Of the Syracuse Planning Commission.

We will begin our public hearings in just a moment.

Typically, at this time, we take action upon the minute minutes of our previous meeting, which was held in this case, February second, and it's have been distributed in draft form to the commission members.

We will hold those minutes to our next meeting and move to the public hearing uh portion of our meeting.

Before we start that, let me just give a few ground rules for those who might be unfamiliar with our process.

As each application is announced, we will ask the applicant or the representative to come to the podium in the middle of the room, provide their name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the application involved.

Following questions from the commission members, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in favor of the application to do so.

And then we will offer an opportunity for members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the application to do that as well.

We ask that all speakers keep their comments to uh just a few minutes, three minutes so that everyone has a chance to speak.

And where comments are offered in opposition, we will encourage the applicant to return to address those comments in opposition.

With that, I will defer to my colleague who I think has a little update on our agenda for this evening.

Yes, thank you.

Um Jake Dishhaw, Deputy Commissioner of Code Enforcement and Zoning Administration as the zoning administrator.

I have two announcements.

First, regarding a new business item on the agenda.

Uh the Syracuse Utility Thermal Energy Network Project.

Uh there are two companion pieces at 7751 Van Rensselaer Street and North Gettys, SP-25-36, the special use permit and the major site plan review.

I'm a SPR 25-35.

Um that uh project has been postponed currently by the applicant and um uh will be on a future meeting, most likely.

Uh so that's the first one.

Second announcement is uh an addition to uh order, so old business item that we're bringing back uh to this body um to uh reexamine uh procedural um error that was made.

So uh this is for 652 West on a doggus street uh renovation project.

It was a special use permit with companion major site plan review um to just summarize there were new criteria adopted in the zoning code in October of 2026.

Uh around the same time when this project was heard.

Uh those there was new special use permit criteria uh adopted, which was not applied to this.

Um so procedurally and legally, we need to kind of back this up, rescind it, and bring it back before you at a future meeting, possibly three weeks from tonight.

Um the applicant is aware, but we can't move this forward to uh the common counsel for a final decision with wrong and inaccurate um facts and um findings in the previous application that was before you.

So we'll plan on bringing it back, but uh current recommendation is to rescind both the special use permit and the major site plan review for now so we can get the corrected staff report correct criteria analysis before you to appropriately uh recommend and vote.

Okay, thank you for the clarification on that.

In light of that information, is there a motion to rescind the special use permit recommendation SP 2529?

Um based on the information provided this evening and the recommendation of the zoning administrator.

I make a motion to rescind SP-25-29.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion to rescind.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

So that is has been rescinded.

And now for the major site plan review, MASPR 2529.

Is there a similar motion for this?

Uh based on the information received this evening and the recommendation of the zoning administrator.

I can motion to rescind MASPR-25-29.

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

Any discussion on this motion.

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

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The motion carries.

And then just to confirm uh that when this comes back to us, there will be public notification in the same channels that we typically use for all our other applications.

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Okay, so that puts us back on schedule in the agenda.

So we're uh back under new business uh to a resubdivision.

First up is 104 auto street, R-25-65 in the R1 zone district.

Owner applicant is the Greater Syracuse Property Development Corporation.

Thank you.

Caitlin Wright, representing the Greater Syracuse Property Development Corporation, also known as the Greater Syracuse Land Bank, 1941 South Salina Street.

Just to give a little bit of context, we are preparing to build 52 single-story manufactured homes through New York State's Move in New York program.

And working out all those details with New York State right now, but I'm hoping that we'll start construction on these in the spring, and that we'll finish all 52 of them within a year.

We have three different models that we are using depending on the size of the lots and some topography issues.

Here on Otto, we would like to divide this parcel into two 50-foot wide lots and build two uh one single family home on each parcel.

Um I sketched up this very rudimentary design earlier today.

I will hire a real professional to do our site plan when it's time to apply for the permits.

But if you guys are curious, we have to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Each of these, well, the vast majority of them will have a detached one-car garage.

Um the only cases where they won't are where we have some weird topography things going on.

Um, this is similar, this would be the same as what was done on Maxwell.

Very similar, same type of construction.

Umed by New York State.

We are specifically searching out lots where there are other single story homes on the block so that these will blend in and not stick out like a sore thumb.

Great.

Yeah.

What's your construction period?

Well, I think we can get all 52 of them done within a year.

We have two manufacturers working on it.

Um they get from one end of the assembly line to the other in the factory in a week.

Um so assuming that we keep our crews here moving to get the utility lines in and foundations poured.

Um, we should be on track.

And I'm we are working with two companies so they can kind of race each other.

Nice.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Well, this is an interesting application, and the next one we're gonna review under the same funded under the same programs is interesting and exciting.

And I know uh you don't necessarily have all the details yet on the different models, et cetera.

But I'm just kind of curious if you can talk a little bit more about those parameters, especially if there's like this is in R1, the next one is in R2.

Is there any difference based on that?

Uh what are the the parameters that that you have to deal with?

The difference is primarily based on lot width.

The model that we built on Maxwell last year requires a lot at least 48 feet wide, and I have hundreds of 40-foot lots, but not very many 48-foot lots.

Right.

Um, so we're working on different models than what we used on Maxwell.

Umstory homes are not really what I'm used to dealing with in the affordable housing world.

So it initially we were kind of grappling with the fact that usually the living space is in the front and the bedrooms are in the back.

So we really don't have an opportunity for a rear door.

We end up with a side door, which requires a four-foot landing and then a four-foot wider lot.

Um so the three models that we've settled on are a little bit unusual in that they have all the bedrooms down one side of the house and all the living space down the other, so that we can have a rear door and eliminate the need for that four-foot landing on the side.

A certain percentage of these will be ADA accessible, but um regardless, I'm making sure that all of them have 36-inch doors, um, obviously on the exterior, but also into the primary bedroom, any common spaces, utility rooms, uh, and the primary bathroom.

So if somebody did need to retrofit it in the future, it would be easy to swap out, say the shower pan for a roll-in shower pan.

Um, I think that the single story will really appeal to buyers that want to age in place.

Right.

Great.

And these all have to be single family homes.

It can't be they will all be single family homes.

Yep.

Thank you.

And owned by the homeowner.

Yes, they will all be owner-occupied.

Um we'll sell them to buyers between 60 and 100 percent 60 and 120 percent of area median income.

