Good evening, everyone.

And welcome to the Circuit City Planning Commission for tonight.

I'm covering for our normal chair, Steve Coolick, so uh we're asking to be on the best behavior while we manage the process.

A few matters to take care of before we get to our agenda.

We have a full agenda tonight.

The first order of business is we want to talk about the minutes from our last meeting of June 29th, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

Move to uh adopt the minutes as presented without any uh amendments or modifications.

And do we have a second?

A second that motion any discussion.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right, the minutes are approved as distributed.

Before we get to our public hearings tonight, I'm gonna make a uh just a brief summary of our normal procedure for first-time attendees and those not familiar with our process.

Each application on the agenda will be announced by staff.

We will ask the applicant or the applicant's representative to come to the podium and present the item.

Commission members will be given a chance to ask the applicant questions.

After that, members of the public will be invited to speak either in favor or against the application.

Because the full agenda and our normal process is this.

We ask whether you're speaking for or against to please restrict your comments to three minutes or less.

And again, because we have a full uh agenda, we do have a member of the staff who will be letting me know when we reach the three-minute mark on anyone's statement.

Once the public comment is done, we allow the applicant to come back to respond to the public comment.

So we'll begin uh first by asking staff if any of the hearings that are on tonight have been postponed.

Yes, um Little update for the agenda.

We have a two items uh postponed.

The first one um R-2026-42, Z25791, and C 2021.

Um this item is uh at 1405 East Genesee Street for the resubdivision and project plan review.

This is a post pump.

Um item is not ready for deliberation.

And the second item postponed is uh the last item on the agenda, SP-2026 17.

Um is the special use permit for neighborhood market at 308 to 18 Norse uh Krause F.

Those who would postpone as well.

Thank you very much.

Could you call the first item of new business?

Yes.

Um, the first item in the business it's R-2026-10 is a resubdivision and 901 Hiawasa Bullock and NI 171 uh Spencer Street.

The owners are as we peace, um CP Syracuse and YOC and Angelo Larfee's reportable trust.

And this is CM Zone District.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good evening, everybody.

So I'm representing uh the Angelo Face Revocable Trust.

Uh the new owners of 901 Hiawatha Boulevard purchased this earlier in 2026.

Um could you give us your name and sure?

Sure.

My name's Mike Morbito.

Uh work for Paris Beach Law Firm and for the purposes of the public hearing representing uh the Angela of the Face Irrevocable trust.

Uh so the RSVP group had purchased 901 Hiawalpha Boulevard earlier this year.

Picture might be a little bit more difficult to see.

Uh the larger parcel there on the left with all the mini storage building facilities in a row is the 901 Hiawatha parcel.

Um the current owner, the irrevocable trust of 971 Spencer Street being the small rectangle to the right.

Um essentially the western border of the 971 Spencer Street parcel runs through the easternmost mini storage facility building.

Um you can see the dashed line kind of runs through the lengthwise through the middle there.

So when the RSVP folks purchase this, uh they proposition the the trust with selling off a parcel there so they could include that building in their property insurance and in their title insurance coverage.

Um a practical perspective, it's a lot line adjustment, uh 12.5 feet to the east of the building, uh running between uh the structures of each adjacent parcel.

Uh so there's a sale pending on that about 3500 square foot strip um pending the approval of the subdivision.

There's no new construction, both businesses are gonna operate um as they were.

RSBP purchased the mini storage facility to operate it as a mini storage facility.

Um the current business at 91 Spencer Street is gonna maintain its business there.

Uh so there's no new construction, no new proposals, and to my knowledge, no current ideas other than to adjust the law line.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any uh questions from the members of the commission?

I'm good for now.

All right.

Any questions?

Questions?

All right, have seats are we'll find out through any comments from the public.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak in favor of the application?

Good evening.

I'm Syracuse Common Council Marino Nave.

Although it does not represent my common council district, I am quite aware of this area.

Uh near there was a uh gas station at one time.

So this area is run down.

Uh there was another business there, Syracuse Tank Company, not that far.

So I think it's important though when we take some of our brownfield properties.

And um, and I don't know the gentleman.

I'm uh quainted with Mr.

Laface, but I'm coming here as my own.

Um I think this will be an opportunity to take some of this property and put it uh back under the tax rolls.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone else would like to speak in favor of the application.

Anyone who wants to speak in opposition.

All right, seeing no one who wants to speak in opposition, I'll ask the commission members again.

Any questions?

And normally, if there's not a anyone speaking in opposition, we normally don't invite the speaker to say anything unless you've forgotten something you want to add.

Thank you.

I'll ask staff if we were going to entertain seeker on this.

Thank you.

Yes.

And since there's no public comment, we will except from Councilmanave, we'll close public comment.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, now move to the secret part.

As everybody has a chance to review the uh short EAF R1.

Yes.

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the 11 questions of the short EAF part two?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts?

No.

No.

Because you do not believe there will be any moderate to large impacts.

I recommend you to vote um issue a negative declaration under Clerk and complete the year parsery accordingly.

Thank you.

And do we have a motion to run the secret?

I move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstaining?

The motion passes.

Do we have a motion regarding the application?

I move to approve application R-2026-10 as presented with one condition.

That one condition is that the applicant must successfully file the resubdivision map with the Onadogi County Clerk's office within 60 days of approval of uh the resubdivision, which is tonight.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Any discussion?

All right.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstaining?

All right.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, the next agenda items, R-26-37 is a resubdivision as 416 Mountains.

Um, honor our kennels, Greater Syracuse Lembank and Peter uh our north.

This is our one zone district.

Excuse me, sir.

We have someone else coming up.

Thank you.

I'm Caitlin Wright with the Greater Syracuse Property Development Corporation located at 1941 South Salina Street.

I'm proposing that we split 416 Monticello into three parts.

Two would be building lots for new houses, and then you can see on the right-hand side of that map or the southern edge of the parcel, there's a triangular-shaped wedge there that we are selling to Peter Arnold.

He just recently purchased the house next door at 400 uh Monticello.

He's working on doing some renovations.

He and his wife live there.

And he was just hoping to get a few more feet for his side yard so that he could get around to his backyard to do property maintenance.

And you see that by shifting the line over at an angle like that, it makes it more or less parallel with the side of his garage.

Our plan is to build a single-family home on each of the other lots.

They would each have about 70 feet of frontage.

And we would put uh a model called the Laurel there that's just about 1100 square feet.

It's three bedrooms, two full bathrooms.

And these are unusual in the large list of homes that we're planning soon.

Uh, these are the only ones with attached garages.

So um, these laurels would each have a one-car attached garage.

And um, I'm gonna bring this handout up here that was in our board packet a few months ago.

This is not perfect because it's showing a two-car attached garage, but imagine that the garage is a little bit narrower, and then it just shows on the back um what the neighboring houses look like.

