Syracuse Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 18, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Syracuse Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting, December 18, 2025
The Syracuse Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held a meeting on December 18, 2025, at 6:41 PM. The board considered a use variance for a 14th unit at a multifamily property and approved a first-time extension for an area variance for a housing project on South State Street.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were made in favor of or against either application.
Discussion Items
- Use Variance V-24-?? (Property with 13 units): The applicant sought a use variance to add a 14th unit to an existing multifamily property on a lot zoned R1. The property had a pre-existing non-conforming use, with a variance approved in the 1980s for 13 units. A certificate of compliance was issued in 2022 for 13 units, and a violation was issued in June 2025 for the unapproved 14th unit, which was built between 2022 and 2025. Discussion focused on the four criteria for a use variance: (1) financial hardship (no evidence that the property is not financially viable without the 14th unit), (2) unique circumstances (board members debated whether the pre-existing non-conforming use qualifies as unique), (3) neighborhood character (no impact), and (4) self-created difficulty (the unit was built knowing the variance and building permit had expired). The board concluded that only criterion (3) was definitively met, with criteria (1) and (4) unanimously failed, and criterion (2) debatable.
- Area Variance Extension V-24-10 (1105-17 South State Street): The Syracuse Housing Authority, represented by Andrew Schuster from Ashland Garrett Architects, requested a first-time 36-month extension for a previously approved area variance. The extension was needed to satisfy lender requirements for construction financing, with construction planned to start in January 2025 and expected to take 24 months, plus a buffer.
Key Outcomes
- Use Variance: The board voted unanimously to deny the variance application, citing failure to meet three of the four use variance criteria. Following the vote, staff clarified that the certificate of compliance for the property cannot be issued with the 14th unit, and the owner will be ordered to reduce occupancy to 13 units to obtain the certificate.
- Area Variance Extension: The board voted unanimously to approve the 36-month extension for V-24-10.
- State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR): For the use variance, the board adopted a negative declaration under CEQR, determining no moderate or large environmental impacts.
- The meeting was adjourned after the decisions.
Meeting Transcript
I was now back in session. We have heard from the applicant. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the uh variance? Hearing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak against the application? Okay. Again, we we can uh discuss now among ourselves what we how we want to proceed. I have a question for Jake. Um just on some key facts here. Multifamily properties have to get a certificate of compliance inspection every few years. When was the last time that this property was inspected? Uh so in 2022, a certificate of compliance was issued for 13 units, and then uh get the date in 2025. Um June of 2025 is when it was last inspected, and that's when a violation was issued to obtain approval for this uh 14th unit. Okay, so presumably the 14th unit was completed sometime between 2022 and 2025. Uh that's correct. The certificate in 2022 was issued on August 10th for 13 apartments. Got it, thank you. And the 13 was consistent with the variance that was approved in the 80s. Okay. Correct. Is there more discussion? Should we walk through the four criteria? So I don't see any evidence in here that without a 14th unit, this apartment complex isn't financially viable. And that's really the way that we're supposed to address is there a reasonable return on investment. Umstances, you know, occasionally a variance is necessary because of something unique to the property. It's a historic property. It was um, you know, there's something about the topography that means you can't comply with the area requirements. Um I don't see anything unique to the property that means that a 14th unit must be added. Um I'll disagree on that on the on the uniqueness of the property, just that it's been multifamily for uh decades. And so therefore a 14th unit is necessary? Uh not necessarily necessary, but the uniqueness of the property being zoned R1 when this property predated the rezone of Syracuse is uh of interest. Okay, the fact that it was uh a pre-existing non-conformative. Gotcha. And prior to the zoning ordinance before that, probably. And prior to the or yes, exactly. Um neighborhood character. You can't say that it would really change the neighborhood character. I don't think anybody would see a difference from the outside. No impacts to that. No. No. Uh and then a self-created uh difficulty, definitely uh a self-created difficulty. It was built out knowing that the variance had expired and the building permit had expired. Um so unanimous agreement on one and four and and three, um, and some debate on two. Yeah. Yes. I I think uh you summarized it well. Uh I think the only uh criteria that was definitively met was uh number three. So agreed and for a use variance all four would have to be met. Okay. So I'm gonna make a motion unless there's more discussion.
openpublica.com