Welcome to this meeting of the Syracuse Planning Commission.

We will begin our uh formal agenda in just a moment.

Before we do that, however, we will take action on the minutes of our previous meeting held last month on January twelfth.

Minutes have been distributed to the commission members in advance, and it'd be appropriate this time for a motion for action on those minutes.

Move approval of the minutes from the January meeting.

Second.

Thank you.

Both discussion on that motion.

If not, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

Minutes are approved.

And we can move into our public hearings.

Before we do that, just a word of um by way of procedure for those who might be unfamiliar with our process.

As each application is announced by a member of the staff, we would ask that the applicant or their representative come to the podium in the center front of the room, provide your name and address for the record, and then uh a brief description of the project involved.

Following questions from the commission members, if there are any, we will provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak in favor of the application.

And then likewise an opportunity for those members of the public who wish to speak in opposition uh to the application where comments are offered in opposition, the applicant will be invited to return to the podium to address the comments made in opposition.

And we ask that all speakers for or against um keep their comments to about three minutes apiece.

With that, we are ready to begin.

I think there is an update on the agenda from what was published uh several days ago, if I'm not mistaken.

Say that again, I'm sorry.

I think there's a recent update on the agenda.

Yeah, sorry.

Um yes, the first item under old business for the East Brighton Ave battery energy storage system.

Uh those three companion applications, the resub, the special use permit, and the major site plan review have all been withdrawn by the applicant.

So if you were here for those items, uh they will not be in our our agenda this evening.

If they should return uh at some future meeting, um similar notice will go out in advance of this meeting.

So with those withdrawn, we move to our first item, which is an item of old business.

Yes, uh special use permit sp-25-26 at 401 Pond Street in Steuben.

This is in the MX2 zone district.

Welcome back.

Good evening.

My name is Jesus Ibrahim, own property at TMB properties.

Live at 399 Village Boulevard North in Bonesville.

13207.

I'm here for uh the special use permit for uh the all-american market.

So what what I can try to uh maybe explain to the the board is uh we've received uh revised and updated site plan uh from the applicant to address all the subtle review comments, but also the DPW review uh comments related to ADA access, bike parking, uh the sidewalk on Steuben, and uh also the parking area in front of the store facing pond.

Anything else you want to add to that?

Um I've been going I've I've been doing everything you guys been asking me to do.

I followed everything.

Uh the only thing that's been holding me back was DPW.

Um I've been getting a hold of contractors, but they can't do nothing right now because of the winter.

Um willing to go go ahead with the project.

It's just a matter of when they can get ready to go start it.

Um I submitted this back probably November, December, October.

I've just been waiting, and I finally got the okay for the meeting today.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I I guess I'd like I began by expressing my appreciation.

I know in October when you were here, we had concerns about what at that point appeared to be ambiguous responses to the acepted report.

Uh it appears that that has all been taken care of, and your responses to uh DPW as well are in order.

So we appreciate your your effort in making sure that those things you've done and they comply with uh the requirements.

Okay.

That's what I was gonna say that you know we were looking for responses in compliance to the SEPTED report prior to us taking action.

So the staff has confirmed that you are prepared to undertake the required recommendations by the septed report.

So I echo Barry's gratitude and gratefulness for responding to that.

Thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there individuals wishing to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come forward, provide your name, address, comments.

Councilor Martinabe represent the north side.

So looking at the applicant's uh proposal, it does look good.

But again, I want to address the issues that continue.

I was there on Saturday, and again I saw at least one on license on registered vehicle.

I forwarded to the city attorney uh about it.

When I went in there, the gentleman said, Well, we were waiting for a license.

So I want to know uh as I did late late last year when I got a call about multiple vehicles blocking the front of the entrance.

When if this is completed, I would like to know where the vehicles will now be parked.

So I'd like to have that my question answered, because I don't think they're gonna be on the sidewalk or blocking this on the sidewalk, blocking the sidewalk or being on grass.

I I just like to know where where the vehicles are gonna go.

Thank you, counselor.

So let's go through all the speakers who might be here for this application and then invite the applicant back to address those comments.

Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, please come forward.

Well, we're back to those comments, and that didn't take long.

Uh so uh sir, if you would uh return and address some of the comments um regarding the vehicles that the counselor has raised.

So there's a parking lot, there's a parking, there's a parking spot in the middle between two buildings.

I don't own the parking lot in the middle.

There's an abandoned lot.

I don't own it.

The guy that owns 405 and owns the garage on the corner of parking saw pond, he owns that and he sells cars and works on cars.

I can't control what he puts in the and what he puts in the parking lot.

I'm already arguing with him because he does he's trying to threaten me to sue me if I close if I put a curve up and block the close it off.

Because he's complaining how his tenants are gonna park.

And I've I don't so if I may, just from uh uh zoning requirement standpoint, the the size of this lot, um it's actually exempt from minimum parking requirements.

So I mean um not to speak for the the applicant, but um you know when that happens, I guess there's you know there's foot traffic, there's there will be on-site bikes, bicycle parking, uh storage and locking device.

Um, and also there's on-street parking.

I believe this is also on a bus, a bus line on uh pond.

Um I just wanted to add those facts.

Right.

There's well, I drove by there's street parking on Stuban.

Right.

If I were gonna park and run in and buy a couple things and go on my merry way, um, in addition to the other things that the administrator pointed out.

I think the the key here is the obviously the commitment with the site plan, and he's already said he's working with contractors is um just making sure that it's clear that the conditions that those have to be met in order for this you know special use permit.

Should you choose to make a decision on this, um, that those have to be met to satisfy the conditions, otherwise you'd be subject to uh revocation.

If I'm hearing correct, the the uh the recent issue in question that the counselor has uh pointed out was not parked on your property, is that correct?

Yes, if I remember correctly, we actually had the same problem back in October.

That's the issue in front of the store.

That's what the council store.

Right.

Yeah, well, that issue's gonna be taken care of once I close it off.

So the the requirement currently is now that's gonna be grass.

Right.

To the sidewalk.

Right.

And then there'll be a five-foot wide standard city side, you know, standard sidewalk.

Does everybody saw it, but they just want me to put a curve up so nobody can't go up and park?

Right.

But the issue that I'm having is got the neighbor that owns the building next door, he's threatening if I put a curve up, he's gonna sue me because now his tenants can park in that parking lot that he owns.

There's your answer.

There we go.

Should we put that in the conditions?

There you go.

We do have a condition about the parking issue to address that specifically.

Yeah, I don't have like I said, I've been working on like trying, I just want to get this done and over with.

I already got a couple of people are supposed to come and try to put some poles in so I can get that started and then work on uh the sidewalk and everything during this uh spring summertime, and it's nice out and get that going.

And I already got a quote for some turf.

I don't know.

I don't know how long a turf is gonna last in the winter, but we're gonna try it out.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

We'll close public comment on this and turn our attention to our secret review.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review the part one EAF that's contained in your packet and prepared by the applicant?

Yes.

Has everyone reviewed the part two AF that's um contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe there will be any moderate to large impacts under seeker for this action?

No.

Okay, having determined there will be no moderate to large impacts.

I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and prepare the part three accordingly.

Part three EAF accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Any motion to issue a negative seeker declaration?

Second?

Second.

Discussion.

There's no discussion.