So this new construction looks surprisingly similar to these 1950s and 1960s houses on the street that are right next door.

Thank you.

And we'll end with a copy into the record.

Thank you very much.

Um, when we do pull the building permits, um, the permit staff and engineering staff will review our stormwater um plan for this site.

There is a steep slope at the back of the site, and our plan is to plant um on the slope, plants that will retain um the soil and prevent erosion, plants with robust root systems, um, and then at the base of the slope, we plan a small swale that would contain a rain garden to capture a lot of that runoff that's coming down the hill and let it percolate down into the groundwater before it comes forward to where the houses are located.

You have any questions that I can answer.

Those two properties uh 67a, were they vacant for a long time or are they demolitions?

They've been vacant for a very long time.

The land bank is on them for at least 10 years, and they were vacant when we got them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone wants to speak in opposition to the application?

Good evening.

Could you give us your name and address, please?

Kathy Stravy, 316 Monasol Drive North, and I'll give you a copy of my um what I'm gonna talk about here.

Did you send a copy earlier?

No, I was not.

Okay, thank you.

And we'll have a copy of the letter entered to the record.

Thank you.

Yeah, the main applicant.

Uh my issues are with the main applicant, not with the um 400 Monasol Drive owner.

Um I don't oppose new housing or manufacture housing on appropriate sites with adequate infrastructure.

Our neighborhood has a very broad mix of housing types, single and multi-family.

The application fails to accurately just describe or portray the conditions at this site.

Does not include photos of the conditions prior to early March when they stripped the site of all the trees and vegetation without any notice or discussion of the neighbors, including a steep slope.

It does not adequately describe the lack of infrastructure for stormwater conveyance.

The neighborhood has no storm sewers except at lowest points where they punch in the underground streams.

There's a survey dispute with a property to the east.

412 East Glenn Avenue.

And the owner is here tonight.

He will talk about that.

So I'm not gonna go into it, but I attach the surveys.

We looked at it yesterday.

Their markings and his markings, which are from 2012, but he has a long historic background there.

Um, do not match up.

You can't do resubdivision when there's a dispute.

Um, because of the cut because they didn't survey the site when they took the trees down, they took trees down on his property.

He's brought notice of claim against the city and the land bank for taking down his trees, and also for destabilizing the slope that goes up to this property.

Okay, and that's still in process.

So there's a legal claim here.

All right.

Um this proposed resubdivision increases storm water runoff on a Montesal Drive North, and it drains on a Clarence Avenue where there are no stormwater drains.

You also approved um Otto Street with two houses.

That's got to drain onto Clarence.

It has to be filled and drained.

The whole site right now is a swamp.

It's it's down below the level of the road.

It never drained anywhere.

All right, we have flooding in the neighborhood.

I've got pictures in there.

I've got more documentation if you want it.

And that um the land bank has proposed a rain garden.

Now, if you look at the site pictures, there's a huge slope going up toward Loreto.

412 and 416, both owners are here tonight.

All their property drains down toward that site.

Then you've got the houses, the driveways, and potentially garages because it says two things in the application.

All that water going into into this rain garden, as they explained to us at one meeting.

Um there's no documentation that a rain garden, which people don't know how to maintain, believe me, low-income people or anybody, and most normal people don't know how to maintain a rain garden.

So to depend on that is very iffy.

Um so they have they presented no analysis to that.

Um and I I mentioned the two different solutions for driveways and garages.

If you have garages, it's extra roof, it's 100% runoff, and all that runoff goes to Monticello.

Um, we had a huge flood in the neighborhood in Easter.

DBW drives to the neighborhood flashing lights after large storms like yesterday.

Okay, so they we're we're a known flood area.

This particular site doesn't flood that we know of, but we don't know what's going to happen in the future.

It's an area where there's a lot of springs.

I I will do that.

Um I I have a diagram of the drainage on I have a uh picture of Otto or of Clarence Street with the, and then I have pictures of the one to one or one to two slope that is on their property but borders uh Mr.

Brown's property.

And this last month, they took out stumps and disturbed the whole slope again.

Now you can't plant Tribbly.

I I asked you to conclude your remarks, please.

You can't plant plants on a western facing slope.

It'll dry out and they'll all die.

We've had it happen before in the neighborhood.

We've had the city say we're gonna plant the owner plants, they plant and they die because they're not maintained.

There's no way they can stabilize that slope without a lot of care.

It's not a flat site, it's not an easy to take care of site.

So if they don't do that ahead of time, and I'm not they're talking about 2027 now, I'm not sure what they're talking about.

It's still not going to be stabilized by that point.

I have the same kind of yard, so I know.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I asked you to put this off.

It's there's a conflict, and we have a lot of other issues.

Thank you very much.

All right, staff.

Before we move on to the next speaker, are there any issues about surveys or civil suits that have been brought to your attention?

Um, this is my first time.

Just got the comments as uh um receive it.

Um we believe it is surveys made by you know licensed surveyor, and we haven't heard this before.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, we'll take the next speaker.

There's anyone else who wants to speak in opposition.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is John Camarota, J-O-H-N-C-A-M-E-R-O-T-A, and I reside at 416 East Glen Avenue.

My property and land is to the immediate east of the property that adjoins this project proposal, and it's on a slope, and everything that Professor Stribley has said is correct about drainage.

Uh my concern is density.

Uh three bedroom houses.

If you drive into that area, particularly that one block, all these houses are very close.

It's it's really not appropriate.

You know, when I drive from uh downtown, if you know where the old Sears building is and uh the Martin Luther King Parkway, and I drive all the way north.

I've gone through those neighborhoods.

Those neighborhoods need enhanced housing, good housing in the area to bring those areas up.

I don't understand why they're coming here to try to cram these in this one lot, or maybe two lots, but if you look at it, it's small.

We've enjoyed the green space.

There is no green space because when these initial the initial tract was laid out, the lots are very narrow.

Houses are very close.

So this affords uh a bit of beauty and uh an accommodation to the neighbors.

I don't want to keep you too long.

So uh oh, historically, there's only been one house there, and it was demolished in the 90s.

It was a two-family house.

So it seemed they initially proposed three houses, which was really extreme.

Two seems much.

One might work, but it should be no more than one bedroom.

Oh, by the way, I never received a notice.

My land is very close, it's within the within the 400 uh feet range.

Fortunately, neighbors inform me about the project.

Well, I thank you and ask you to consider that, and I'm opposed to the project.

I think it should be denied, denied completely.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition.

My name's Jeremy Brown.

I'm not a public speaker, so bear with me.

Um, you address Mr.

Brown.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

I'm the owner of 412 East Glen Avenue.