We expect the sales prices to range from 125 to 200.

Exciting.

Any further questions?

I'll set.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there individuals who wish to speak in favor of this application?

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

If not, are there individuals who wish to speak in opposition to the application?

If so, please come forward.

Okay.

We apparently have no speakers of either kind, so we will close public comment and now turn our attention to our seeker review for the application.

Okay, here we go.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate to large impact.

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

Thank you.

Is there a secret motion to that effect?

I make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Second.

Discussion on this motion.

Hearing none.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries, and we may now turn our attention to the resubdivision itself.

This is R 25-65 on Auto Street.

Otto Street.

Is there a motion for action on this resubdivision?

Sure.

In due consideration of the application staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-65 as presented with one condition.

The one condition being uh that the applicant shall uh uh file the resubdivision map for R-25-65 in the outdog county planning clerk's office within 62 days.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion for the resubdivision.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

R 2565 carries is approved.

We move to another resubdivision.

Next up is R25-66 at 108 Hartson Street, R2 Zone District, also Syracuse Land Bank.

Thanks, Caitlin.

Again, Caitlin Wright, Greater Syracuse Land Bank, 1941 South Salina Street.

Uh this is a slightly narrower lot.

We will end up with two 44 foot wide parcels, and so we're using the smallest of the three models here.

Um the other two are about 1500 square feet.

This model is just over a thousand square feet, but all of them are three bedrooms, two full baths.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant on this resubdivision?

Yeah, any sense on what the price point is on the different models?

Which is out of curiosity.

I mean, how much difference does it make?

Well, it's almost a third less uh in terms of square footage.

So that will definitely affect the price.

We're still in the early stages of this.

Um so in general, I know these houses will go for anywhere from 125 to 200.

And I would imagine that these smaller ones will be on the lower end.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Sorry.

Are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

If so, please come forward.

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

We have no speakers for this one.

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

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

Yes.

Yes.

Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review the EAF part two prepared by staff and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under secret?

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate to large impact, I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and prepare the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

I make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion on the seeker motion.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

So the seeker motion carries, and we now turn our attention to the resubdivision per se.

R 2566.

Is there a motion for action?

In due consideration of the application staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-65 as presented with one condition.

That one condition being that the applicant must file uh the resubdivision map within the county clerk's office for R-25-26 within 62 days.

Okay, just to clarify it for R-25-66.

I said a different number, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh second.

Thank you both.

Discussion on this motion now before us.

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.

R 2566 is approved.

Thank you.

Onward with another resubdivision.

Thank you.

Next up is R-25-74, resubdivision at 1408 Park Street, owned by St.

John the Baptist Parish.

Applicant uh representing is Barclay Damon LP.

This is an R4 zone district.

Good evening, Commission members.

My name is Heather Lamondola with Barclay Damon at 125 East Jefferson Street here in Syracuse, New York.

We represent the applicant, St.

John the Baptist Church for this resubdivision at 1408 Park Street.

And with me I have Father Foley, uh, who is the pastor of St.

John the Baptist?

And this evening, uh, the applicant would like to carve out a small piece of their larger parcel, which fronts on Court Street.

It's 54 feet wide by 138 feet deep.

And the building that sits there now has been used for religious purposes over the years, including a convent.

However, it has become underutilized as of recently, and the church has decided to sell the structure, and therefore that's the reason for the resubdivision so that it can sit on its own lot.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant on this?

Heather, I'm just kind of curious about the footprint because the other sort of residential properties that are in that scattered around that block, are they privately owned or are they being rented owned by the uh St.

John's or the surrounding adjacent houses to the left?

If you are standing on Court Street looking at this building, are owned.

Uh I think there's two of them.

They're owned by the same person.

I don't believe that they're owner occupied.

Okay.

All right.

But this this property, the intention of St.

John's is to sell it, not to rent it.

Is that correct?

They will be selling it actually.

The potential buyer is the adjacent property owner.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Further questions for the applicant?

All set.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks, Heather.

Are there individuals who would like 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.

Again, no speakers.

We will close public comment.

Turn our attention to the required seeker review.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review the EAF part two prepared by staff and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate to large impact.

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

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Second.

Thank you both.

Discussion on the seeker motion before us.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The seeker motion carries, and we may now act upon the resubdivision application itself.

This is R 2574.

In due consideration of the application, staff analysis and the decision discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve application R-25-74 as presented with one condition.

The one condition being that the applicant shall uh file the resubdivision map with the county clerk's office within 62 days of approval of the resubdivision.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you as well.

Discussion on this motion for the resubdivision.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

R 2574 is approved.

Thank you.

And we have yet more resubdivision.

Yeah, one more to go for a resub.

Uh R-2026-9, resubdivision at 119-21, Warner Ave 123 and 25 Warner, and 2648 South Salina Street and Brighton, owned by Salina Warner Holdings and Duncan Bright and Joe Bright, represented by Michael Laman of the City of Syracuse.

This is in the MX2 zone district.

Hi, I'm I'm Rod McDonald.

I'm here uh of one Lincoln Center.

Um here on a power of attorney for Joe Bright.

He is out of town today.

Um what would the applicant would like to do is draw a new line to turn three current lots into two current lots?

Uh one B would be uh to be acquired by the city of Syracuse for uh it's uh a public safety facility.

And uh you can see the line kind of through the middle there.

There you go.

And the uh the uh so that right now it's one big lot with two small lots on the west side, and uh they would be those two smaller lots would be part of one BFER.

This it's approved.

Okay, and there any more to it, or is that that's it for the questions?

Okay, resubdivision.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the commission members regarding this proposed resubdivision?

Uh two questions, I I think, maybe more later.

But the the two properties on on Warner Street, I mean they're owned by an LLC, but that's a separate entity from Duncan Bright?

Yes, but Joe Bright owns owns those LLCs.

Right.

Oh, he does.

Yes.

He owns those LCOC.

Okay, good.

So that's it's just really two parties that are involved in this then the city.

Yes, the city and and Joe.

Joe acquired those uh a few years ago when using the LLC, but okay.

And as I understand, uh in the Duncan Bright building that exists right now, there's what's called a party wall.

Not sure what a party wall is, but part of what needs to happen, and the reason why this resub is happening now is because that needs to be replaced by a firewall.