All in favor of the seeker motion, please dedicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries.

Is there a motion for a recommendation on the special use permit SP 2526?

Sure.

In consideration of the staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion finding the application for SP-25-26 in compliance with the special use permit criteria in section 5.4-B 7A through H and recommend approval by the common council with the following seven special conditions beyond the general conditions for approval of special use permits.

Two, the business owner shall abide by the hours of operation that's a suit the common council decides upon.

Three, no neon signage or decorative lighting shall be permitted on the windows or building facade.

Four, no cooked or hot food shall be made or sold, any permanent changes, uh pertinent changes uh need be approved from the Office of Zoning Administration.

Five, the applicant shall submit photographic evidence of the completed site approvements to the Office of Zoning Administration within 90 days of the approval of a special use permit, SP 25-26, demonstrating compliance with the SEPTED recommendations that the property owner has committed to implementing.

Six, the look the subject uh location is permitted from selling tobacco products due to non-eligibility for a tobacco retail license.

I'm sorry, what did I say?

The subject location is prohibited or prohibited, sorry.

Thank you.

Very good.

It's good.

Somebody's listening to me.

The applicant now should commit to upgrading the site through any necessary permits based on the revised plan and approved conditions imposed by the Department of Public Works as follows.

One, all sideworks must be city standard of five feet wide, and two, turf grass must be installed in our air all areas proposed, and vehicle parking shall be prohibited installing additional signage to deter vehicles shall happen.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second discussion on this motion.

I would just like to reiterate the general condition on obtaining permits and completing the work.

So it's it's 12 months, which is standard.

Um and if those aren't met, um I actually misspoke.

It's actually uh more accurate to say it would be considered null and void if they do not meet the conditions within the designated time frame.

Correct.

Okay, good clarification.

Thank you.

Further discussion or clarification.

If not, then all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

SP 2526 is approved.

And we move to our next item.

Next we move to new business.

Um this is titled the Parkside Commons Project.

Um I'm gonna try to tee this up as best I can just for context.

So uh the applicant's going to present six companion applications uh this evening.

It includes a master plan review, uh zoning map amendment, a resubdivision, a major site plan review, an additional resubdivision, and an additional major site plan review.

Um we'll have them present on all that.

Uh and you know the revisions to the project uh and everything that's taking place.

Uh then we'll go through seeker, and then we'll take action um potentially on every item individually, if that makes sense.

Um my name is Ed Martin.

I'm a licensed engineer with Passero Associates.

Our corporate headquarters are at 242 West Main in Rochester, New York.

Um, also in attendance this evening is Mr.

Connor Kenny, uh, the developer's representative.

Also brought along Mr.

Jacob Lewis from our office for technical support.

I think the picture before you paints the best picture uh then better than anything I can describe.

We've got a very exciting development at the intersection of Westmoreland Avenue and East Fayette uh Street.

Um we've got 143 units uh in this particular building, which is at the northwest corner of that intersection.

Um supporting that at the southeast corner of that intersection is an additional 50 units.

Um we've primary access to East Fayette uh for pedestrian access and uh off of Westmoreland for vehicular access.

Uh vehicular access to parcel B, which is actually this one we're looking at right here, is off of Ellis uh drive, which is to the east.

Um since we last met with you, uh we have added some parking.

Um do you I don't know if you have those numbers at your fingertips, but there was some questions about uh adding some parking, particularly for bicycles.

We've added those.

Um, and I understand that Mr.

Kenny has scheduled some communication with the neighborhood uh people.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have question from the commission.

Not yet.

Can you just confirm total number of units, please?

So there's 143 in parcel A, that's at the northwest corner, and 50 units in the southeast corner, which is parcel B, making a total of 193.

193, and if I recall correctly, 82 interior parking spots and 70 exterior outside lot parking.

Am I about right?

82 and 20 and nothing, no exterior lot.

Okay, thank you.

When we did the uh the site plan review, we were still looking at the uh need for uh referring the applicant to the BGA for the five-story uh building on on lot A.

And I understand that the uh the acreage of the lot has been changed so that the five story is now acceptable.

That's correct.

And could you show me what what has happened in just in terms of the acreage difference?

Certainly.

Um I'll need those numbers to the west of parcel A, which is the northwest corner.

There is a strip of line land along the western portion of that that's been added to it that allows that to move forward without the variance.

So that's at very narrow stripes.

Correct.

It makes a difference for the acreage.

Yes, sir.

Okay, good.

Yeah, thank you.

And also I'm wondering, I know that the the six units that are uh being renovated are not part of this project.

But I'm kind of curious in terms of the residents that are gonna be moving out of existing units and into these new units.

Are they all going to be coming from the western unit or will some of them be coming from the moderate apartments?

How is that whole process gonna work?

Who who gets to decide where they're gonna go?

Um could could you come to the microphone, please?

Yeah.

Uh Connor Kenny, I'm uh with SAA EBI addresses 110 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York.

Good to good to be here with you guys.

Uh so to to clarify what we're doing, the residents who are on what the the campus itself is is 393 units.

There's approximate or there's 200 units that are on what we would call the western portion of the site.

Um that's gonna be rehabbed.

The folks that are living on the eastern portion, what we call the eastern portion of the site, where there's 193 units, those are the residents that will be relocated into the new construction.

So the the western portion with 200 units, that's gonna be all rehabbed, like substantial rehab.

So that just me moving within those units.

That's correct, sir.

Yes.

Uh the folks who live on the eastern portion in the 1930 unit section of the of the property, uh, they will all move into the new construction building upon completion.

Okay, great.

Thanks for that clarification.

I have a question for Connor, I believe, or somebody.

So I think that it has there have been police calls and police presence at Parks Hide in the past and as well as currently.

And I was just wondering if you have a minute to address from now that you're gonna have new construction, building going on, tenants moving, etc., which will be a good thing, we hope, and certainly improve whatever challenges the structure may have brought as part of the problem.

That's go ahead.

No, no, finish your thought.

You go ahead.

No, very good point.

Um, as we've designed these buildings, the new buildings in particular, um, we've been very cognizant of safety and security with the layout.

So if you enter in the f uh, we don't have the floor plan up, but in the beginning, when you walk into the the primary building here, which is this one, which is a hundred and yeah, that one the the floor plan, there is 24 hour security um that are set up there.

What we have done too is we also have set aside space for the Syracuse Police Department, so they'll have an office in the building with access to the security cameras.

Um so moving forward, we are working closely with SPD on uh it's really a partnership, making sure that they are um working with us to maintain the property safety so that you know the residents don't need to be um uh but and and then I do want to add one more point too.

So we have obviously there's a lot of existing crime issues at parkside um in order to address those.

We have been working directly with the Syracuse Police Office.

We have set up a um an office for them on the existing site that they've been using, which is set up with a computer uh where they can access the security cameras.

Uh um, we're in regular communication with SPD.

Um so we've we've been working closely with them, not only on the existing property, but also talking to them about the design and how the layout is gonna be in the new construction and making sure that we're all on the same page, um sort of speaking the same language.

That's great.

Okay, thank you.

Good for now.

Thank you very much.

We uh did you want to add something?

No, sir.

Just I didn't know if you had any other questions, that's all.

At the moment we don't.