I'm here today to respectfully object to the proposed boundary map readjustment in the Greater Syracuse Land Bank at 416 Monaselo Drive North.

This proposal conflicts with nearly 135 years of documented property history with the land bank's own prior actions.

When I purchased 412 of East Glen Avenue in 2012, Lear Land Surveying prepared a certified on-the-ground boundary boundary survey.

That survey was based off my property original abstract of title dating back to February 12, 1890.

The verified boundary using historical deed records and existing iron pipe monuments on that field.

In 2018, the Greater Syracuse Land Bank sold me an adjoining property at Fort 10 East Glen F.

The land bank retained Lear land surveying to perform the physical boundaries survey before the closing that survey independently confirmed the same property boundary line before the land bank accepted my payment and conveyed the property to me.

So today we have two independent field surveys prepared six years apart by the same licensed surveying team, both that established the same boundary.

Now in 2016, 2026, land bank has submitted a different survey prepared by Michael J.

McCaulay land surveying that proposes moving the established boundary line approximately two feet under my property.

The contra I contacted land bank twice before today's meeting in an effort to resolve this issue rather than reviewing its own 2018 survey and historical records already available.

The land bank proceeded with the new survey that conflicts with prior field surveys.

Image mate tax or image mate is an assessment tool and not intended to establish legal property boundaries.

Second, the survey itself states that it's prepared without the benefit of an up-to-date abstract of title.

This means the survey was prepared without reviewing the complete historical title record associated with these properties.

By contrast, my 2012 survey and the land bank's own 2018 survey were both prepared by the Lear Bank surveying, were performed on the ground and were tied to the original abstract dating to 1890, and the were verified using existing oil and pipe monuments.

Both surveys independently reach the same conclusion.

This dispute line directly affects the 225-foot boundary shared with the land bank property.

However, if the incorrect boundary is approved and carried forward, it has the potential to shift my 450-foot boundary line by approximately two feet.

That represents approximately 1,080 square feet of property and creates a potential for a domino effect affecting the boundaries and the title records of 10 neighboring properties.

I'm not asking the council to determine today which survey is ultimately correct.

I'm asking for the city not to approve the boundary adjustment where there is a documented conflict between the two historical field surveys and the newer survey that was prepared with an up-to-date abstract title.

Approving this resolution today will not resolve underlying issue.

It were a place disputed boundary line into public record and create uncertainty that may well ultimately have to be resolved through litigation.

I respectfully request the common council table resolution.

Refer back to planning department.

So it's the land banks 2018 survey and my 2012 survey, the original abstract or title.

All relevant to historical records can be reviewed, reconciled before the boundary is adjustment is approved.

All right, sir.

Is that what you wanted to convey to us?

Yeah, this is about protecting the city's accurate land records.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Anyone else would like to speak in opposition to an application?

1890.

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Rhonda Visi.

I live at 117 Seneca Drive, which is let's see.

I am west of the property.

It's one block in back of me.

There will also be more of these houses one block in front of me.

So I will be surrounded by these homes that the land bank is presenting.

I am opposed because they do not fit into the community.

And if the proper work has not been done in order to keep the amount of flooding that we have had over the years, that it needs to be done properly.

And then perhaps we should be able to give this work to developers that can build a single family home and update the community in a way that will beautify the community.

Like we have.

Single family homes in the community.

Was that looked at?

I didn't I didn't get a card the first time this happened.

I did get a card just over the weekend for the meeting today, but I did not get one when we the all this work just started.

And it's loud.

It will be the same thing, of course.

I'm not gonna complain about that when if a developer comes in to build, but I'd rather see the community be beautified and put to a use that will enhance what we already have, and not these train type prefabricated homes all over the place.

I am opposed to that.

And I think there's plenty of developers, if given the opportunity, would love to build homes on these properties and have them built up the way they need to be, especially the the homes on Montecello, which are on a slope.

And those trees should never been have ripped out like the way they were.

Awful.

So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition?

All right, if there are no further speakers, we'll ask the applicant to come back and respond to the comments.

Thank you very much.

Um we did hear from the neighborhood residents and from the Valley TNT group that they felt two three homes was going to be too much of a squeeze there.

Um so we did change our plans in response to their input to reduce it down to just two homes.

Um, these are going to be single family homes.

I expect people with families will buy them, just like she's saying she wants to see.

They will be owner-occupied.

Uh, the sales price will be anywhere between 175 and 250.

So I'm expecting that it will significantly increase comps in the neighborhood and increase property values in the neighborhood.

We are planning these two on Monticello.

Uh, these are the 1,100 square foot version.

Um, on auto.

We're planning two that are the 1,500 square foot version, uh, and then one at the corner of Orlando and Monticello, and another one on Clarence.

And then one at the corner of Orlando and Monticello, and another one on Clarence.

So there are six single family homes planned for this area.

We did hustle to take down trees on these sites prior to the end of March.

As you know, anything that's funded by the state like this has to go through an environmental review process.

And this is an area with bat habitat and breeding grounds where we are only allowed to cut trees down between November 1st and the end of March.

So we worked really quickly to get that done during that time period.

The trees that we cut down, we're perfectly within our legal rights to cut down trees on our property.

There's no permit or public hearing required for tree cutting prior to that work starting.

So we started that work without a lot of public comment.

And I regret that obviously the neighbors are very upset to lose these mature trees.

And we cut down trees that were either diseased or damaged or posed a chance of becoming a hazard in the future.

Or trees that were located right where the house is going to go that were in the way.

So that's our thinking there.

Our plan once the homes are installed is to plant new trees in the front and backyards and to do extensive landscaping.

I did have a landscape architect analyze the slope and the sheet runoff that is coming down the slope, and they assure me that the rain garden or swale bioswale that we have planned is adequate to handle the volume of water that's coming down that slope.

And so if anything, I think it will reduce the amount of stormwater that's currently flowing on to Monticello.

We'll be able to stop it before it comes forward to the street.

The homes, obviously, the roof and the roof of the garage will have stormwater runoff from those now impervious surfaces.

But our plan is for the gutters to route backwards towards the rain garden in the back so that that runoff will not be running towards the street.

The gutters will carry that towards the rain garden.

We have received a notice of claim from the neighbor, Mr.

Brown.

Our attorney has tried to contact him multiple times to discuss that claim, and it's our desire to reach an amicable settlement with him.

There is a dispute over the exact location of the property line.

But if you were to approve this today, that has no bearing on this civil dispute between the land bank and Mr.

Brown.

Our plan is to have additional licensed surveyors visit the site, stake the corners, everybody come to an agreement on where the lines are.

And if we did take down any of his trees, we'll offer an appropriate cash settlement to compensate him for that.

This survey was prepared by a licensed surveyor.

I have every reason to believe that he followed standard industry practices in putting this together.