Is that yes, my understanding that correctly?

Yes, and I understand that's uh the city will be coming before you separately on that.

Michael voting for mine.

Yes.

Never far away.

Right, right.

But the importance of the resub tonight is you they can't make the transaction and build the wall until this happens.

Is it correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, further questions.

And in the final resub, we're doing two lots, right?

Two lots.

One A and one B.

Uh one B and one C.

Yeah, yeah.

And B B would be the one that I think is the Western one that the city would be acquiring.

Additional questions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there individuals would like to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward.

Good evening, thank you.

Michael Lehman, on behalf of the city of Syracuse, 233 East Washington Street.

I would like to speak in favor of this resubdivision.

Um, as uh Roderick with uh Bond just explains uh the goal is to separate the block into two separate parcels, the western one of which uh the city of Syracuse is in negotiations with Duncan Bright to acquire after the parcels are uh redrawn.

And the purpose afterward would be for a new fire maintenance facility.

Thank you.

Thank you, all right.

Thank you.

Yes, just want to confirm.

Based on the notes from the engineering division, they are urging both parties or you, the city in particular, to put on file the reciprocal agreement being negotiated.

Yes.

I assume between the city and Duncan Bright.

Correct.

Um and I assume it's access related uh so that would actually regard among a couple other things, but the um the party wall that Mr.

Lentz was just which uh will be established after the conveyance of real property.

Okay.

So anyway, the recommendation is to sort of include that agreement with the final mapping so that 10 years from now if somebody has a question, at all.

Trying to figure out what you intended there.

So I'm assuming that's not a problem.

It isn't the agreement.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Michael.

Are there other individuals who might want to speak in favor of this application?

Then are there individuals who wish to speak in opposition to the application?

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

We don't seem to have any additional speakers for this application, so we'll close public comment and turn our attention to the seeker review.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review the EAF part two prepared by staff and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate large impact, I recommend that the commission make a negative declaration and prepare the EAF part three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a seeker motion now to that effect?

I make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Second.

Thank you both.

Discussion on this seeker motion.

There being no discussion.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries.

We now look to the resubdivision itself.

This is R2026-9.

Is there a motion for action here?

Um I make a motion to uh file the uh uh I make a motion to in due consideration of application staff analysis and discussion during this hearing.

I make a motion to approve application R-2026-9 as presented with two conditions.

The first condition being the standard condition that the applicant shall successfully file the resubdivision map with the on dog account clerk's office within 62 days of resubdivision approval, and two, the city of Syracuse and the current property owner shall install a firewall to completely separate the one-story showroom on lot B from uh the structure on lot C after the title transfer process is completed.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of the motion on R 2026-9, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions at resubdivision R 2026 is approved.

Uh our next application, please.

Next up is an off-premise sign application or a billboard application.

AS-25-03, located at 617-19 North Gettish Street.

Applicant is Stephen D.

Frank of Park Outdoor Advertising.

This is in the CM Zone District.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Stephen Frank.

I'm with Park Outdoor Advertising.

I reside in Tully, New York.

We have an office in Syracuse, and we're headquartered in Ithaca.

With me is uh Stacy Maris.

Uh she's a partner with um Castello Cuney and Farron.

So in July of last year, uh Park Outdoor was represented by Richard Andino from Castello Cuney and Faron, and he had a pre-application meeting with the city's zoning director, Mr.

Wu and Mr.

Garcia.

And uh able to discuss the proposal.

Uh the office at that time expressed no concerns with the application of the proposed sign at that time.

As a result, Park Outdoor move forward with finalizing the formal application.

We applied for the off-premise sign in September of 2025, seeking a non-digital static uplet sign at 617-619 North Gettys Street.

The proposal is for a 10-foot, six-inch by 40-foot V-shaped double-sided sign to be visible from I-690 with an east-west orientation.

The proposed off-premise sign is in the city's commercial zoning district where the proposal is permitted as of right.

And the proposed sign meets all criteria for approval under the rezone Syracuse and meets all dimensional requirements for that commercial district.

And lastly, I'd like to point out that the on the staff report from zoning in the section for staff recommendation, the staff recommended approving the project.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Are there questions for the applicant?

One of the questions I have is if this is approved, one of the conditions would be the applicant shall improve the condition of the site, including removal of overgrowth and repair of sidewalks, et cetera.

You're sure.

The sidewalk program has been presented to us before and the sidewalk program changed in 2023.

Prior to that, it was the responsibility of the property owner, and now it's the responsibility of the city.

We'd work in conjunction with the city if they wanted to.

I had presented that information to Mr.

Garcia to go back to DPW for comments, but I never heard anything back from that.

But as far as the actual lot in itself or the vegetation that's there and keeping the lot mowed and looking um nice, we'll we will definitely do that.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh for the record, and not to speak for DPW, but what I can say and do know about the program is development uh you know by any developer on any land doesn't constitute just automatically that the city is gonna maintain the right-of-way and make right-of-way uh improvements.

So you know, I know DPW is not here, but my understanding is that that is a totally valid uh ask, and even with the city sidewalk program, um developers are required to make these right-of-way improvements on various projects citywide, as as as this body has seen on multiple applications before you since 2023.

Thank you.

You mentioned that uh the site is some distance from the lakefront, some distance from Park Avenue.

Um what about potential impact on the North Geddest Street residential properties?

So the um the proposals compatible with the nearby uses in the neighborhood.

Rezone Syracuse specifically allows for the sign as of right.

The nearby residential uses are non-conforming and largely out of context for the area, which is mainly comprised of industrial uses, including auto repair, auto service, auto sales, various other commercial uses, and of course the 690 highway use.

Um the proposed sign fits well with the area, which is reflected in the zoning designation.

Thank you.

The the sign itself would be, as I mentioned, would be uplet and it's controlled lighting.

So any lighting emitted into the air, it the sign turns on at dusk, turns off at midnight.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

And thank you for clarifying about the lighting.

So it's a static sign, external lighting.

And you're it's saying the lighting typically faces up to the face of the billboard.

Correct.

So if you know, is there spillover from those lights in in other directions?

Would there be spillover going sideways or down?

The lighting is so um specialized nowadays that it focuses on uh energy consumption.

So we reduce the energy consumption with uh LED lighting, so the lighting takes less power, uh, less power.