Uh but we'll now invite members of the public who wish to speak in favor of these uh proposals, these applications, please come forward to do so by providing your name and address and then your comments.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the applications?

Please come forward to the podium, provide your name, address, and comments.

We don't appear to have speakers of in either category.

Uh we will close public comment.

And I think we've got some work to do on our review.

Thank you.

Um, I'm Zong Wu from Saraco Zoning Office.

Address is 300 South State Street, Syracuse, New York, 1320 202.

So uh I'm going to lead the commission through the seeker process for this um project.

The full environmental assessment form part two included on the page 223 of the records was pre-filled with staff recommendation and was previously reviewed by the planning commission at its October 20th, 2025 meeting.

At that meeting, the commission issued a negative declaration on the CECAR review.

Since the October meeting, the applicant has revised the action scope of work to add one more extra uh one extra parcels to the project site and eliminated the need for a variance due to the change of the scope of work.

Staff request the commission to redeliberate on the SECAR review.

However, with the addition of 1939 East Fayette Street, it is not going to result in any changes to the proposed apartment buildings or site features.

The existing tree line on the 1939 East Fayestree will remain as a night uh natural landscaping buffer for the action.

And updated SWIP, the stormwater pollution prevention plan has been provided for the expanded project site, which shows the onsite stormwater runoff will be kept well under control by the proposed stormwater management facility on the lot A.

The additional parcel will not bring any new impact regarding other aspects.

Therefore, staff recommends the board maintain the same responses to all part two questions and issue a negative declaration.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Since the commission determines that action will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment, and therefore an environmental impact statement need not to be prepared.

Accordingly, the commission issues a negative declaration to be filed, and notice of the negative declaration will be provided pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations.

Thank you.

Master plan review first.

Okay.

So with the environmental review completed, we'll start uh there are numerous items here that the commission needs to address and act upon either either way.

The first in the order that we will take them is a master plan review, MASPR 2527.

Is there a motion for action on this?

Uh in consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve the application for MASPR-25-27 as presented with two special conditions beyond the general general conditions for a master plan review.

Those two conditions are one, the owner shall uh obtain all necessary approvals from a city before commencing construction of the proposed two mixed-use buildings, and two, the owner applicant shall continue working with all city departments to address any concerns related to this project.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on the motion now before us for the master uh plan review.

Okay, if there's no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

And we take up the zoning map amendment, which is Z 2918.

Is there a motion for action on this?

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application Z-2918 as presented with two conditions and uh include a recommendation to the common council for for affirmative action on Z-2918.

The two conditions are one, the owner applicant shall obtain necessary approval from the city before commencing construction of the proposed two mixed use buildings, and two, the owner applicant shall continue working with the city department to address any concerns related to this project.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion now on the motion for the zoning map amendment.

Z 2918.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

Z 2918 is approved.

We move now to the first of two proposed resubdivisions for this project.

This is R 2572, the resubdivision that will create lot A in the application.

Is there a motion for action on this resubdivision?

Sure.

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-72 as presented with one condition.

That one condition is the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-27 with the On Dog County Clerk's Office when 60 within 62 days of the common council approval of the companion application Z-29-18.

So just to reinforce, you don't file after this except this approval you file after the common council approves the uh zoning map amendment.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion on the motion before us.

If there's no discussion, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions.

The resubdivision R2572 is approved.

We move now to the major site plan review MASPR 2525.

Is there a motion for action on this?

Uh yes.

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application as presented.

Uh application MASPR-25-25 with five special conditions beyond the general conditions for a site plan review.

Those conditions are as follows.

The applicant shall obtain approval from the common council on zoning mammet map amendment Z-2918 before obtaining any building permits.

Uh two, affordable dwelling units must comply with the city income and rent restrictions regardless of a change in building or property ownership.

Three, all affordable dwelling units must be certified by the city's department of neighborhood and business development administrative procedures.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion on this motion for the major site plan review.

All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please indicate by saying nay.

Any abstentions?

The major site plan review MASPR 2525 is approved.

We move now to the second proposed resubdivision for this project.

This is R2573.

This is the re-subdivision that will create proposed lot B for this project.

Is there a motion for action on this second resubdivision?

Yes, in consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-23 as presented with one condition.

That one condition is the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map of R-25-73 in the ongoing unendig clerk's office within 62 days of approval of the resubdivision.

And there is no zoning amendment attached to this, so the clock starts now.

Assuming we approve it.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion on the second resubdivision motion.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

R 2573 is approved.

Our last action item for this application is the second major site plan review.

This is MASPR 2526, the site plan review for proposed building B.

Is there a motion for action on this?

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application.

Uh MASPR-25-26 as presented with five special conditions beyond the general conditions for site plan reviews.

Those five, I'm sorry, four special conditions are one affordable dwelling units must comply with the city income and rent restriction regardless of a change in building or property ownership.

Two, are all affordable dwelling units must be certified by the city departments of neighborhood business development administrative procedures.

Three, the affordability requirement shall be effective for 30 years from the date of certificate of occupancy is issued, and four a necessary land use approvals shall be obtained before establishing any commercial business on the project site.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thanks.

Discussion on this motion for the site plan review.

If there's no discussion, then all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The major site plan review MASPR 2526 is approved.

Thank you very much.

Um special thanks to Commissioner Lentz.

Did the heavy lifting here?

Do you need a quick review?

Mr.

Chairman, we just need a quick revision on Z 2918, the zone map amendment.

That actually should have been in the form of a recommendation to council.

Council is a believe you voted on it as uh action item.

The planal approval.

Well I can it to register.

Okay.

Yes, redo it.

Yeah, Daryl, redo it.

On the zoning map amendment Z 2918, is there a motion to uh address the proposed zoning map amendment by way of a recommendation from this body to the common council?

Let's make a recommend recommendation for the uh approval affirmative action by the common council.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion before us for Z2918.

If there's no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The revised motion carries for Z 2918, and that recommendation will go forward to the common council for final disposition.

Thanks to everyone involved in this.

You had a question, sir?

Just want to say thank you.

Oh my council.

Next up uh is the 1207 West Genesee Redevelopment Project.

This is a resubdivision and a companion uh major site plan review uh at 1201-03, 1207, and 1215 West Genesee Street.

This is in the MX3 zone district.

Oh, good evening, Ben Harrell with CHA Consulting 300 South State Street Suite 600, Syracuse, New York 13202.

I am here today on behalf of Specialty Properties LLC for the site plan approval of a retail slash office building at 1201 to 1215 West Genesee Street as mentioned.

There's currently three properties totaling 0.93 acres.

There's two existing buildings, and everywhere else on site is paved completely.

As you can see, we'll be demolishing the two existing buildings which are in very poor condition, constructing the new 6900 square foot building and establishing a new parking area with internal landscaping, storm water management, and bicycle parking in the rear with plenty of landscaping to meet the city code.

Our site is fully compliant with the zoning code, and we believe it's a great reuse of the property and redevelopment.

So I'll open it to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant.

Do you have any commercial tenants lined up yet for the three spaces?

Do you have anything in that you're intending for that use?

Not currently, just because we don't have site plan approval, so it's hard to market it.

But I think if you look around at all the other properties that the Renales own, they fill them very quickly, so I don't think that'll be an issue finding tenants.

Right.

And the the uh office space on the second floor.