What else am I missing here?

Why you look?

Was the land that that was conveyed, Mr.

Brown, a land bank property?

Yes, we add we sold him a side lot.

So he already owned a property there, and we sold him a little bit more land on Glen um several years ago.

Okay.

And is that part of the land that has the land survey question?

There's a surveys are different.

Is that part of that land?

I'm not quite sure.

Does that touch this line?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we'll have to reach some sort of agreement on where that boundary is, and I suspect it'll probably involve bringing out yet a third surveyor.

Any other comments.

All right, I mean there are we may have questions for you or questions from the commission.

Okay.

So I guess I'd like to begin by noting that many of the comments that were made uh tonight are about the site plan.

Uh the action before us tonight is a resubdivision.

It is not the major site plan review of the buildings that will be constructed there.

Any future construction of those properties will be reviewed as a major site plan review.

Uh so while we appreciate those comments tonight, they're not relevant per se to the resubdivision, which is the action that is before us tonight.

Uh like to hear from legal counsel, but the last time we viewed this civil dispute issue on a resubdivision, we were advised that the civil dispute may go forward, but does not affect our resubdivision uh decision.

Uh so I'm not sure if that still stands, if that's the case uh with respect to this dispute or not.

Yeah.

Um at the I mean, I wasn't the uh city zoning attorney at the time of that.

Uh so I don't know off the top of my head, but I could certainly look into it for you.

Okay.

Um what we can confirm with staff is applicant says the survey that's in front of us with this resubdivision was conducted by a licensed land surveyor.

Correct.

Um and it's updated uh December 2025.

Right.

So compared to the uh the survey neighbor provided, uh, we believe that this is more updated.

And um, and we also confirmed the CD engineer staff um condition that I approve the uh proposal.

Um if there are any disturbancing over 10,000 square feet, uh uh CD engineer would ask him for uh to program more stone water um run over, and this will become before uh central permit office for a building permit because there was a uh single family house.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Uh any questions to the other members of the commission?

I have a quick one.

Caitlin, um, do you think it's possible to resolve the survey lot line question within the next three weeks?

I certainly hope so.

I know that our attorney's been trying to reach Mr.

Brown for several weeks, and we haven't been able to set up a meeting or get any phone calls back.

So if that were to be the case, I would let Mr.

Brown certainly also speak.

I would recommend that we hold this until our next meeting, hoping that it would be resolved in the official capacity, whatever the survey is going to be.

And then, of course, the resub follows those lines.

But Mr.

Brown, you would need to obviously be available and ready to work with the land bank on the survey.

All right, Mike.

Okay.

Question to follow up then would be does holding this affect any of the plans for construction.

No, uh, given how much public feedback we've gotten on these sites, we pushed them to the very bottom of our list because I figured it was going to take a while to resolve these issues.

All right.

So as our chair would say, I'm getting the sense.

Well, so I'd just like to note I'm okay.

I'm okay with holding it if it makes sense.

We we knew Caitlin for a month at least to see.

I would just note that the last time we ran into this problem, we actually ended up holding uh the case for several meetings, and the dispute was never resolved, and so we are advised that we could go ahead and take action on the resubdivision and allow the civil dispute to to play out.

So I'm just making that as an observation.

Yes.

And I think it's just a question of how do we take what's on paper and translate it to the field.

So we're gonna have to you know look at the markers that are out there in person, but regardless of what we determine, it's not gonna change this map because these are the dimensions of the tax parcel.

That's right.

It should adjust if it shifts two feet, three feet on the wedge line, right so to speak.

That would be I would anticipate that would be the most significant, if significant at all.

Yeah, I mean it's this is gonna be 108.75 feet back from the curb, no matter what it's just exactly.

It's not moving.

Right.

But if you're willing and Mr.

Brown is willing, then you know, and I think we can put it on for I don't know when we meet next.

August 10th.

Yeah, next meeting would be August 10th.

Okay.

All right.

So it works for us.

If the commission agrees, if if that's the sense of the commission, I'll just look left and right one more time.

Are we thinking so we'll hold this and ask you to return August 10th and give us an update?

Yes.

All right, and hopefully you're with the provision.

Let's do this in one meeting because uh I I won't be in favor of holding this successful meetings if we can't resolve the dispute.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you to all the speakers.

Uh staff, could we call the next hearing, please?

Next agenda item, R-2026-50.

Um, it's a resubdivision at 215 and 217 to 19 West Borden F.

Um, the honor applicant is a greater Syracuse Land Bank as well.

Uh, does R2 zone district?

Hopefully you'll find this one to be a little simpler.

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

Uh we own a vacant lot at 217-19 West Borden Ave.

It has 50 feet of road frontage.

And uh I recently had to jog my memory about how we got to this point.

Uh the land bank acquired this vacant lot in April of 2021.

And the house next door was also seizable, and I anticipated that we would soon get the house and probably combine them into one parcel.

Um I of course lost track of things, and a few months later the house was purchased by Robert and Teresa Harris, and they got up to date on their taxes, and we never got the house.

And as I've been looking at our maps of building lots, I keep seeing this 50-foot lot, thinking, oh, that'd be a good place for a house.

And then I was approached by Mr.

Harris, who came in to complain that we have a gentleman that goes around and does periodic inspections of all of our properties and snaps a picture.

He says, I want to know why this guy's taking a picture of my yard every two weeks.

Well, I figured out what was going on here.

Uh that our lot was fenced in as if it was part of his yard, and when he purchased his house, he thought that it came with the lot.

He purchased it without an attorney and without a survey, which many people do.

And so considering that he had thought it was his and he had been mowing it and maintaining it, and he tells me that his grandchildren play there.

Um, we are proposing to sell him this lot for a dollar and requiring that they merge them together so that the lot doesn't become orphaned again in the future.

Um, under normal circumstances, we would offer the lot to both neighbors, but in this case, if we did that, we would be proposing to take away half of his side yard, which he has thought is his all along.

Um so we only offered it to him in this case.

Okay, and again, how long has he been maintaining it?

Uh he purchased this property in 2021, so about five years.

He's been mowing it.

All right, thank you.

Okay, perfect.

Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak in favor of the application?

Are there any members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition?

All right, and I didn't ask commission members have any questions.

Yeah, I'm good.

Okay, all set.

Thank you very much.

We'd ask staff then for our seeker information.

Yes.

Has everybody have a chance to review the short EAF part one?

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the 11 question of the short yeah or part two?

Yes.

Do you believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts?

No.

Because you do not believe there will be any moderate to large impacts.

I recommend you vote to issue a negative declaration under seeker and complete the EF parser accordingly.

Thank you.

And do we have a motion regarding SEEKER?

I move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Oh, second.

Thank you.

Any discussion about the motion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

And now as to the application, is there a motion?