They're they're not even they're nowhere near as bright as they used to be.

Um in this instance, um, you know, specifically there's two LED lights that look up to the to the sign in itself that they focus straight up.

And is the timer, is it a sensor or is it a district timer?

No, it's uh connected via um Verizon.

So it's uh there's a there's a box that we take from a company called SmartLink that's attached to the structure in itself, and that would control the lighting.

Okay, so it's uh in a sense, smart lighting.

It's it's set and it can be adjusted remotely.

It can, yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And the suggested timing is dusk to midnight, you said?

Generally.

I mean, it you know, your days get shorter during the summer and you know, they're longer in the in the nighttime.

So I am at a max, it's probably gonna be in the winter on the shortest day, it would turn on maybe at five o'clock and be off at midnight.

In the summertime, it'll turn on at maybe eight or nine o'clock and be off at midnight.

So the midnight part doesn't change.

It's just we're it can change.

It could be 11.

I mean, but we we've found uh midnight.

I mean, it our our focus is the traffic on the road, and there's not too many people that are tracking on the road after midnight, so that's that's when we'll turn it off.

I understand that the uh sign faces are are angled, so that they will be viewed from 690, but it it does appear to me that there are at least two, maybe three houses uh on the eastern side of north of Geddhis Street that will actually be basically looking at the billboard face.

On the east side?

Uh yeah.

Uh you know, this two you know if it's angled, there's two houses at least, maybe three that are going to be basically looking at that.

The roadway understood, correct?

Okay, well, no, okay, that's good.

I mean, it's because it's hard to tell.

It's 127 somewhat depicts it if you want to go to that just for a visual uh the next one.

It doesn't show that side.

I mean it might it would just be a little bit helpful in that other drawing if the angle was actually put there so we could see there should be a drawing.

Yeah, that that that is facing uh west, so it's uh that's on the top, though.

I think he's referring to the right.

And that artist referring to the houses to the left of that sign somewhere over there in the across the street.

At least two, perhaps three houses it could actually come.

Right.

And that artist rendering, there's no 3D imaging with that, so it really looks flat, but that's at an angle.

Okay, thank you.

Back to sorry, no.

No, you go ahead.

I'm I'm finally got the picture of the image is turned for me.

So back to the sidewalk.

Um so if I'm hearing correctly, I want to make sure I'm hearing correctly.

Um it's your opinion that it's the city's responsibility to repair the sidewalks on the corner.

The brochure and the link on the site sure makes it.

I mean, with the language that's on the front of the brochure, it it does kind of indicate that.

But if um what's being said is you know, hey, this has been on the developer and other uh instances, then we'd be happy to work with with DPW or whoever we need to work with to repair sidewalk in that area.

That specific sidewalk right there looks like it's just tarvia that's there.

So we we in a in a prior application we had an uh had presented the city and we were gonna spend an additional, I think it was $13,000 to do that.

That's when it was totally on the um uh con the contractor, if you will, uh developer.

Um but again the um brochure that's on the website.

If you give me a minute, I'll look at it really quick.

And I'm not sure if you you have that there or not.

It says the previous sidewalk policy was property owners were responsible for maintenance and replacement of sidewalks, including removal of snow and ice.

Um the new municipal sidewalk program, the city's responsible for the repair and replacement of existing sidewalks.

And that's on this sheet here, which is on the link.

Yeah, the link for the right.

You know, just just uh for point of information.

It's customarily for new construction.

Then it involves a sidewalk construction or repair or curb cuts, etc.

That we by and large do require uh the developer to do that for new construction.

So it's not exactly the same as you know, existing just as a point of information.

I'm saying that applies in all cases, but just for the record, I'll point out the DPW transportation planner commented um October 28th uh 2025 that those comments still stand from the previous application that was mentioned regarding the sidewalk.

Okay, what did Neil say?

Sorry, Jake.

Uh that essentially uh to summarize that those still stand.

I mean, I can read it all, but there's kind of a lot, but basically sidewalk repair replacement, etc.

Okay.

Okay.

Further questions?

If that's a condition, then we'll work directly with DPW.

Jake, was that relayed?

Did PPW for this application renew that request with the developer?

Um was that related to to the developers?

In other words, I know in the prior application it was, but did they say to them we have the same?

Yeah, so it's part of this official this application review.

It's it's a comment for this uh this item that's before us right now.

And but was relayed to them in 2026.

I'm just saying they they knew coming in here tonight that was.

Yeah, well, I mean it was commented on October 28th of 25, but yes, it's part of this application.

Okay.

I know you're responding to it now.

I'm just saying, was there was there some time to respond to it?

It's our understanding that uh that was not it was in the staff report, so in that way it was relayed.

Um, but as Mr.

Frank said, I mean they're happy to work with DPW to make those so let's just say what the elephant in the room is.

Sure.

Are you willing as part of the application to repair and replace all the sidewalks on the full corner?

The so in this and and I don't know if we have a good look at here.

So if you're looking at Edison Street from Geddis from left from the left side to the right side as you look down the street, it's wall to wall.

It's there is no sidewalk.

There is no sidewalk.

On the Gedda Street side was the tarvia sidewalk that you kind of saw.

That one obviously needs repair.

Okay.

Just out of curiosity, and again, we're I'm not not looking for a fight.

We just we just do billboards, that's it.

I mean, as a as a billboard developer, I I could see if this was a building, an apartment building, a house, or you know, your developer that you're you're putting something there, but it's a sign.

Um how the responsibility of the that comes to us.

Uh is it the developer or is it the property owner at that point?

I think it's both, depending on the nature, the applicant, the arrangement of the developer and the property owner.

If it was so it's not one or the other, and very clear.

On page two of that um brochure, it does talk about how the city would work with the property owner over the course of time and years and uh be able to pay that over time if that sounds like yeah, and I mean to my knowledge, and I'll let Jake or somebody else put it, but there has been a financial arrangement over the course of the property tax payments or sidewalk the payment of the repair.

Right.

Um I don't know.

I'm assuming that's still possible.

I don't know that, though.

I won't say that.

Sure.

Just saying in the past that has been okay.

But part of it is with respect to this type of development, the city wants to be assured that if they approve this type of development, that the repair is made.

And so, for better or worse, you want the development and this would be a condition.

So would it just pertain to the sidewalk on Gettys and not Edison?