That's going to be open office space that can be parsed up in different ways, or what what's the intention there?

The intention is to lease it to a single company, but ultimately if someone comes in wanting 3,000 square feet, they can certainly divide that as needed.

So it may or may not be one of the commercial tenants on the first floor.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

I would just add everyone understands, I believe, that there's a requirement to come back to zoning and maybe ultimately planning for site plan approval on whatever is going to be constructed and what it will look like and who the tenant is, etc.

Parking, curbing, all those good things.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

Yes.

When we get to there.

I just want it to be clear.

I'll say it again.

Okay.

Okay.

They want me to say that at site plan review, not at reset.

So I didn't know if we were discussing both, or if I should have tailored.

That was my fault.

Sorry.

Where does the discussion fit?

Is always the question.

I jumped the gun.

So we're still on the reset.

Okay.

Okay.

Further questions for the applicant on the resub.

All set, thank you.

All set, thanks.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll ask if there's anyone interested in speaking in favor of this application.

Please come forward, provide your name, address, and comments.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the resub application, please come forward.

So we have no speakers.

We'll close public comment, turn our attention to the seeker review.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review the EAF part one contained in your packet and prepared by the applicant?

Yes.

Yes.

Does anyone believe there'll be a moderate to large impact under seeker due to the either of these actions?

No.

Okay.

Having determined there will be no moderate to large impacts under seeker.

I recommend that the board make a negative declaration under seeker and complete the part three EAF accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on the seeker motion.

If not.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries.

Uh we may now entertain a motion for action on the resubdivision.

R2561.

Is there such a motion?

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve the application for MASPR-25-30 as presented with four special conditions beyond the general conditions for a site plan review.

Those four special conditions are the resub first.

I thought we already did that.

Did we do the resub?

No, we just went down.

There's too many multiple.

Okay, that's again so in consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing.

I make a motion to approve application R-25-61 for resubdivision as presented with one condition.

That condition being the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map and county's clerk office within 30 62 days of approval.

Thank you for making the motion.

Second.

Yeah.

Thank you both.

Discussion on this motion for the resubdivision.

If not.

All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The resubdivision R2561 is approved.

Now we move to the major site planning reviews.

Okay.

Let's see if we can get this right now.

Please.

So in consideration of staffing.

Well, wait, let's have the presentation first.

Oh, we didn't, we're not counting there because I don't know if we do the home again.

Yeah.

Yeah, we usually do most.

Okay, sorry.

Okay.

So basically, I'll just do I'm gonna repeat what I just said, or we can just move forward.

Okay.

So it's a 6900 square foot building, two stories to comply with the zoning requirement, and MX3, which requires a minimum of two stories, 55 parking spaces with internal landscaping, as I mentioned before, bike parking at the rear of the property.

And tenants have not been selected at this time just because we don't have site plan approval, so we don't want to market something that we didn't have approvals on.

But I imagine it'll fill very quickly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I do have one question or one comment.

I think it was the county planning board had recommended additional screening at the rear of the property to um buffer the residential properties.

Did you see that comment?

And are you able to incorporate some of that recommendation into your project?

In addition to the fencing that's provided along the rear, we can certainly look at plantings.

I guess as far as small shrubs, they wouldn't really have much impact with the fence that's along the rear of the property.

But we could look at adding trees.

We are limited on the left plan left side.

There is the county sewer that runs under, so we can't put large trees.

But we can certainly directly behind the building along the property there, look at adding a tree or two.

So the the WEP comment is a condition that we included.

Um as that was an actual request of modification.

The landscaping comment, um, we believe possibly might be like a boilerplate comment that was left in their letter.

Um we believe this is sufficient for our code, but if you know if you want to double down on that and say make sure you you know you're um meeting your site plan approval for screening and landscaping in the rear, you know, as proposed.

Like I mean, it you're already approving it that way anyway, but we were just discussing that when you asked that question.

So I noticed it earlier in my review.

Uh I would just ask you to take a c take a look at the county planning board's letter.

If I don't know if one goes to you or not, if it comes here, there's a copy and uh we could get you a copy.

So I've got take that into consideration, please, if you would.

Yes, that comment.

Um we have grew to a reviewing that without listening as a condition.

We're agreeing to he will review that without listening that is as a condition.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

I think any other comments for the applicant.

Okay, thank you again.

Is there a motion for action on the major site plan review?

This is MASPR 2530.

In consideration of the staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application MASPR-25-30 as presented with four special conditions beyond the general conditions for site plan review.

Uh, those conditions are one curbing and landscaping within the front setback shall be installed to prevent vehicles from entering or beyond the general uh I'm sorry, entering or parking within the public sidewalk area.

Two snow storage shall be maintained on site in the designated area and shall not encroach into the public right-of-way or adjacent properties.

Three, the applicant shall submit updated floor plan details to the office of zoning administration for any new tenants according to occupying the proposed uh commercial spaces, and four the applicant shall coordinate with the onagoga county uh whip flow control division for any infrastructure related disturbances of land within the county easement and include county owned infrastructure, must be on the related plans.

Great.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion for the site plan review.

There's no discussion.

All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

MASPR2530 is approved.

Thank you very much.

Our next application.

Next up is the 201 South Krauss Apartment Project.

Uh this is owned by Norm Swanson 700 out parcel LLC is the owner applicant.

Uh so resubdivision R-25-64 and a major site plan review.

M A S P R 25 3 1.

This is in the MX4 zone district.

Good evening.

Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting Project Engineer.

Working on behalf of the owner who's also the applicant for this project.

As mentioned, this includes two parcels.

It's 201 South Krause Av and 1010 East Washington Ave.

Parcels combine.

I'm gonna give an overview of the whole project, and then you can separate it if you need to.

Both uh parcels combined is about 0.58 acres, and both properties are in the MX4 zoning district.

201 South Krauss, and maybe you can just pull up the site plan because I'll talk to that a little bit first.

Um 201 South Krause Ave is currently a vacant parcel.

And then 1010 East Washington is actually the former Ignatius Feisinger House.

It was built in 1873.

That house fronts to the north, which used to be East Washington Street, but is no longer accessible as that portion of the city right of way, it's owned by the city, is currently unimproved.

So there's still utilities there, but there's no roadway.

Um so the house has kind of faded off into the trees and landscaping.

Um part of our project is twofold, as you have on your agenda.

One is the resubdivision to formally combine both of these parcels into one new lot, which we believe is really the first step in preserving that house, right?

It was a little bit before my time, but I understand there's been several proposals generally for these parcels, some of which may have contemplated taking that house out or demolishing it.

Uh, and then actually during my time, there was an apartment project called the Coda Apartment Project.

Prior to rezone Syracuse, parking requirements were a lot um more strict, and we did propose to put an accessory parking lot on the front of this parcel and preserve the house.

Once rezoned Syracuse was adopted, we were able to go back and modify the approvals for that apartment project to essentially remove the parking requirements on this parcel in hopes of providing a project like this that we believe is really the best and highest use, not only for the investment to the new housing, uh which is going to add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood, but also to preserve the history associated with that house.

So resubdivision to combine the two lots, and then site plan approval for the new construction.

What you see here is the proposed project, which actually fronts on South Krauss Avenue.