I move to approve application R-2026-50 as presented with one condition.

That one condition being that the applicant shall file the map for the resubdivision with county clerk's office within 62 days of approval, which is tonight.

Is there a second?

A second.

Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Can we call the next hearing, please?

Yes.

The next item.

Um the last resubdivision, R-2026-40.

Um 303 and 307, Emerson F.

The honor is uh St.

Peter and Paul's church.

The representative has a father, Ambrose, and uh does our two zone district.

Great Father Ambrose, uh rector of Saints Peter and Paul and Tipperary Hill.

And we've owned this property, I think, since 1926 for a very long time.

Churches built 1927.

We own most of the properties, actually, all the properties that you see there.

And uh so we have two residential properties, one on the left and then one on the bottom.

You see there.

I think uh the parcel on the bottom of the map.

Uh we we actually I don't think I know we had an old building there.

Uh see where that sidewalk?

Yeah, right there.

Excellent.

So that's I what comes up.

There was a house there that was demolished, I think, in the 1990s.

Uh this was before my time.

So two residential parcels.

Uh and so we we are just wanting to simplify the process.

The ministry is very complicated.

And uh, especially in our times we want to simplify our life here and then set us up for any kind of future additions or improvements that we want to make uh to the property.

Understood.

Could you give us the address uh where you live in the address of the property, please?

Uh 307 Emerson, and then what's the one on the bottom?

What is it?

303.

303.

So 307 and 303.

And then also there's a on the top there, that one.

Which one is that one?

That's four four ten.

Is that it?

Hamilton.

What is it?

411.

Thank you.

And before before you go, Father, I just have to ask staff.

Did he cover everything he needed to cover in the for the resub?

Yeah, that's pretty much the trend that faders asking for only the resub.

Okay.

All right.

Excellent.

Be with us for just a minute.

And then uh you see right there, you see the residential lot, just a little bit of the residential lot would then go into the main property there.

Just potentially, you know, if we want to do a kids' playground or something.

We just wanted to get this all done right now, just in case.

See what kind of improvements that we can make.

Our parish is growing, and thank God, so we want to just set us up for the future, whatever that is.

Are there any questions from the commission members?

Last month when we reviewed this plan, there was a mention of a basketball court.

Now that has disappeared in place of the future activities of the of the uh parish.

Uh actually it is it's we're almost there.

It's we have a permit site work permit.

And so it would be right there exactly where the uh cursor is.

So volleyball court, basketball court.

Right now we have a makeshift volleyball court that I'm an orthodox priest, so I'm married, so I have children.

So my youngest son uh plays on it and then breaks it, and then the older kids are upset with it.

So something a little more permanent, a little bit more stable.

So that'll be a nice addition for uh for the community as well.

Uh we do pre-family dinners once a month, so we have a lot of kids from the community that come up and hang out as well.

So that'll be hopefully a nice addition to the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All set?

All right, bear with we're just gonna ask any comments from the public.

Thank you, Father.

Is anyone here would like to speak in favor of the application?

Is there anyone present who'd like to speak?

Hear what you got me doing here.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak in opposition?

I'm not blaming you, it's in my head.

Um questions about the application.

Can we review seeker?

Yes.

Has everybody had a chance to review the short EF part one?

Yes.

Is everyone familiar?

Is the 11 question of the short ER part two?

Yes.

Do you believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts?

No, no.

Because you do not believe there will be any moderate to large impact.

I recommend you vote to issue an active um the secret declaration and complete a year for parser accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion regarding seeker?

Move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

A second.

Any discussion on the motion?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstain?

The motion passes.

As for the application, is there a motion regarding the application?

I move to approve application R-2026-40 as presented with two conditions.

Those conditions are as follows.

The applicant shall successfully file the resub dimension map of R-2026-40 in the honor county clerk's office within 62 days of subdivision reapproval.

And two, the applicant shall submit a major site plan review application before pursuing any applicable permits per their conceptual master site plan.

Thank you.

The motion second the motion.

Thank you.

Any discussion?

All in favor of the motion, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The application passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Next agenda item.

Um ASPR-2026-26 as a major site plan review as 300-um 10 Montgomery Street.

Uh this is St.

Paul Church in downtown.

Um, and this is a MX5 zone district.

Good evening.

Uh good evening.

Uh my name is Randy Coogan.

I'm with Shop for Architects, uh, 1111 James Street, Syracuse, New York, 13203.

I'm also joined by uh uh Philip Major of St.

Paul's Church.

Uh Andrew Lunetta, executive director of a tiny home for good.

Uh we're seeking approval to renovate approximately 9200 square feet of the existing second floor of St.

Paul's parish house by converting the space into 10 residential apartments.

All the units we will be considered affordable housing.

The project is being organized and coordinated by a tiny home for good, who will also be considered the tenant for the second floor.

The site is in the MX5 district, which permits multi-unit dwellings.

Uh currently there are about 32 spaces in the existing parking lot on the west side of the building.

Two spaces will be dedicated for the second floor staff and security personnel.

Trash generated from the second floor will be handled with a small dumpster place in the existing parking lot.

The new trash room on the second floor will be emptied every other day.

A bike rack is required by the city and will also be provided on the site.

The building is classified as a historic structure, and aside from some rooftop mechanical installations, we don't anticipate any other exterior work.

The tenant entry into the building will be through existing doors on Mount Gomery Street, uh, where they will have access to an existing stair and elevator.

Within the second floor, four of the ten apartments will be fully ADA compliant.

Each will have its own kitchen with an electric stove and microwave.

The build out will also include a community room, laundry room, and an office for a case manager.

The project will also include installation of code required sprinkler systems, smoke detection, and a fire alarm system for the second floor.

Any questions?

I just want to follow up on a comment of the transportation planner regarding uh bike parking.

There is none in this particular plan.

I do understand though, uh, from other comments that you have submitted a minor site plan review for the parking lot that does include bike parking.

So I just wanted to check up on that because your ratio is one to six.

Uh so if it's 32 parking spots, then the bike would be six parking spaces.

Okay.

We will accommodate that on the uh on the drawings.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Do you want to?

No.

Okay.

Okay, well, I guess we we just wanted to make sure in terms of the uh affordability of all the units.

Uh that the 10 units is below the requirement for uh city code.

And that's great, it's fantastic that you want to do that.

But if you bring it in under the city code uh certification process with the uh neighborhood and business development program, then that applies for 30 years or whatever the term is of any other funding that requires.

So I just want to make sure you understood that in terms of going in that direction and that it locks it in for that period of time.

I think I understand that now.

Um, and if Andrew's okay with that, uh that's the way we'll proceed.

Um Andrew Linetta, director of tiny home for good, uh 1222 South Ave.

Right.