No, so and to back up and again, I don't want to speak for DPW, but I am reading comments from public works on what is required for this application.

Um, I'm not certain that DPW does single parcel improvements for owners on their property taxes any longer with the sidewalk repair program because their contractor is doing stretches of work.

They're not going to individual par I don't know.

I don't want to speak for them.

I'm not saying it's impossible.

I'm just not sure if like you said prior to 2023, you could have the city do it at a cost, go on your taxes.

I don't know if they still do that or not.

But what public works is commenting on is that sidewalks along North Gutter Street are in severe disrepair and need to be replaced.

Sidewalks along Edison Street, severe disrepair need to be replaced.

Driveway apron access point along Edison is to be clarified and brought into a state of good repair, no wider than 12 feet.

Any area outside of the 12 foot driveways to be restored to grass and turf.

Overgrowth near the corner of Gaddison Edison is to be removed in its entirety, including stump and subsurface remediation is necessary.

Overgrowth along lot lines is to be cleared.

Uh and lee lock lead walks and other items are to be removed when this was a home.

Residential structure was once here to clarify.

So that is that is a staff comment that came with this application to you that is uh being recommended as a required condition of approval to this board.

I guess for me, I personally would like to say that maybe we consider a hold on this at this meeting at this time for a variety of reasons, but especially to give you an opportunity to speak with the zoning administrator and possibly DPW to clarify how that would go forward, right?

We I can't speak for you.

If it if it's a condition of approval, I have already stated that we would do it.

Right.

But it is a condition today of approval if it were to be approved of Gaddis and Addison.

So it's all of it.

It's also as part of Neil's comments, DPW's comments that the driveway be improved, cleared, and retained.

Um I just think as that condition of approval, would we work directly with DPW for that?

Um no, we so what I would do is the the condition I think would explicitly be that you would obtain uh sidewalk permits through the central permit office and as well as site work permits for private property improvements.

So you would need two permits, one for sidewalks and the right-of-way and and improvements, and also uh improvements on the private property.

So that would be in the form of a building permit for site work, even though it's small-scale site work, but the driveway.

And and our general conditions would be those would have to be um obtained within 12 months.

Within what time?

Uh within 12 months of approval from this body.

But I still think we should maybe hold it.

I'll defer to everyone else to give everybody a chance to make sure that we all agreed.

This is what we're doing.

I'm I'm saying right now that I would agree to that.

To both sidewalks.

Pardon me.

Yeah, both sidewalks and the driveway.

Yes.

We we had agreed to that before as a condition.

I'm just stating that since that condition was first put out, the sidewalk program changed.

The comments from the DPW really didn't change.

They were cut and pasted from an application on the old program to the new program.

And I and I'm not I'm not trying to give you a hard time here.

I'm just looking for the clarification.

Yeah, we'll we'll do exactly what I had prepared for before, but that was working with the old city sidewalk program when they had a contractor that they had designated that you were specifically with them.

Right.

And in fairness, my comment went to having a comment that's current from DPW that would encompass the current program.

In other words, to say if the city has a request for you to do certain development or maintain certain parts of the property, that it just be updated.

Because I'd rather, I think all of us sitting here would rather have a clear idea of you agreeing, which is terrific.

But at the same time, if if there is something that's changed in the program, we wouldn't want you to have to come back because you find out here's the new arrangement, right?

Whether it looks like one thing in the brochure, but you you were here earlier, we had to present something to go over the current state.

We have to we have to re-vote on something because a program changed.

It would just be cleaner if we said, can we get the comment updated?

Can you understand what it is you're agreeing to?

Because we've seen you before, we understand.

You know, you you keep your promises.

At the same time, we'd like to be on the same the same page, making sure that what we're asking of you isn't going to be something where you come back and say we need you to update whatever the vote is to the current state of repair and and development.

Uh again, the the prior plan that I had had had a had a plan with the city for it was just over $13,000 to replace all the sidewalks that were there with a contractor that the city had approved of.

Okay.

We're willing to do that again.

I'm, you know, we'd have to find a contractor to that screen.

For staff, if we vote on this as is, is there enough with your department?

Is there enough to be able to work out whatever it is DPW is looking for?

Um I would say yes.

I I mean that original application was um more than five years ago now, if I'm not mistaken.

Um but these comments were updated less than four months ago.

So whether or not the city's gonna do it for them, and they they can ask about that, but I think the condition is you have to get this done, whether you do it through a private contractor yourself or the city does it.

I don't know if that answers the question, but I just I just want the record to be clear if they're agreeing, they agreed under whatever the terms were initially back in in 2025.

If something changes, you're willing to work with the city on that.

Yes.

Okay.

And the program you referenced may not still be in place.

You understand that.

And I'm not sure if the city uses specific contractors for sidewalk or not, if they have a list of contractors that we give.

I don't know anymore.

I think they're using McConnell and maybe some others, but uh uh just knowing cost of things, I doubt it's $13,000 anymore, but unfortunately.

Uh if you get a good deal on that, let me know.

But um, no, all jokes aside, like I I'm I really can't speak to what exactly if they will do that or not.

I can't answer that.

But I think the the condition here for approval for this billboard is that the developer slash owner are agreeing to get this done, whether the city does it and bills you or puts it on your taxes, or you pay contractor to pull a permit and install it to city specs.

We would hire a contractor and do it that route.

Okay.

If and be willing to again work with the city if the city provided a contractor that they've had good success with in the past that does this work that knows the dimensions of the sidewalk and what needs to be put in.

Yeah, that's that's what we were doing.

You know, work with them on obtaining the proper permit through the permits office.

And I'll just note for the record.

Um, in the event the board were to approve this application this evening with those conditions.

Obviously, it would be incumbent upon you because you don't own the property.

You just have a lease or a license to put your so you will have to work with the property owner for authority to come on to their property and do the repairs.

Further questions for the applicant all set, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just want to say, and I got Mr.

Frank's um positions and statements here that um obviously I know there was some concern with the residential uses in the area, which are for the record, non-conforming uses, and park outdoor has gone above and beyond to make sure that they limit any impact if there is any impact to those non-conforming residential uses, but that the commercial district uses are in kind in keeping with the application here tonight.

Thank you.

Are there individuals who wish to speak in favor of this application?

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

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

So we have no additional speakers here.

We will close public comment on this application.

Turn our attention to the uh seeker review.