We know that this portion of South Krauss Avenue is truly going to become the northerly gateway to that East Genesee corridor, the business corridor, and then up into the University Hill.

Umce the community grid happens, because this will be the off-ramp essentially to 690 as you travel up to the university area in the business district.

Um so this proposed project um would position the five-story multifamily apartment building along the south property line.

This would really allow for that existing house to still remain visible from that traveled street, which is fronting on South Krauss Avenue, um, while still also preserving its historical context and its facade facing that um East Washington to the north.

Driveway access for the project would be off of South Krauss Avenue, the improved right-of-way that's undergoing some improvements still today as we speak, despite the weather.

Um, the area in the southeast corner behind the new apartment building would be an exterior patio that essentially connects the new construction to that existing house.

Uh the new building itself uh at five stories would contain 88 new multifamily dwelling units and would also provide for the required amount of affordable units within the MX4 district.

Building materials, and we have provided all the renderings and architectural elevations uh include a mix of stone accents with siding and metal panels.

Um the site actually currently sits.

If you drove by it, it sits much higher than the street currently, so there's a little bit of slope to the driveway, but we are creating um a sidewalk and pedestrian entrance to the front of the building that would go into a lower level to access a lower level entrance lobby where there would be bike storage and a trash disposal area in the building.

And then there'll also be a second entrance from the parking lot for ADA accessibility from the site.

Uh previously to coming to this board, we spent a little bit of time with the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board.

Really two things the certificate of appropriateness dealing with the renovation and repurposing of the 1010 uh East Washington House, and also the major site plan uh review referral for the new construction adjacent to that house.

Generally, uh repurposing the house would be to renovate it as a continued use.

It's gonna be an accessory to the project, it'll be a residential amenity area.

Uh both the first and second floor uh would be renovated for things like um study offices, lounge area, and also a leasing office space to support the new construction of the apartments for a property manager to work there full time.

Um there are no new building additions to the house, and we went through this with Syracuse Lambert Preservation Board.

It would really just be limited to the interior demolition uh to be performed in compliance with the uh National Park Service standards.

Exterior is gonna remain the same.

There's some existing brick and masonry that'll be cleaned on that house.

Some of the cornicing and 1890s decorations will be repaired and repainted in kind, along with the covered porches.

Um there are a few non-contributing factors to that house that we discussed with Ferrake's Landmark Preservation Board that will be removed.

Um there's this 1980s constructed solarium or greenhouse that you notice on the back of the house.

It's not historically contributing and is in disrepair.

Um there's also some infilled openings and a spiral staircase.

Those will be removed, and in its place will be a new ADA accessible lift.

Um we went through probably a half dozen options with the landmark preservation board on how we were going to accomplish this.

Some ramps and railings, but because of the grade change, it's a pretty long ramp and switchbacks, and they felt like it was taking away from the aesthetics of the front of the house.

So we chose to put um a new ADA lift enclosure on the exterior of the house and essentially use the opening that was there from that old solarium.

This puts it behind the house, it puts it really close to the the way that pedestrian communication is gonna happen between the new building and this amenity space.

Um, and really their only comments to that were to add some of the uh details that you're seeing on this plan by keeping a stone foundation element on that new constructed lift enclosure and putting a window so that it matches the rest of that existing house.

Ultimately culminating in the uh, I believe positive recommendation for the C of A and also some uh building material changes that we made to the new construction to get their approval for the um major site plan review.

So essentially preserving the house, building a new apartment project, improving the site, and coordinating all of this with the wonderful New York State uh DOT project that we have going on along South Krause Avenue.

So, with that, I'll pause for any questions or comments that you might have.

Are there questions for the applicant?

I'm wondering about the uh uh the 1010 East Washington Street uh property.

I saw previously I saw one description of it as advanced space and uh you're referring to an office space.

In any case, it's just it's servicing the main building of the yeah.

Yeah, I think some of that may have been transposed from like my cover letter, but generally what I wrote is that there will be an office space for the property manager so that prospective tenants can come and have a space to sit down and and go through their leasing documents.

So there will be a small office space uh for the property manager, the rest of the first floor and the entirety of the second floor is really just rehabbing what you see as a residential house for use by the residents.

So there would be couches, seating areas, um, the residential units, um, you know, if if you're having three or four people over, might be a little too small.

So this is a place where you can go and have a TV and watch the game.

If you have a little birthday party or whatever you're doing, it's really just supportive space for the apartments and repurposing it for amenity space.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Yep.

You know, and like what you did with the elevator, the lift.

That was a really productive conversation.

Yep.

It's odd, it's modern, it doesn't fit, but trying to make it fit and still comply was the challenge here.

And I think despite some of the iterative efforts that we had with the preservation board, that I think we got the best product in the best location.

So thank you.

Thanks, Mary.

Further questions.

No, I'm also thank you.

So right, I have two questions.

The first is the treatment of Washington Street from the back of the house to whatever that is.

What is that?

Not Krause, but whatever that street is.

So if I go there now, I go past the property and I'm on Hayat, and I take a left going towards Erie.

Yep.

Right.

I see a street sign on my right.

It says East Washington Street.

And then on my left is the old whatever street or driveway, whatever that was.

I'm assuming it was it a street street?

Yeah, it was a good one.

Used to be a street.

Correct, yeah.

So it is there.

I'm just curious how is that gonna be closed off?

Is that going to be curved to so that it's not accessible in any way?

So thank you for bringing up the aerial because I think this is the area that we're looking at.

Um that and to you could see off way on the right-hand side of the page, you can see Washington Street, right?

It's paved.

And that used to continue all the way through for several blocks, and then it picks up again as you get closer over to Almond Street.

This portion for whatever reason has been abandoned.

I don't think you can even take a car down it today, but it is still a paper street.

There's there's national grid utilities, there's sewer infrastructure.

I think there's a water main, although it's a very small and antiquated water main.

I don't know if it's in service yet.

Everything still exists there.

That's all city's property.

So there isn't anything that the project can do to the city owns all of it.

Correct.

Because it was a city street.

Correct.

That's exactly correct.

Yeah.

All right.

So I guess it doesn't bother you, the applicant.

That well, I can't really tell because it was all snowy.

You know, can I get down there?

No, you can't.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't know.

You're saying in the spring I can't.

No.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, you may be able to walk, but it's very overgrown here.

But it's not accessible.

It shouldn't be accessible.

Okay.

Yeah.

So and everybody's comfortable leaving it the way it is.

Yeah, I mean, we originally started with putting a ramp and railing on the front, thinking that it was kind of something that wouldn't be noticeable.

But part of history, you could even take a mural and cover it up.

It's just preserving what was there in context, right?

So in our case, adding something to the front of the house visually would be different than its historical context.

We understand that that road may not be accessible, but changing the presentation of the house would be a detriment.

So then we started moving stuff around to the side of the front.

The house will still look the same forever.

And if at some point that paper street ever became active again, you'd be able to see it again.

But the point is that we didn't want to change the front of the house because that's the way that history created it, and whatever may come of the street will welcome.

But the project was focused on making sure that some of it was still visible from South Krause Av, both for the office space and residents, and making sure that it still had a little bit of visibility from what we know is the new connective corridor between your boulevard and the Genesee Street area.

Okay.

Thank you.

And my second question centers around the decision for 88 studio apartment.

And I'm just curious to know why just studio.