We understand that loud and clear.

Yeah, great, fantastic.

Just want to make sure that on the record.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

It doesn't happen very often, so we should celebrate it.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

We'll let you know if we need any other comment.

Any members of the public would like to speak in favor of the application.

Good evening.

Good evening, I'm Philip Major.

I'm the priest of St.

Paul's Church, and we've been working with uh tiny home for good, obviously, on this proposal for several years.

I just wanted to say a few things from our perspective.

The first is that um the church has been engaged in renovating our space for many years.

The planning process has been started in 2016, and early on in the process, we considered something like doing market rate housing in this space, and the congregation and diocese really decided we did not want to go in that direction, partly because it doesn't really align with the mission of the church.

So we're delighted about this uh partnership and hope this works out for everyone.

Um also want to just make sure everyone knows that this space has basically been completely vacant for more than 10 years, and it's really it just doesn't seem like it it we really need to move forward with some sort of project such as this.

So that for me there's urgency about having the space up and running again.

And the last thing I want to say is that um St.

Paul's just recently completed two and a half million dollars in renovations, including for us, uh replacing all the roofs above the space, repairing all the exterior surfaces, repairing all the windows, um making all the entrances completely accessible for wheelchair, um, installing an elevator to access this space.

So um we're thrilled that it might go to this good use.

And I think that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Any questions from the commission?

You're certainly speaking in favor, but just in case.

Uh anyone else want to speak in favor of the application?

Is there anyone from the public who wants to speak in opposition to the application?

All right.

If there are no other speakers and no other questions from the commission.

We go for it with Seeker.

Yes.

Thank you.

Has everybody had a chance to review the short yeah part one?

Yes.

Is everyone familiar?

Was there the 11 question of the short yeah for part two?

Yes.

Yes.

Do you all believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts?

No.

Since you don't believe there will be any moderate to large impact, I recommend you to vote for um active declaration on the seeker and finish par uh parse three accordingly.

Thank you.

Is there a motion regarding seeker?

I move to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Any nays.

Yeah, forget the nays.

Regarding the application, is there a motion?

I moved to approve MESPR-2026-26 as presented with five conditions.

Those five conditions are as follows.

The applicant shall comply with general conditions for approval of all site plan applications.

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

Three, all affordable units will have the same structure, fixtures, appliances, and materials as market rate apartments for all affordable dwelling units must be certified by the city department of neighborhood and business development administration.

And five, the affordability place uh requirement shall be in effect for 30 years from the date of the certificate of a uh certificate of occupancy is issued.

Thank you for the motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion on the motion.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The application is approved.

Thank you.

Our next hearing.

The next side then.

Um is major side plan review and seeker review also.

Um state.

Um project ID is MASPR-2026-28.

Um, just for the public record, this will be one of the tall faces that uh for ESAD and Riti Wallaman.

Um, and this is our MX2 zone district, and uh is Syracuse Housing Authority.

All right, and this is a presentation tonight, is that right?

Yes, there will not be any action will be taken by this board.

Um we'll have a Dewalla Pur to introduce the project and also have a uh secret discussion with you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you all for having us.

My name is Alison Carpenter here to represent the East Adams phase three project team.

Um I'm with McCormick Barron Salazar, the development team, uh, in partnership with my colleagues at the Syracuse Housing Authority.

Um and you'll hear uh in more depth from our architect team, Ashley McGraw Architects, as well as council uh to speak to speak to Seeker.

Um before we get into it, I just want to say um, you know, we've we've got great progress with the East Adams transformation plan over the over the last several years with now both phases one and two under construction, and we're really proud to keep the momentum moving forward on this amazing uh investment in this East Adams and Historic 15th Ward community.

Um in phase three, I think we've got we got the benefit of a lot of lessons learned.

And one thing I just want to just share with you all is that whereas on the first two phases where we just we designed and we shared it with the community and asked for their feedback, phase three we took a different approach.

Um, and that approach was to have a resident-led design process, and so our architects actually engaged with Blueprint 15 and the community members to hear from them early about what they wanted to see at this site and to have them engage in periodic, I think maybe monthly meetings, if not more frequently, to really guide that process.

So, what you're gonna see in our presentation today is a result of that long-standing engagement.

So a different approach that we plan to adopt on the all future phases.

So I'm happy to walk through the master plan or if you want us to dive directly into phase three.

We can I can pass it over to uh to the architect team.

We we know remember the the first phase.

Yeah, yeah.

Yes, you can go into phase three.

So I'll pass it to Andrew Schuster with Ashley Grove Architects.

Yeah, thank you.

I wasn't sure if we were doing seeker first or the building first.

Um can we go to the first image of the master plan?

I want to just orient everybody on where we are.

So keep going up a little bit.

There, that one.

So this is uh phase three of 12 for the East Adams uh redevelopment.

And it's the site is bounded by State Street on the left, um, Townsend on the right, and to the north, it is McKinney Street, which is a new street that's gonna be that's soon to be built as part of phase one, and then to the south, the linear park, uh which is intended to connect Jackson Street with New Street and help connect Rossler Park and Wilson Park.

Uh so those are the four sides of the site, and then in keeping with uh strong urban planning principles, the buildings are built out of up to the lot line all the way around the block, and then more uh resident focused amenities, parking, play area, patio, things like that are on the interior of the block.

Um so if you go to the next one.

So for phase three, we have 147 total units.

It's a mixture of one through five bedroom units, uh, really to capture a full range of everything from single people to large families.

And this is also intended to replace uh housing that's recently been demolished from the same site to ensure that the unit mix available to the community stays the same.

Um if we go to the next one.

So the site itself is zone MX2.

This is a mixed income residential development, so uh the majority of it's tax credit financed affordable housing, and then there's an unrestricted uh component to it, so that it's not it's not entirely affordable housing, but it's mostly.

Um, and then it's a the buildings are a mixture of two and four story buildings.

I'll get into that in a minute.

Uh and we have 91 parking spaces provided, so a little bit more than half of the parking of the units are parked.

Um this is as a mixed income property in MX2, we're only required to provide a quarter or 1.25 uh spaces per unit, so we've doubled the required parking capacity.

Um if you keep going.

So starting with building A, that's the one on the left here.

So this is an elevator multifamily building, so uh apartments on a hall, four stories, uh wood frame construction.

The ground floor contains the resident amenities for the site, so fitness center, community room, the leasing office, as well as a uh leasable office for an office tenant.

Um so that is gonna be a mixture of one, two, and three bedroom apartments.

We go to the next one, that's three B.

So very similar apartment format.

Um this has a mixture of one, two, three, and four bedroom apartments.

Uh, in order to provide a single-story, four-bedroom apartment for a very high degree of accessibility.