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

Yes, yes, yes.

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

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate to large impact.

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

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect for seeker?

Make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Second.

Both discussion on the seeker motion.

Hearing no discussion, all those in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions carries.

Um we may now consider action on this application, which is AS-25-03.

Is there a motion for action?

Uh in due consideration of the application, staff analysis and discussion during this hearing.

I make a motion to approve application AS-25-03 as presented with uh four conditions.

Those four conditions are as following.

One, the applicant shall comply with the general conditions for approval of the off-premises sign application as uh included in the uh uh packet information.

Uh item two, the applicant shall obtain appropriate approvals and uh permits as uh as required from the New York State Department of Transportation for the proposed uh signage.

Three, the applicant uh shall ensure that uh improvement improvements are made to the condition of the site, including removal of overgrowth, repair of the sidewalks on Geddes and Edison Streets in accordance with the standards required for the Department of Public Works, and four, the off-premise signed approval shall have a limited uh duration of 10 years after which renewal is required.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion for the off-premise sign application.

So I would I I I guess I want to just add a sentence to the conditions that if the conditions, the above stated conditions are not met and the main and maintained, i.e.

the overgrowth, etc.

the lawn mowing over the term of the 10-year license, that it is a violation and could end up in revocation of the approval.

Certainly, except that as a friendly amendment.

So just to clarify, so the general conditions for the off-prem assign approval already dictates that the applicant and/or agent or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits related to the development uh within 12 months.

Otherwise, the approval is considered null and void.

Um, I mean, I think everybody's saying the same thing, but to clarify the record, like uh recommendation item number four is really uh if you want to clarify, you can say it, you know, obtain permits uh for the sidewalk and the right-of-way and permits for the site work on the private property um within those 12 months, and then after you do that, maintain everything else as listed throughout the lifespan of the approval, the 10-year approval.

Terminology on my comment of condition.

Aaron, I accept her acceptance.

And the second or we all accept.

Okay.

All on the same page.

Um further discussion on this motion.

Hearing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

AS2503 is approved with the conditions noted.

Our next application, please.

Okay, next up is a major site plan review.

M ASPR-25-34 at 908 Harrison Street, owned by Norm Swanson, applicant representing is CHA.

Brian Bouchard, this is in the MX4 zone district.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting, 300 South State Street, uh Syracuse, New York.

Um, this property uh at 908 Harrison Street, as you can see on the site plan here is the existing Skylar Commons apartments.

So this is an existing four-story apartment building.

On each floor, there are um 20 studio apartment units.

So there's 20 on each floor.

So there's currently a total of 80 residential apartment dwellings in this building.

And the proposal before you uh is simply the change of use to convert the bottom three floors of the existing building to hotel rooms while maintaining the fourth floor as 20 um existing residential studio apartments.

Um we did look through all of the zoning implications in terms of the change of use, for instance, the parking requirements, um, and we comply with all of the district regulations and parking requirements.

There are no changes to the building, there's no building additions or proposed changes to the exterior of the building or interior of the building, and there are no changes to the site because we do have adequate access and parking.

There are two fairly minor comments from DPW that we got last week that we take no exception to.

Um one is some presumed settlement of some grass areas along Harrison Street of the existing sidewalk, um, basically landscaping and and filling in some topsoil with some divots that are on the edge of the sidewalk to remediate some tripping hazards, um, which we'll take care of as part of the approval, and then also upgrading the bike racks because the bike rack is an old um standard of style and dimension, and we've shown um replacing that and also adding another bike rack for the hotel entrance lobby for the uh people to get around town on bikes as well.

So it's essentially a change of use.

There's no changes to the site plan, there's no building additions, no changes to the facade of the building, um, just creating a mixed-use project within the um X4 zoning district.

That's it.

Thank you for the summary.

Questions for the applicant.

I have two questions or one question and one comment or concern for discussion.

Uh I just are trying to figure out the parking lot situation because I've been looking at you know, there's all these buildings around there with parking lots that are in juxtaposition to each other.

So in this case, the the parking for Skylar Commons is just what's outlined there.

Is that that's correct?

That is correct.

So to probably answer part of your comment with some of my knowledge of the site.

This used to be owned wholly by the applicant, and the Skylar Hotel, which is a tapestry, it's a boutique brand hotel, was sold to Syracuse University.

Um the product of that is the resubdivision map.

If you could scroll up, um Zitong, there's the overall site view here.

Oh, maybe not.

On the survey, um, you'll notice that the the hotel Skylar was subdivided.

SU owns that now the owner of Skylar Commons, which is the apartments, um, subdivided it.

It's its own parcel that you can see outlined in red.

And then the driveway access is provided from South Krause Avenue.

So there's a shared ingress and egress easement uh that staff did ask for a copy of, and we provided that ingress egress easement, and that is the way in and out of the site.

There is no curb cuts due to elevation change off of uh Harrison Street.

There's only pedestrian access to the east and west of the building.

Okay, good.

Great, thanks.

It's just hard to figure that out because a lot of elevation differences and changes there in the parking lot.

Uh the second is it's not a question per se.

It's just there's a conflict of values here.

I'm not opposed to this this project, but it's a conversion that's turning 60 housing units into 16 hotel units.

Now we have a need for both.

They're both are sort of a crisis.

In some sense, you could say that housing crisis is more critical.

But it's just interesting.

There's a discussion here uh in terms of the thinking behind what's the intent for making this particular conversion.

And just you know, a plea, not to you personally, but in general, we need to have this conversation every time we make these conversions and the situation, how it's impacting our inventory for housing and for hotel rooms, both of which are a need.

And I I assume in this case, and you may have the data, but this is primarily serving SU students and families.

In any case, uh it's not really housing that's being utilized by other folks that are not associated with SU.

My understanding is that you are completely correct, right?

Um, it is close and proximate to SU.

It's an easy walk, so that was why the project was built.

Um I didn't work on the original project, one of the few, but it was probably 10 years ago, I think, 2015 or so.

Right.

Um, that that was built in concert with offering sort of the renovation of the temple and the um what became of the the Skylar hotel.

So I think this is as you said, a business decision.

I'm an engineer, so I'm not making the business decision.

Um Norm does own a lot of property, right?

In fact, we just were here not too long ago for adding residential housing stock that's kind of serving the East Genesee Street Business Corridor, um, the 201 South Krause AV project with the renovation of the um historic building.

