(a) Encourage sporting events and The City's complete lack of

venues, special festivals, planning for the Divinity School
events, celebrations and Campus prevented it from
conventions that help to bring considering how the land could be
visitors into our City and create used to encourage sporting events
an image and sense of place and venues, special festivals,
that is locally, regionally and events, celebrations and
nationally recognized. conventions that help to bring
visitors into our City and create an
image and sense of place that is
locally, regionallyand nationally
recognized.
130-5(H)(2)(c) Transform historic and cultural The City's complete lack of
assets into a regional tourism planning for the Divinity School
destination attraction that Campus prevented it from
maxlmizes economic, considering how the land could be
environmental and used to transform the historic and
recreational benefits in a way cultural Campus into a regional
that enhances the quality of tourism destination attraction
life for City residents. that maximizes economic,
environmental and recreational
benefits in a way that enhances
the quality of life for City
residents.
130-5(H)(2)(d) Develop, protect and promote The City's complete lack of
City parks, recreation and open planning for the Divinity School
space system as a prime four- Campus prevented it from
season regional tourism considering how its
attraction and asset that is redevelopmentcould develop,
complementary to its diverse protect and promote City parks,
waterfront resources. recreation and open space system
as a prime four-season regional
tourism attraction and asset that
is complementary to its diverse
waterfront resources.
130-5(H)(2)(f) Develop diverse, unique The City's complete lack of
tourism attractions that planning for the Divinity School
balance economic issues and Campus prevented it from
impacts with neighborhood considering how its
preservation, enhancement redevelopmentcould develop,
and protection. diverse, unique tourism
attractions that balance economic
Page 44 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
issues and impacts with

neighborhood preservation,
enhancement and protection.
^ Capitalize on the City's many The City's complete lack of
recreational, historic, civic and planning for the Divinity School
business assets as well as our Campus prevented itfrom
high quality of life to expand capitalizing on the City's many
recognition of Rochester as a recreational, historic, civic and
highly desirable tourism business assets as well as our high
destination and attractive quality of life to expand
placeto live. recognition of Rochester as a
highly desirable tourism
destination and attractive place to
live.
130-5(l)(2)(c) Encourage strong, stable, vital The City's complete lack of
and healthy neighborhoods planning for the Divinity School
that retain theirunique Campus benefitted the developer
characteristics, are supported but did not encourage strong,
by appropriate community stable,vital and healthy
resources, services and neighborhoods that retain their
amenities in village-tike unique characteristics, are
settings, with neighborhood supported byappropriate
commercial centers serving community resources, services
nearbyresidential and amenities in village-like
neighborhoods to provide settings, with neighborhood
essential goods and services commercial centers serving
and help create a high quality nearby residential neighborhoods
of life for every citizen. to provide essential goods and
services and help create a high
quality of life for every citizen.
130-5(l)(2)(f) Develop a pedestrian The City's complete lack of
circulation system that planning for the Divinity School
provides maximum Campus and its mere reaction to
accessibility to nearby goods plans submitted by the Developer
and services, our parks, benefitted the developer but did
recreation and open space not result in a pedestrian
areas and other community circulation system that provides
amenities. maximum accessibility to nearby
goods and services, our parks,
recreation and open space areas
and other community amenities.
Page 45 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
130-5(l)(2)(g) Promote the creation of a safe, The City's complete lack of

reliable and aesthetically planning for the Divinity School
pleasing transportation system Campus and its wholesale
that facilitates the movement acceptance ofthe developer's
ofpeople and goods insufficient traffic study did not
throughout the City's promote the creation of a safe,
community and connects reliable and aesthetically pleasing
neighborhoods while transportation system that
encouraging alternatives to facilitates the movement of
automobile transportation. people and goods throughout the
City's community and connects
neighborhoods while encouraging
alternatives to automobile
transportation.
130-5(l)(2)(h) Support a land use The City's complete lack of
development pattern in the planning for the Divinity School
City that balances reasonable Campus and its acceptance ofthe
property use rights with our developer's self-interested plan
community's expectation of resulted in a land use
protection from negative development pattern that
impacts generated by nearby benefits the developer's property
uses or activities. rights at the expense of the
community's expectation of
protection from negative impacts
generated by nearby uses or
activities.
130-5(l)(2)(h) Support and promote arts and The City's complete lack of
cultural events, activities and planning for the Divinity School
institutions in a way that Campus and its acceptance ofthe
establishes the City as a world- developer's self-interested plan
class cultural center, did not support and promote arts
contributes to its community's and cultural events, activities and
life, vitality and growth and institutions in a waythat
promotes citizen and business establishes the City as a world-
partnerships in usingthose class cultural center, contribute to
resources to create economic its community's life, vitality and
development and community growth and promotes citizen and
pride. business partnerships in using
those resources to create
economic development and
community pride.
130-5(K)(2)(a) Utilize the City's arts and As set forth above, the City's
Page 46 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182