Uh, we have this in the that in the apartment buildings, and then this will also have about 3,000 square feet of ground floor retail, uh, which is intended to face the linear park and provide a complementary amenity to the park itself.

Um, and then there's a there are some uh um community amenities in that building as well.

Uh if you keep going, so the next three buildings they're they're very similar.

So these are all town homes, they're a mixture of three, four, and five bedroom townhomes.

Um building C, and then in the next one, um, if you keep going.

Building uh D and E are the same, or block E and D are the same, and they have a mixture of two bedroom flats, so up and down, um, two-bedroom stacked, three-bedroom, four-bedroom, and five-bedroom townhomes.

And those are all uh door on the street, door in the rear, uh very conventional in-fill town homes.

Um this is an image of building 3A, and this is looking at the with the linear park to the right and State Street on the left.

Uh, these buildings are all intended to be a lot of masonry, they're intended to be really urban forward buildings, um, not you know, we're not transposing any sort of suburban architecture to the city.

Um most of the apartments have balconies.

Uh we have very large windows, large, a lot of natural light in these in these buildings.

Um, and then we really wanted to have uh an architecture that had the rhythm and broke broke down the scale a little bit so they're not just big blocks of housing.

Um, even though these are uh mixed use, they we wanted to still be in keeping with that sort of architectural rhythm that the zoning is requiring for the um purely multifamily buildings, and then uh you can see here the straight-on elevation, so you can see kind of that how that rhythm goes and the balconies in between.

Uh the exterior materials are a mixture of fiber cement siding, um, concrete block, brick, and a terracotta shingle tile to give it a little bit more texture, a little bit more color.

Um, one of the things we heard from the community is to be willing to take a little bit more color into these buildings and um not just have them as kind of white boxes.

So then if you go up a little bit, um so this on the bottom right there, that's actually the courtyard facing elevation.

So I wanted to call attention to it.

Um we don't have balconies facing the courtyard, we have Juliet's, so there'll be a door that opens with a railing in front.

Um but in keeping with the city zoning, we want it, you know, the city says to have four all four fronts, so we can't really design the back.

So we really kept the same architecture even on the courtyard side.

And this is uh 3B, so this is the one with retail, and so you can see this is the retail corner.

Um so that's that'll be about 3,000 square feet of retail facing the park on the left, facing towns and on the right.

Uh the main entrance to the building is a little bit further down in that other canopy, and uh, you know, similar but not quite exactly the same.

Those two buildings, the finishes are different.

The uh way that we treat the roof lines and stuff are a little bit different, just to make sure that they're not um we're not repeating the same building over and over.

And similarly, here's the straight on elevations.

So the townhomes are two-story townhomes, mostly brick.

Um we've raised up the front stoops a little bit as much as we could while maintaining ADA access to the sites as well uh from the parking side.

And the one on the end here that's a little bit bigger, that's the up and down flats.

So that'll be a two-bedroom apartment upstairs and two bedroom apartment downstairs.

The upstairs apartment also has access to the front and the back, not just one side.

Um, and then the rest of these are all uh own entry town homes.

And the that in front of us is building E.

Um, and I I just have one elevation here for reference.

I didn't put all of them in here because they're they're all fairly similar.

Um we use some of the materials from the other buildings, but we're not keeping the same colors or the same exact finishes because we want these to stand alone as uh their own street.

And if you go um if you mind scrolling all the way back up to the uh master plan.

Um what you can see here on McKinney and Monroe Street, so you have Adams Street and then one block down is McKinney and Monroe.

Um this is really intended to be a residential scale town home infill street.

So what we've got is on Adams, we've got that bigger scale, more urban scale.

It steps down into this interior street on the master plan, and then it begins stepping up again into more dense apartment buildings.

So we wanted to really ensure that where the townhomes are, they're facing each other, that we're creating a neighborhood within the neighborhood, um, and that that feels like a smaller scale and a more intimate street compared to what's around it.

Um so if you go to the end, I think we just have one more image of uh block C and then I think that's it I have for the introduction.

Yes.

One last thing I'd just like to add.

Uh so this project will follow um again, we have a choice neighborhood grant that this uh city has received uh along with the housing authority.

So the program for this phase, it's gonna be 147 total units.

72 of those are going to be replacement housing units for returning uh public housing residents from McKinney Manor or Pioneer Homes.

Uh, and then the balance of that will be a mix of LITEC and market rate housing, so it's truly a mixed income community.

With that, I think uh we'll pull wait for your questions.

Okay.

Uh are there questions for the applicant?

The uh linear park on the right hand side that you mentioned, is that the one that runs from Wilson Park West to the name of the other parts.

Wrestler, yeah, it's meant to be a connective to uh park from uh Rustler Park to Wilson Park.

Right.

That's right.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh other question I have is we in terms of the master plan, we have 22,000 square foot of grocery space that's designated.

How is that is that collective?

Is that one place where you're anticipating that?

Great question.

So the site 12, if you see there on the master plan, uh we have for a long time penciled that site as a potential site for grocery.

Now, um, as as you know, we said for a while, phase 12, it's not a part of the choice neighborhood grant uh phases, uh phases one through eleven are phase 12 is gonna take a lot more planning.

Uh it's gonna take a lot more resident engagement.

So we haven't concluded we haven't zeroed in on plans for a grocery store there, but that is something that is on the wish list that I've heard from every resident at every meeting uh is the wish to have uh more grocery store space in there.

So but is the intent is that there would be one like full service store, a bunch of it.

Right, yeah, it would be one we'd have to we we we would aim to bring in an anchor tenant to that site.

Thank you.

No problem.

Any other questions on the commission?

147 units in phase three.

All of them, I uh am I understanding correctly will face inside and outside.

Yeah, and all of them most of them will have it entrance on both.

So are are you asking if the units go all the way through the block?

So for the town homes they do.

So the town homes are through the block straight straight through party wall buildings.

The elevator apartment buildings are not, they're apartments on a corridor.

So some of them face inside and some of them face outside.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

I just want to check in.

You said the number 79 was the number you gave for replacement units.

Seven.

72.

That's right.

147 total units, 72 replacement units, 44 non-replacement affordable units, so tax credit units, and then we're looking at 31 Markerate units.

But uh throughout the process of closing, sometimes those numbers tweak a little bit.

The commitment that we'll never change is the number of replacement units we're gonna have for our returning residents.

That's the highest priority.

You bet you bet.

And they're all rental units in this phase.

They're all rental, yeah.

All right.

Before I ask for public comment, I do want to say we always are pleased to see engagement with the community and engagement with the residents.

It's very important in a project like this.

Absolutely.

So to all the parties involved who are doing that, and to the residents who are responding, we say thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you so much.

Are there any members of the public who want to speak in favor of the application?

Excuse me.

Hi, my name's Monique Mitchell.