So it's certainly a business decision.

Um to what end he has found that niche and what's best for this particular building.

I'm not completely familiar with, but obviously, as a business plan, this was something that he was looking to do and asked us to help through that.

So, but I do understand both, right?

We we had a lack of housing, and then as a lot of the apartments and multifamily and affordable components came in.

I've personally worked on a lot of those, and it some of them were even conversions of hotel rooms to uh efficient studio style of apartments, like with the Genesee Grand Hotel or the um some of the other ones that we worked with with the Crown Plaza.

So this is maybe reverting a portion of that to fill uh a smaller need, right?

With 60 extra hotel rooms and 60 less apartments, but keeping um some of the residential component intact too for a mixed-use project.

So long way of answering in that question, I guess, right?

Well, and since this was approved, we did lose hotel rooms in in you know, in uh what Sheridan and Mayflower and and the uh Jetson building.

Yep, exactly.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

Other questions for the applicant?

I have a question, Brian.

Is there a flag on the hotel?

Not that I'm aware of yet.

Um obviously there's a public hearing sign posted out there.

So I'm not familiar with how he has notified residents and to what end he will start to um take some of those leases offline.

But I I don't personally know exactly what the hotel flag would be or whether it would be similar to the um Skylar.

We've worked on a few hotels for Norm, and they do find that like the boutique um like the tapestry brand or some of the other ones, they you know they bought Central Um Squares uh school building and converted that along the Salmon River to a very nice hotel as well.

So it could be something atypical, um, but I'm not sure exactly who the brand is yet.

Okay, thanks.

All set, thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application, please come to the podium?

Uh no speakers.

Uh we'll close public comment on this, turn our attention to the seeker review.

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

Yes, yes.

Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review the EAF part two prepared by staff and contained in your packet?

Yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate large impact under CECRA?

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate large impact.

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

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Second.

Thank you.

Both discussion on the seeker motion before us.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries, and we may now turn our attention to the major site plan review, MASPR 2534.

Is there a motion for action on this application?

In due consideration of the application, staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve MASPR-25-34 as presented with seven conditions.

Those seven conditions are as following.

One, the applicant shall comply with the general conditions for approval of the site plan application.

Two, the applications shall designate at least 10% of the 20 apartment units as affordable units.

Three, affordable dwelling units must comply with the city income and rent restrictions, regardless of 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, the affordability requirements shall be effective for 30 years from the date of the certificate of occupancy is issued.

Six, the application shall restore lawn areas between sidewalk and curb line along Harrison Street, and seven, all site back bike rack bike racks shall be staple style.

No wave style racks are permitted.

Just to clarify that, so there's some questions on the affordability.

It's it's because it's leaving the mixed use.

It's so this is under the code.

It's this is this is new development.

It's it's development by definition.

So it is applicable to the 20 remaining apartments.

Brian, you're aware of that and norm is as well.

Yes.

We did prepare yes, it'll be two.

So it'll be the three requirements of twenty.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just wanted to clarify the reference.

Yeah.

And in appreciation of that, you did come in with 20 and not 19, so it didn't apply.

So thank you because we do have a crisis with reaffordable housing.

Thank you for that motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

And no discussion on this motion.

Hearing no discussion.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

MASPR 2534 is approved.

Thank you.

I think that's our next application.

Next up is another major site plan review.

MASPR-2026-2 at 401 South Salina Street in Jefferson.

Owner is Day's Commercial Property LLC.

Applicant represented by Shoffer Architects, MX5 Zone District.

Uh is this location.

Hi, I'm Richard DeVito.

I'm actually one of the partners of the project.

Um Shafar Architects couldn't be here, so I'm standing in for myself.

So the proposal is for nine additional residential units on the second floor of the day's building.

And um, as you probably already know, we we built 84 units in this building to date.

And um Bob Duset and I, uh, who are partners in the project, um as you probably already know, we uh were the people who who spearheaded downtown uh living, and so this is a continuation of what we've been doing from uh for the last 20 years.

Questions for the applicant.

Uh it's not really a question for the applicant per se, but a clarification because uh in some ways, this particular portion of the staff analysis is somewhat misleading, so I just want to clarify that for the people who may be in attendance or listening online.

And what I'm referring to that is on page one of the staff analysis under uh use specific standards of statement says the existing condo units are not set subject to the affordable housing provision uh requirements.

And the next statement says with addition of the proposed nine apartment units, the total number of apartment units on the second floor will be 19, which does not meet the minimum uh threshold trigger for affordable housing provisions.

All that is correct.

I just wanted to clarify that if anybody is concerned because it's a little bit misleading and suggests that condos has something to do with this.

The fact that the existing units are condo units.

Yeah, condominium is just a legal structure.

Yeah, I understand.

The relevant issue here is it's yeah, it's under the 20 uh requirements.

So these are apartments for rent.

These are not condominiums for sale, just so we're clear about that.

And there is no provision in the current code for anything related to condos.

So just wanted to clarify that other questions for the applicant or points of clarification.

Okay, right, Rich.

Pardon me?

19 units total.

Well, no, there are only nine.

We already have a building permit for 10.

Okay.

So these are nine additional units that are going under a different building permit, as Jay can probably so we're still under the threshold is the is the key point to the comment, but it would be nice if you made 20 because we could use the affordable.

I understand the rules are the rules.

No, you're carrying it out to work.

That's how we're gonna do it.

Okay.

All right, got it.

Well, they already have are there separate ownerships for the condominium units?

Are the floors owned separately?

There are the floors above the second floor are owned by a different entity.

That's correct.

And I believe we collected all that, like the articles of the other questions?

Okay.

I think we're out of questions for you.

Um are there individuals who would like to speak in favor of this application?

Please come forward.

Running out of people.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application?

Please come to the podium.

So there are no additional speakers for this application.

We'll close the public comment and direct our attention now to the seeker review.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Has everyone had an opportunity to review the EF part two prepared by staff and contained in your packet?

Yes, yes.

Does anyone believe that the proposed action will have a moderate to large impact under CECRA?

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate large impact.

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

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect regarding SECER?

I make a motion to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Second.

Thank you.

Both discussion on the seeker motion before us.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries, and we now turn our attention to the major site plan review or MASPR 2026-2.

Is there a motion for action?