section
cultural heritage and current complete lack of planning for the
assets as an economic DivinitySchool Campus and its
development tool to create acceptance ofthe developer's
growth opportunities and a self-interested plan resulted in its
sense of community spirit and failure to even consider how the
pride. historic DivinitySchool Campus
could be used as an economic
development tool to create
growth opportunities and a sense
of community spirit and pride.
130-5(K)(2)(b) Develop new and/or expanded As set forth above, the City's
venues for arts and cultural complete lack of planning for the
facilities, entertainment and Divinity School Campus and its
activities throughout the City, acceptance ofthe developer's
including its diverse residential self-interested plan resulted in its
neighborhoods. failure to even consider how the
historic DivinitySchool Campus
could be used to develop new
and/or expanded venues for arts
and cultural facilities,
entertainment and activities
throughout the City, including its
diverse residential neighborhoods.
130-5(K)(2)(c) Promote, enhance and protect As set forth above, the City's
the City's historic, cultural and complete lack of planning for the
educational resources as Divinity School Campus and its
unique assets that contribute acceptance ofthe developer's
to the City's vitality and sense self-interested plan resulted in its
ofplace. failure to promote, enhance and
protect the City's historic, cultural
and educational resources as
unique assets that contribute to
the City's vitality and sense of
place.
Page 47 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
201. The rezoning determinations constitute illegal spot zoning, and must be set
aside.
202. By reason of the forgoing, petitioners are entitled to an order annulling the
rezoning determinations.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE REZONING DETERMINATIONS VIOLATE
CITY CODE ARTICLE XIII
203. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 -202 as if set forth herein at length.
204. The Divinity School Campus is located in the Overlay Airport District, as defined
by Rochester City Code 120-97.
205. Upon information and belief, the Rezoning Determinations would permit the
construction of buildings that will exceed the maximum permitted height set forth in Rochester
City Code 120-99.
206. Upon information and belief, the Rezoning Determinations would permit the
construction of wind generation systems that will exceed the maximum permitted height set
forth in Rochester City Code 120-99.
207. Upon information and belief, the Rezoning Determinations would create or be
expected to create a flight or safety hazard, in violation of Rochester City Code 120-101.
208. By reason of the forgoing, petitioners are entitled to an order annulling the
rezoning determinations.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

OTHER ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTIONS
209. Petitioners repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 -208 as if set forth herein at length.
210. Upon information and belief, as may be determined on the filing of the Record of
Page 48 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
Proceeding, the FEAF, Neg Dec, and other actions taken by the City to facilitate the
redevelopment of the Divinity School Campus may be in violation of other laws, regulations and
procedures, and/or arbitrary and/or capricious, and/or other approvals may be needed.
211. Therefore, acceptance of the FEAF and Neg Dec, Rezoning Determinations and
other actions were illegal, arbitrary and capricious.
WHEREFORE, petitioners respectfully request that the Court issue an order:
a. Granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting respondents Angelo Ingrassia and
ROC Goodman LLC from commencing construction at the Divinity School
Campus;
b. Granting a permanent injunction prohibiting respondents Angelo Ingrassia and
ROC Goodman LLC from engaging in construction at the Divinity School Campus;
c. Annulling and vacating the Neg Dec and Rezoning Determinations pursuant to
Article 78;
d. Annutling and vacating the rezoning determinations pursuant to Articles 31 and
78;and
e. Awarding attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and such other and further
relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: September9,2019
THE^fOGHLIN GROlJP PLLC

