Present: Leif Anderson, Mary Cadbury, Lee Haring, John Perry, Sybil Perry, Karen Snare, Bob Suter, Valerie Suter, Caroline Webster, Denise Sherman
Meeting began at 12.40 with a brief period of silence.
2011-08 The Meeting approved Valerie Suter to serve as recording clerk pro tem.
2011-09 Bob Suter, clerk of the trustees, presented a written report (attached) of options for disposition of the Oswego Meeting House. Members made suggestions and raised questions which the trustees will address prior to a threshing session to be held at 12:30 on April 17, 2011. Members approved these two requests from the trustees:
1. That Jonathan Boice, President of the Oswego Cemetery Association, be encouraged to explore the possibility of establishing a group to maintain the Oswego Meeting House as an historic site.
2. To allow the trustees to attempt to find an attorney who can help with find answers to legal questions regarding the property.
2011-10 The Meeting received a report from Lee Haring on the NYYM Meeting for discernment held February 26, 2011. This was a rich and rewarding extended Meeting for Worship focused on the query, “What concrete things have you (Monthly Meetings and Worship Groups) been doing to realize that which God is calling forth?”
2011-11 The Meeting had intended to continue our discussion of how to move forward as a Meeting to address our visibility, diminishing numbers, lack of funds, outreach, etc. . Because the queries for the March 20 potluck address the same concerns, Friends agreed to hold this discussion over until March 20.
The following queries are offered as a guide for this year’s State of Society reports.
1. Meetings are living bodies and thus experience cycles of growth and dormancy. What new growth do you greet in your meeting? What losses do you mourn?
2. Many meetings struggle with issues of the world such as racism, class inequality, and discrimination by sexual orientation. With what issues does your meeting struggle? How does your meeting labor with difficult issues?
For the March 20 potluck and discussion the Meeting approved to start the potluck at the rise of Meeting and schedule the discussion to begin at 12:45 and end at 2:15.
The meeting ended at 2:20 with a brief period of silent worship.
Karen Snare, clerk
Valerie Suter, recording clerk pro tem
Oswego Meeting House — Consideration of Options 13 March 2011
Bulls Head-Oswego Friends Meeting considered the fate of the Oswego meeting house several years ago. The meeting decided to discuss with Oakwood Friends School their interest in moving the building itself to the school, at the school’s expense, for use as a meeting house. Oakwood has since decided not to pursue that course of action.
At its January meeting for business, Bulls Head-Oswego Friends requested that the Trustees consider this issue anew, assembling information that would be useful in a subsequent threshing session about the fate of the Oswego meeting house.
Below is an annotated outline of the Trustees’ current information and deliberations.
(1) Significance of the meeting house’s designation as an historic site — Oswego meeting house was listed on the state and national registers of historic sites in April, 1989. Listing in the registers allows the site to apply for federal grants and matching state grants for historic preservation. Private foundations that could serve as sources of grant funds also look favorably on sites that are on the national and state registers.
The listing of the meeting house on the national and state registers does not, in itself, restrict our use of the property and does not prohibit demolition of the building. The only restrictions would be those imposed by grants, and we have not received any grants directed at the Oswego meeting house. There could also be restrictions based on local codes and ordinances, but Union Vale has none that apply in this case.
[These two paragraphs repeat information that was collected and reported in the consideration of the fate of the meeting house that took place several years ago.]
(2) Legal status of the property — The Oswego site is listed as a single parcel of 1.9 acres (see attached map) that includes both the meeting house and the cemetery. The parcel is listed as being owned by “Oswego Friends.” Because it is listed as a single parcel, we could not sell or give away the part on which the meeting house sits without either (a) including the cemetery in the exchange or (b) subdividing the parcel into a building part and a cemetery part or (c) demonstrating to the satisfaction of the town that the listing of the parcel is incorrect and should, perhaps from the beginning, have been listed as two separate parcels.
(3) Assessment of property value — The 1.9-acre parcel is assessed at $224,400 in total, with the meeting house assessed at $114,400 and the land assessed at $110,000. Land in the immediate vicinity of the meeting house is assessed at an average of about $71,000 per acre, with actual assessed value per acre decreasing with increasing parcel size (e.g., a 4.1-acre parcel is assessed at only $25,365 per acre).
(4) Zoning — The 1.9-acre parcel is in a Residential Agricultural 3 (RA3) District. RA3 implies the following:
Other zoning restrictions would also be applicable if the meeting were to decide to subdivide the parcel into a meeting house part and a cemetery part. For example, subdivision would probably mean that the meeting house part would be on a “flag lot,” a main area (the flag) and a narrow access area (the flagstaff), a shape that is explicitly discouraged in the zoning code and that must have at least 50 feet of frontage.
(5) The Trustees identified six ways we might proceed:
Friends are encouraged to consider the information in this report in preparation for a threshing session later this spring, possibly in mid-April.