Yeah.

Efficient spaces are very successful in this market.

Um Swanson, who's a developer here, has very similar projects.

Um, Copper Beach Commons, we have the um uh Skylar Commons, and and all of these are completely leased, so this is very um productive for him in terms of the market.

So that's why he's he's choosing that here.

Some of this you can even see when we did like it's totally different developer, but like the Crown Plaza renovation that went from hotel rooms to efficient apartments, too.

There's some people that are just looking for this, right?

Whether it's a a med student or somebody that may have just gotten out of college, uh obviously something that's smaller is a little bit.

I mean, rents are always expensive, but something that's smaller as a studio, sometimes could be more affordable as a stepping stone, or maybe it's somebody who only has to be here for for their medical school or something and transitioning.

So it is there is a market for it, um, whether it's for people that are just graduating or students or young professionals, um, and it's been very successful in his portfolio, and that's why he's choosing to do the studios here too.

Yeah.

Additional questions.

Okay, thank you.

I think I know what's gonna happen next, but I'm gonna ask anyways.

Uh are there people who wish to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come to the podium, provide your name, address, and comments.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application?

Please come forward.

We have no speakers for these two items.

We will close public comment.

Turn our attention to our seeker review.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review the EAF part one prepared.

Oh, it's oh, sorry.

I've been usurped.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, it's a type of action.

So I'm Zitong Wu from Saruk's only office.

My address is 300 South State Street, Saragos, New York.

13202.

Um I'm going to go uh walk the commissions through the CO review for this project.

The full environmental assessment form part two on the page 379 has been previewed with this the suggestions from the staff.

I'm going to go through the part two to see if the board agrees with those suggestions.

Additionally, stop has dropped it part three determination of significance and a sequel resolution which could be used if commissioners decide to act on secret tonight.

Among the 18 impacts indicated in the part two, staff recommend you check no to impact on land.

The project site has large depths to water tables and barracks, and no excavation, mining, or dredging will be conducted during the construction.

The construction will align with the City of Syracuse noise ordinance to mitigate the noise impact.

And underground stormwater storage system, which requires adherence and approval to the New York State DEC standards, will be installed to control on site stormwater runoffs.

And no to impact on geological features as there are no unique geological features and no designated national nature landmarks on the project site.

No to impact on surface water, as there is no wetland or other surface water body exists on or adjacent to the property.

Stormwater management system will be installed on the project site to prevent stormwater generated by the action flowing into nearby properties.

The action will be served by existing water infrastructure instead of withdrawing the water from the surface water.

No to impact on groundwater, as the action will not result in any new or additional use of groundwater.

No to impact on flooding, as the action will not result in development on land subject to flooding.

No to impact on air, as the action will not include a state regulated air emission source and will not require federal or state air emission permits.

No to impact on plants and animals.

There is no threatened or endangered species on the project site, and there is no natural uh national natural landmark on the site.

No to impact on agricultural resources as there are no agricultural resources on the site.

No to impact on aesthetic uh resources, as the action is not located near to any scenic or aesthetic resources.

No to impact on open space and recreation as no designated open spaces or recreation resources will be displayed by the uh this displaced by the action.

No to impact on critical environmental areas as the project site does not contain a critical environmental area.

No to impact on transportation.

Per the traffic operation study by GTS consulting, the project the projected traffic increase will not exceed the capacity of the existing road network.

The action will not add 500 or more parking spaces and will not eliminate any public transit access, will not degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations, and will not require the creation of new traffic patterns that may impact existing movement patterns of people or goods.

No to impact on energy, as the action will not require a new or an upgrade to an existing substation, and action will take place in an already urbanized area with existing electricity infrastructure.

No to impact on human health, as there is no blasting proposed, and the project site does not have a history of contamination or spills.

And solid waste generated will be managed by following all state federal and local laws and regulations.

No to consistency with community plans, as the action is consistent with the development standards of MX4 zone district.

The surrounding properties are occupied by high density residential apartments, parking lots, restaurants, offices, and fire station.

The proposed land use is not in sharp contrast to surrounding land use patterns.

No to consistency with community character as the action will modify but will not replace or eliminate the existing structures of historic importance to the community, will not create a demand for additional community services, will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of official public resources, and is designed to be consistent with the predominant architectural scales and the character of the surrounding properties.

Also, the action will use the vacant lens to create more affordable housings.

Therefore, staff determined action is highly unlikely to have significant adverse impact on the above 16 aspects.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

The staff recommend you check yes to the following impacts.

Impact on historic and archaeological resources.

This action does not occur on locally protected site.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

This action does not occur on locally protected site and an R eligible property.

Uh does occur on locally protected site and on our eligible property and involve modifying the historic structure.

Therefore, we recommend the board answer this question.

Yes.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

The unless eligible property situated at 1010 East Washington Street is part of the project site.

The action will modify the historic structure by demolishing the attached two-story solarium and renovating the building interior for residents, gathering space and leasing office.

Syracuse landmark preservation board has reviewed this action and has no concern regarding the preservation aspect.

Part FEAF Part 1.

Action will not occur within or substantially contiguous to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites.

Therefore, I recommend you check no or small impact for the sub question A, B, and C.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Impact on noise all order and light.

This action will result in uh result in an increase in noise and outdoor light, outdoor lighting.

Therefore, we recommend the board answer this question yes.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

However, part of the full EAF, the action will comply with the City of Syracuse noise ordinance to mitigate noise impact.

We'll add new security security lighting mounted on a building, but will comply with the Syracuse zoning ordinance, which prohibits light shining onto adjoint properties and will not result in having light creating sky globe brighter than existing era conditions.

Also, the action will not result in generating orders or fumes during operations.

Therefore, I recommend you check no or small impact for the sub question A, B, C, D, and E.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

So in conclusion, the commission, as the lead agency in this coordinated review under the state environmental quality review act, has thoroughly reviewed all relevant materials, has taken an hard look and analyzed all aspects of action.

For all the reasons that forced above, the commission determines that action will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment, and therefore an environmental impact statement need not to be prepared.

Accordingly, the commission issues a negative declaration to be filed, and notice of the negative declaration will be provided pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that review complete, uh we move to the resubdivision, R2564.

Is there a motion for action on the resubdivision?

Excuse me.

In consideration of staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-64 as presented with one condition.

That condition being the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision mapping on the down a clerk's office within 62 days of approval of the resubdivision.

Thank you.

Discussion on the resubdivision motion.

I just want to add Brian and I know this is not particular to you, but uh just to note that the taxes there are outstanding taxes on the parcels, and the map will not be able to be signed or completed until those taxes are paid.

Um, which I'm sure everyone's aware of.

Yeah.

They will she will hold that man.

Just so you know.

Any other comments?

Or discussion.

If not, then all in favor of the resubdivision motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Our 2564 is approved.

We turn our attention to the major site plan review, which is MASPR 2531.

Is there a motion for action on this?

In consideration of staff analysis and discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve the application for MESPR-25-11 as presented with 10 special conditions beyond the general conditions for a site plan review.

Those 10 special conditions are one, at least six covered bike spaces must be applied, supplied.

Two, the applicant shall designate at least 12% of the 88 dwelling units as affordable dwelling units.