Mindy L. Zoghlin, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioners
Office and Post Office Address
300 State Street, Suite 502
Rochester, NewYork 14614
Tel.: (585) 434-0790
E-mail: Mindv@ZogLaw.com
Page 49 of 50
201909100182 09/10/2019 08:05:54 AM CIVIL
201909100182
VERIFICATION
STATEOFNEWYORK)
COUNTYOFMONROE)s.s.:
Robert F. Thompson, being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is a member of
Colgate Neighbors and an individual petitioner in the within matter. Deponent has read the
within Verified Petition and Complaint and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to
deponent's knowledge except as to matters stated to be alleged on information and belief and
that as to such matters deponent believes it to be true.
The grounds for deponent's belief as to such matters are personal inquiry and
examination conducted in the course of deponent's investigation into the facts and
circumstances ofthis matter.
Dated: September 9, 2019

^^^^^g^
Robert F. Thompson
Sworn to before me this

9th day of September, 2019
/
MINDYL.ZOGHL1N
NOTARYPUBLIC, State otNewYork
'Qualified #02204986874
Registration
in Monr^e County_
^—-
Commission Expires Se^ember y^
^
Page 50 of 50

Colgate Neighbors Lawsuit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Colgate Neighbors Lawsuit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.

Book Page CIVIL

Return To: No. Pages: 53

COLGATE NEIGHBORS Time: 8:05:54 AM

State Fee Index Number $165.00

Total Fees Paid: $210.00

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

COLGATE NEIGHBORS, ROBERT F. THOMPSON,

CITY OF ROCHESTER, CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL,

To the above named respondents:

Petitioners/Plaintiffs designate Monroe County as the place of trial pursuant to CPLR

COLGATE NEIGHBORS, ROBERT F. THOMPSON,

CITY OF ROCHESTER, CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL,

Petitioners, by their attorneys The Zoghlin Group PLLC, complain of respondents as

1. This combined special proceeding / declaratory judgment action involves the

Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

south and residential land in the Town of Brighton to the east.

"Proposed Redevelopment Project").

7. This combined Article 78 and Declaratory Judgment proceeding challenges

8. In this action, petitioners seek:

b. Annulling and vacating the Rezoning Determinations pursuant to Articles 31 and

c. A preliminary injunction prohibiting respondents Angelo Ingrassia and ROC

1 The Local Landmark designation does not include the northeast

d. A permanent injunction prohibiting Angelo Ingrassia and ROC Goodman from

commencing any site work at the Divinity School Campus; and

e. Attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

THE DIVINITY SCHOOL CAMPUS and ENVIRONS

are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

greenspace, an arboretum, walking trails, and informal sports fields.

"one with the landscape

and Historic Preservation Resource Evaluation.

approximately 10-acre forested park.

18. Petitioner COLGATE NEIGHBORS is an unincorporated association of individuals

within 500 feet or less of the Divinity School Campus.

are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

Kevin Fager is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

22. Petitioner RAJESH SINGARAVELU owns and resides at 55 Highland Parkway,

intersection at Goodman Street S. and Pinetum Road. Rajesh Singaravelu is a Member of

life. Michael Leach is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

Fisher are members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

Sherwood and John Griffith are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

and Rachel Hall are Members ofCOLGATE NEIGHBORS.

28. Petitioner PAUL BROOKES resides at 30 Howland Avenue in the town of

neighborhood. Paul Brookes is a member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

Terry Quataert are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

Turner are Members of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

33. Petitioner JEFFREY SCIORTINO owns and resides at 22 Highland Parkway,

Sciortino is a Member of COLGATE NEIGHBORS.

34. Upon information and belief, Respondent CITY OF ROCHESTER is a municipality

organized and existing under New York General City Law.

35. Upon information and belief, Respondent CITY OF ROCHESTER MANAGER OF

body ofthe CITY OF ROCHESTER.

37. Upon information and belief, ANGELO INGRASSIA is an individual residing in

Monroe County and co-applicant for the Proposed Development Project.

action that have not yet presently been identified.

action that have not yet presently been identified.

THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Planned Development District #21 - Colgate (PD#21).

construction of a four-story 52-unit multifamily building without underground parking, a 4-story

52-unit multifamily dwelling with 32 underground parking spaces.

some combination ofresidential, lodging, office, independent livingfacility, banquet,

conference and other non-residential uses.