And do consider if the app in consideration of the application staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve uh MASPR-2026-2 with two conditions.

One condition is the applicant shall comply with the general conditions for approval of the site plan application, and two, unless it can be demonstrated that the anticipated sanitary flows will not exceed previous flow in excess of one serve serve sewer unit per uh sewer purposes.

The applicant must develop a one-gallon to one gallon sanitary flow offset plan in coordination with the municipal engineer.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion before is for MASPR 2026-2.

Hearing no discussion.

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

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The major site plan review for MASPR 2026-2 is approved.

Thank you.

Our next application.

All right.

One more new business item, major site plan review, MASPR-2026-7 at 100-36, South Splina Street in Washington.

Owners HRM Associates represented by Jim Niddle, and this is the MX5 zone districts.

Good evening.

Hi, Jim Niddle.

I'm representing the owners of the atrium building.

I'm also here with Rob O'Connor, who is the owner operator of Elite Gaming, which is the tenant space in question.

We're just seeking approval here for uh uh food and entertainment or as we're stated entertainment and recreation indoor use in the existing uh office building, commonly known as the atrium.

Are there questions for the applicant?

I'm sorry, could you talk a little bit about the gaming complex?

I mean, this is a pretty elaborate uh you know, arrangement here.

I'm just curious if a little bit more information about how I can tell you all about it.

This is uh an exciting industry.

Yes, uh, Rob O'Connor from Elite Gaming I live in.

But I think one of the things we might be interested in if you could just elaborate on like what kind of noise, for example, sound, uh other kinds of activity would be going on there that could impact some of the residential units in the area.

Well, there are no residential not in a building, but in the general area, there's mixed use.

They're in the lower level of the of the building.

Okay, um like any other office space, it's totally enclosed.

Uh frankly, the water fountain in the basement in the lower level is louder than anything I've ever heard of out of their space.

So uh it has absolutely no impact outside of that property.

There's no uh exterior work going on here.

There's nothing that impacts uh the site and anyway.

I think comments from City Engineer, something there's no here here.

Right.

Okay, thanks.

But along those lines, because I did ask another new development downtown, it's now open with a simulated golf course.

There were there is there a chance that you might be seeking you know an entertainment permit because you need to have uh a promotional if this if there's gaming going on, are you gonna have any coordinated games, any groups coming in that you may have to have something else uh that's promotional outside of your space?

Would would you need to use any amplification, any amplified music any signs?

No, no, not outside the space, no outdoor.

Okay, so totally self-contained in the gaming area.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll set.

Go ahead.

Uh is elite gaming a franchise?

Is it no?

It's just yes, yeah, myself and a co-owner business partner.

And you're gonna run it.

Correct.

Yes, yes.

And are you planning to serve food or alcohol?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Do you have a liquor license?

Yes, we do.

Yes.

You do.

Yes.

Okay.

For this location, just to be clear.

Yes.

Thank you.

So if I understand in reading the uh the information on codes, so there's been a restaurant that's been operating down there, and it appears that in some instances there was some problems with the restaurant in its operation.

So far as I can tell from the codes.

But so this is replacing that in the down the downstairs space.

I know I know in the past there has been uh a food operator in the building on the ground on the first floor.

Right.

But this has nothing to do with that.

I see.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Just one more.

Um, can you just talk through, and maybe Jim, you can answer this.

That um the the food and beverage use is really accessory to the main use, but can you just talk about like you know the proper cooking equipment and all that?

Um that you're gonna have all that, and I I believe because of that, a certificate of use will also be triggered every two years.

Um Rob has had inspections.

Yeah, I understand.

But just he does have the liquor license, health department has as inspected.

Uh food is really limited to heating.

Okay.

There's no fryers, no fryers, there's no authors, there's no ranges.

Got it.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I know the outcome to this, I will ask anyways.

Uh, is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this application?

Provide your name and address and comments.

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

Please come to the podium in the center of the room.

We have no speakers for this application.

We'll close public comment and direct our attention to the seeker review.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Yes.

Does anyone believe the proposed action will have a moderate large impact under CRO?

No.

No.

Having determined that the proposed action will not have a moderate to large impact.

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

Thank you.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Make a motion to issue a negative secret declaration.

Second.

Discussion on the seeker motion before us.

Hearing no discussion, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion carries.

And now is there a motion for action on MASPR 2026-7?

In due consideration of the application staff analysis and the discussion during this hearing, I make a motion to approve MASPR-2026-8 as presented with four conditions.

The four conditions are one, the applicant shall comply with the general conditions per approval of site plan application.

Two, certificate of use shall be obtained and maintained for the duration of the operation of the food preparation and service accessory use.

Three, the accessory food preparation and service shall follow the same operational hours of the primary entertainment and recreation indoor land use type.

And four, the proposed business shall not use amplified speakers to project music outside and shall control any speaker volume inside so as not to violate the city of Syracuse's land noise ordinance.

Is there a second?

Second discussion on this motion.

Wednesday through Friday, 5 to 10, Saturday, 11 to 10.

Okay.

Those will be the stated hours in the uh in the approving resolution.

Yeah, actually, yeah, we're we're actually gonna be those we're not gonna be able to go with our so you're gonna be open less.

Okay.

That's not a problem.

You just can't be open later.

And no Sunday.

She doesn't have to go until three in the morning.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Now we have to further discussion on the motion.

Uh hearing none, all in favor of this motion, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

Major site plan review for MASPR 2026-7 is approved.

Thank you.

All right.

The one we've all been waiting for.

Yeah, the one we've been other businesses will be quick.

We have a three-mile limit in the town of Anadaga at 60 6111 South Salina Street, owned by Aldi, uh represented by Vincent Ryan of uh Keplinger Freeman.

The city engineer's office is signed off on this three-mile limit.

Uh concurrence, is there a motion from this body for action on 3S 2026-1?

Make a motion approved 3S-2026-1 as presented.

A second?

Second.

Thank you.

Discussion on this motion.

Hearing none.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, please say nay.

Any abstentions?

The three-mile limit in the town of Anadaga is approved.

Is there any other business for us tonight?

That's it.

In which case is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

A second.

Second.

Discussion.

All in favor, get up and leave.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Nay.

Abstentions.

We're adjourned until St.

Patrick's Day Eve.

Oh, really?

Oh.

60?

16.