Three, affordable dwelling units must comply with the city income and rent restrictions regardless of a change in building or property ownership for all affordable dwelling units must be certified by the city's department of neighborhood and business development administrative procedures.

Five uh the ability uh the affordability requirement shall be effective for 30 days 30 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy is issued.

Um the following two conditions from the Undadoggy Planning Board shall be adhered to.

Uh six, the applicant shall coordinate with Interstate 81 project team on this project, and seven, the onedoga County Department of Water Environmental Protection requires capacity insurance due to an anticipated increase in use.

Uh, eight, the chair lift enclosure shall be located at the rear south side of the house.

Option two, when the plans submitted on 1726.

Uh nine, a water table uh or base course shall be added to the lift enclosure, and fenestration shall be added to the enclosure matching the sill height of the windows on the south facade of the house, and three of manufacturers product information including colors for the base and base course and side trim shall be submitted for staff review and approval.

Those last three conditions were from the uh landmark preservation board.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on the major site plan review motion.

If there's no discussion, then all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

MASPR 2531 is approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know we always say that too, but I talk to them every day.

They're super helpful.

And I know your guys' time is important too, but they're they're great with the room to ship around.

Thanks.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

We agree with you.

Uh you too.

Next, we have some additional business before adjournment.

Yes, uh, under other business.

Uh we'll be having a workshop on battery energy storage systems moratorium.

Um, just to kind of thank you, give some brief history on this.

Um, the council recently, the common council of the city of Syracuse recently held a public hearing uh last Monday evening.

Um this was after this was advertised and uh on their regular uh agenda um to propose the idea of a moratorium, and uh we received you know public comment during that.

Um this is more specific on the actual the moratorium, like the language uh and intent and purpose behind it.

So I'm just gonna read the summary uh for this just for the record.

Um, and uh highlight a few areas uh some things that I think um are being considered, and then we can open it up from there.

Uh so the purpose of this is to regulate and control land use and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the city's residents and occupants.

It is the intent of the common council to impose a six-month moratorium on the issuance of permits and or approvals for battery energy storage systems, also known as BESS in the city of Syracuse.

While BES is a critical component in supporting the viability and promotion of renewable energy sources, it also represents a relatively new technology with potential and not yet fully understood impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, as well as a lack of comprehensive comprehensive local regulatory standards.

Accordingly, the city intends to implement a temporary citywide pause on development of BEST facilities.

The proposed moratorium will allow the city sufficient time to evaluate the safety and security implications of BES, including but not limited to thermal runway, off-gassing and toxicity, stranded energy fire prevention measures, and the potential for contamination from byproducts.

The moratorium will also enable the city to ensure that emergency responders receive the necessary training and information to effectively prepare for and respond to bus related incidents and to develop appropriate local ordinances governing future bus applications.

The proposed moratorium will be presented to the common council for consideration and final legislative action uh following this evening.

So as a reminder and for the record, I'm gonna read the reasons uh one couple of the reasons why the common council um uh kind of has this before us.

Um under their review uh they stated a new use type is required to address and govern land use type uh for these types of systems, specifically for battery energy storage systems, and um that this moratorium would allow us the time to uh draft those additional code uh regulations uh for the specific type of use.

Um in addition, it would also uh allow the city to uh come up with further regulatory action uh to advance and protect public health, safety, welfare, and quality of life for residents and visitors in the city of Syracuse.

Um we do have a draft included um, and this was uh posted.

So I thought you were clearing your throat for a second there.

I'm like, I didn't know what was happening.

Um there were a few revisions made uh after further review.

They the minor one replaces uh common council with the mayor due to the authority uh vested in the mayor and the council and the charter.

Uh there were a couple typos where it said town, and we added that um the corporation council's office can also pursue enforcement along with the code enforcement team, and I think there was one more, but I can't remember.

Oh uh, yeah.

So I think those are all the changes from when it was first posted.

Um there is a working group that is being led by um our deputy commissioner of planning and sustainability, but it includes city representation from the engineer's office, uh public works, the mayor's office, uh the fire department, um, code enforcement, the central permit office, um so to cover everything that I just went through.

Um, we we look at it as an opportunity to try to um you know come up with specific regulations for this.

Um and some of the areas that we're looking into are you know, decommissioning language and regulations, and how do we how do we ensure that that's funded properly?

What is the process to do that?

Um it's been estimated that decommissioning of these sites is very, very costly.

Um, and although the the state fire code in New York State has provisions that uh that these have to be decommissioned, having the funding and resources available when they reach their shelf life is critical.

Um I wish uh on everything that I in code enforcement that we had the funding available to you know satisfying what's in all those codes, but um you know, so although it's a code regulation, it doesn't mean it's gonna happen at the end of the uh shelf life.

So we we think that's very important.

Um part of it will include conversations around um updates to the zoning ordinance for specific use regulation specific to battery energy storage systems.

This is not unique to the city of Syracuse, um, not even unique to our neighbors in Onadaga County.

A lot of municipalities are doing this.

Umta has a model local law that they're um encouraging local government to adopt and um you know, maybe make specifics for um you know your town, village, or city.

Um so that's available.

Uh the fire department's looking at standards uh for review and fire protection and new code provisions from the state fire code, which was just formally adopted on January 1 of 2026.

So very fresh on you know, a new code that we never administered uh or enforced or did plan review under.

Um, so all that's very new to them.

Um but these meetings are ongoing, there's active uh work taking place, and we feel it's important that you know we have a little pause on applications coming in for these uh so we can figure this out.

Is the city actively contemplating adoption of the state model law or some variation of it?

Uh it's definitely something that's on the table.

Um if you take a look at it, it's it's on NICERTA's website.

We and we can maybe pull it up, but it covers everything from you know screening to uh landscaping to setbacks to fire protection, it uh it kind of uh it's it's comprehensive of all of that into a local law.

Um so that's definitely one route we could go.

There are municipalities in the state of New York that have taken that uh model of the law and adopted it with some tweaks, I think, but um it it covers all of that.

Um so definitely, but it also could be just updates to a zoning code with um you know, maybe revisions in our property conservation code as well as another.

Um but that's kind of what we need to figure out is yeah, and the um we chose to have the commission host this public workshop in the hope of getting some just to let the public make comments, but obviously uh I just want to make it clear um because the procedure for adopting a moratorium is very strict that the planning commission is not involved in any sort of recommendation to council.

This was an information sessional session only um once we get the work started uh if the moratorium is adopted once we get the work started, though most certainly will be amendments to the zoning code, but we anticipate that any law regulating BESS would go into the code of ordinance, not into the zoning code.

Not that that any ordinance regulating BESS will go into the code of ordinances, not into the zoning code.

The zoning code would be impacted only in the sense that um, for example, right now uh we don't have a use type that accommodates this type of facility.

So we need to either amend the code or um have an unlisted use determin zoning administrator unlisted use determination drafted um when needs be those use determinations also include use regulations, dimensional standards, development standards, such as we did with um uh residential commercial properties, but we're not there yet.

But just any changes to the ordinances would be council's office and common council, and we wouldn't be involved in this drug discussion.

Exactly.

You'd only be involved to the extent that um they uh some amendments would come up in the zoning ordinance, Syracuse zoning ordinance.

And again, we chose this body to host the workshop because your meeting was coming up.

It ultimately those applications for best will come to the commission.

But um this is a forum where people are used to coming to speak.

Council doesn't really have uh uh citizens come up and speak at their meetings, so um uh we uh thought this was a good forum, even though you're not really involved with this operation.

What what's the time frame for the council acting on the moratorium?

Are they prepared to go ahead at the next meeting or what are we looking at here?

Well, there's no guarantee with that.

Um the city will submit legislation um this week, and once the sit the you know, the city clerk and council choose to put that on their agenda, but we would anticipate they would put it on the next available council session, so within the next couple of weeks.

And so you you're you're in a position to slow walk any applications to come in until they actually do pass the moratorium.

Well, the moratorium doesn't permit accepting review or approval of any applications for best facilities.

Right, but they have to pass it.

Right.

So if any come in in the meantime, um staff will have to reject them because we don't have a land use type that governs um best, or any more importantly, any use regulations in the code.

So um well, we have a moratorium.

Sorry, not yet.

Who knows?

A common council could wait two months to vote.

So moratorium uh if it's not adopted in the meantime, you know, we'll s we'll know what happens with council soon.

Uh presumably we'd be writing an unl uh unlisted use determination and uh public regulations would come to you.

Well, no, those don't come to you.

They would come to you if we put them in the code, which is optional.

The model state law that was referenced is that's that's an opt in opportunity, correct?

Yeah, and NICERTA's created that to help uh local jurisdictions and municipalities to kind of uh have these procedures and and regulations in place and you know a lot has gone into it, but certainly um cities and towns and villages can choose to not adopt it or change it or do something different because I mean they it's a resource heavy lifting and sure communities could tailor it to their circumstances.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Well there's a best workshop at the uh symposium in March, which is timely.

Yeah.

Um there's also uh an event at Syracuse University coming up that the city will have um attendees at.

It was it was mentioned for anybody that was at or watched the um public hearing for the common council, it was mentioned in that as well by a member of the public actually.

Or one of the speakers.

Um it's the uh 22nd annual symposium on energy in the 21st century.

Oh, in April.

Uh this is at SUNY ESF on April 17th.

Um the date was uh uh the 17th of April.

And one of the major topics will be energy uh battery energy storage systems.

Um Friday they usually go back to senior VP from NYCERDA will be present uh and speaking and they're advertising um guest speakers uh to talk about fire safety with batteries as well.

No name yet on that.

And then uh Commissioner Lentz mentioned the I don't know, county planning symposium, which will also have uh last month I forget segment.

I forget the date, but that's next month.

Yeah, there's uh I can pull it.

Registration is open.

Is it March 19th, Thursday, March 19th?

So that one's first uh April 17th.

So a couple good opportunities to get knowledgeable about this.

Yep.

And um city will have representatives at both from multiple departments.

In the moratorium uh language, it says that I can have a storage battery unit in my account for 80 kilowatt.

We just know 80 kilowatt is the right watts in the network.

Not necessarily.

We're tr we're trying to I I think that's what residential uses uh and what you may have if you were doing battery power for your entire house, you know, thinking above and beyond like maybe what you might have for a couple Teslas if you have if you were totally battery supported, but uh that's something that we're gonna that that's kind of the intent on that number, and it may that may change.

Okay, so somebody will research.

Yeah, what will eight eight kil 80 kilowatts do?

Yeah, I know.

Oh, I have no idea.

I don't either.

We found um again this was web pages, but uh in the form of private manufacturers who sell these home battery systems, and we found uh evidence that to power your whole house and charge a car to they recommend two seventeen point five sized units.

But I saw elsewhere on a Tesla website and some Tesla literature, um much higher wattage, though not coming up to 80.

So that number is just in there because that's what DeWitt used, um, our sister community, and um we're we're anticipating that the working group will kind of dig into this um and get more information.

There's a lot of talents on that group.

Yeah, I my only comment would be you know, there probably is an industry standard or acceptance of that's good.

And that won't cause any harm if it loads up.

So i you know, in your garage or your basement or wherever you tie it in our sources, um, it might burn your house down, but I I don't I would assume that we're gonna follow it.

Yeah, well, I mean that's a quite a big difference between 37 or uh 35 and uh 80 and really um uh I I wonder if the big concern is that you're tying a bunch of eighty kilowatt units together for a best facility, whereas just having log I'm not sure why uh do uh I spoke with the attorney for the city of Du the town of DeWitt and they modeled their ordinance or their moratorium, which we've modeled ours off after, um, off literature they got from the state.

So I assume that the 80 kilowatt figure is floating around through official channels.

I can't verify that.

Okay.

Oh somebody will.

Somebody's they're gonna work in group will the working group.

But it's going through with 80 though now.

I mean, if if you're you're submitting to the council tomorrow, it's going through with 80.

Yeah, okay.

And they can't make floor amendments, so subject to change, I guess by the working group at some point, right?

So uh this all comes from the fire code.

Um so the fire code kind of breaks these into two different tiers, and the 80 kilowatt hour or less is generally a tier one residential small scale, where larger than that uh is the tier two, which is more yeah.

So the fire code is kind of blessing the 80.

Well yeah, that yeah, and that's a good enough comfortable with that.

Because I think fire is if not number one, very close to the number one lead on this subject.

Right.

I know and they need to be the directors of we're good.

This is safe for all of us.

And obviously, you know that the members of the fire department are on the work in the work group, right?

So they have to find it's it's uh it's kilowatts that we don't know about, and it's also the materials that if they combust there in a fire, what happens when you try to put it out?

It's all those things.

They're gonna tell us.

I actually thought there'd be a lot of people here.

Well, I didn't.

Well, there were, just not for this.

Yeah, but not for this.

Um this is a public it's not a public hearing.

We advertised it as a public hearing just to get the notice out.

But it's absolutely an opportunity for you to allow the public to speak again.

I just want to emphasize that this is not a zoning issue, but um you can host this workshop um as long as you're not making any kind of recommendation or or commenting on what the public has to say.

Anything said will be shared with the council.

Yeah.

Good.

Any additional comments before we the minutes will refer to the draft proposal?

Yes.

So I mean people have well, it's already there.

It's in the whole package.

Yeah, it's in the package.

Yeah.

So if any member of the public would like to comment on the workshop topic, um the floor is yours.

You you guys might want to switch out uh the copy that's in the uh the full packet with the new version.

There's some differences.

I'm sorry, what do you think?

I was just commenting on switching out the the copy that's in the packet is different than the one we got today.

Yes, that had a few changes in it that um I floated a draft uh internally uh on January twenty-third.

Um and we got some comments back today, which were really more technical things that I outlined at the beginning.

Um I a typo, uh three typos where it referenced the town and not the city.

Um where it referenced a a certain act by the common council, but um under our scheme, it should be the mayor, because the common council is not authorized to direct staff to do things, but the mayor is um there were two added references to enforcement uh adding the corporation council's office as a as a possibility for enforcement and and one other item that I for the sixth time cannot remember, but something minor along those.

So if anyone would like to offer comments on the proposed moratorium, here's an opportunity to do so.

Um but seeing those speakers, is there any additional business to come before the commission this evening before we consider a motion to adjourn?

No, that's it.

Okay, thank you.

In that case, is there a motion for adjournment?

A second discussion.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

We stand adjourned.

Our next meeting will be the twenty third.

Okay.

Okay, thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.