I approve of this because for those who are like me, what is low income?

We really need this in our community.

Maybe this is not the violence and all this stuff.

So I approve of this.

They're doing a good job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak in favor of the application?

Come on out.

Hello, I am Ivan Monroe, and I am from Lukin 15 at 819 South Sunday Street.

And I've been working with um Andrew along with this project.

And it's been really great to work with him, and it's been great to work with all the residents as I oh about 10 or so residents every month or twice a month to give more uh feedback with them.

And it's been really great to get alongside with um as well as Andrew to get like a more um like in-depth back and forth trying to make sure that their residents have more of a say so what they want, and they've been doing a great job to incorporate feedback and say yes or say yes or no when what yes is possible and how can we further expand what they want to get to a better meet hobby medium.

So, yeah, it's been really great.

And also I'm really excited for this project.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to speak in favor?

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Tara Harris.

I'm a lifelong resident of this area we're talking about.

I was born and raised there.

I'm in favor of the project.

Um, I lead up the resident design team for this, so it's very important that um the residents' voices are heard at every table.

I'm this is where we live, so these changes are affecting us.

So glad to be able to be a part of the decision making and this process.

So I'm definitely in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak in favor of the application?

Is anyone want to speak in opposition to the application?

All right, seeing no opposition, I'll ask the commission members one more time.

Any other questions?

I just like to note that this is our 12th application for Blueprint 15 that we've seen for the planning commission.

Ten of those applications were subdivisions or site plan reviews, 12 of them were extensions.

This is the first time when residents of the area have actually come and given witness.

So I'm just very pleased that some folks have come forward.

Hopefully, somebody has heard my complaints in the past about this not happening.

I'm just glad you all came and showed up, and hopefully we'll have more of that.

Because as we go forward, every building will need a site plan review before the planning commission.

So please, y'all come out and keep commenting.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

Comment or a question?

All right.

Tonight we are, are we going to proceed with seeker?

Um, we will have a com so come before you introduce the seeker and uh um see if any uh question you have based on the material you have.

All right, thank you.

Good evening, counsel.

How are you?

I'm well, how are you?

It's good.

It's a pleasure to be before the board again.

My name is Brody Smith.

I'm the uh an attorney at Bon Shenick and King, and I've been retained by the city to help you with the State Environmental Quality Review Act portion of this application.

Um this is a type one action.

Uh the seeker review is actually uh more than just phase three.

In order to avoid segmentation, it is wise as part of SEECER to perform a review of the entire project so far as it's not speculative and it's definite.

So at this point, the city believes there's adequate information to do seeker for phases three through twelve.

So I'm gonna walk you through some documents that you have in front of you.

Um again, this is type one.

So we're using the long form of the environmental assessment form.

And um we'll we'll start there.

So the expanded version of this project, not just restricted to phase three, involves 29 acres, six blocks.

It is bordered by Adams, Monroe, Burt, and Montgomery.

The primary purpose of the project is public housing.

It includes 1,563 dwelling units, roughly 50,000 square feet of retail and grocery space, and 1,477 parking spots.

That area is zoned three different zones MX2, MX3, and MX4.

The the relief that is ultimately going to be requested a site plan approval for those, but as we mentioned before, it'll come in stages as they go come for the very various phases.

Previously, phases one and two had a neck a neg deck issued by this commission.

Um and now we're looking at the seeker for three through twelve.

Um the board has in its possession a part one of the EAF, and part one of the EAF is the portion of the EAF that provides background information from the developer about the project.

I'm gonna walk you through today part two of the EAF.

On the long form, this is an issue spotting exercise where we're going to identify what potential areas.

Uh there are now 20 questions as of last month.

Uh the form has been modified by the DEC.

Um, and those questions that we check yes, are gonna then be covered in part three.

Um I'll take the input I received from the board here today, and I'll write a proposed um determination of significance and come back to you uh at your next meeting.

So the goal today is to go through part two and to establish a record to demonstrate that this board has considered in a meaningful way the potential environmental impacts for going forward with this project.

So beginning with part two, which you have in front of you, the first question um talks about impact on land.

I recommend that the board answer this question yes, that the proposed action may involve construction on or physical alteration of the land.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Yes.

So there are sub questions to each of these 20 questions.

Um I recommend that the first question uh be no or small, because the and I'm taking information from part one of the EAF for your benefit here.

The uh construction on land, the depth of the water table is actually seven to fourteet.

The for B, I I propose that you again answer no to small.

That's because the proposed action involves construction on slopes no more than 10% in terms of slope.

Letter C, I propose you answer no to small, because the uh bedrock is actually thousand it's it's well well deeper than five feet from grade.

Does the board agree with those three that no to small impacts?

Yes.

The for letter D, I propose that you actually answer this moderate to large.

Um that's because part one of the EAF states there'll be 15,000 cubic yards of material removed, depending on whether it's gravel dirt or other materials, it may vary what that weight would be in terms of tons, but at least 15,000 tons.

So I also recommend that letter E be answered moderate to large because the proposed um time for the multiple phases of the construction to be completed is 2032.

Does the board agree that those two questions be answered moderate to large?

Yes.

For letter F, I propose that you answer this no to small.

Um the proposed action uh does include 29 acres of impervious surface, but uh it's really not gonna be very different than what's there now.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

Moving on to question number two.

This is impact on geological features.

I recommend that you answer this question no, since there are none.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

For question number three, I initially had this one marked no, but I I want to revise what I said before.

I'm recommending that you answer this question yes.

And uh the reason being is I want to deal with the water and sewer infrastructure issues here.

Does the board agree that um in terms of the additional load on the water and sewer that it makes sense to answer this question?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So the only two questions, and I won't go through them individually because there's a lot of them, but the only two sub questions I think are relevant are H and K.

H asks whether the proposed action may cause soil erosion, otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies.

This is where you can uh take into account that 29 acres of impervious surface.

Does the board agree to check that one moderate to large?

Sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then the other question is K.

Does the proposed action require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities?

I recommend you answer that moderate to large because the EAF states that roughly 468,000 additional gallons of load will be added to the water and the sewer systems.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

I recommend that you check the balance of the sub questions in section three small to uh no.

Does the board agree with that?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Question four, impact on groundwater.

I recommend that you answer this uh no because this uh project will be on public water and sewer.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Number five, impact on flooding.

I recommend they answer this no because the EAF provides information that it is not part of a floodway or floodplain.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Yeah.

Number six is impact on air and climate.

I recommend that you answer this question yes, mainly because of the use of portable generators during the construction process.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Yes.

Notwithstanding, I think it being appropriate to answer it yes, looking at the thresholds and all the sub-questions.

Um, it's my understanding that the use of those portable generators will not exceed any of these thresholds.

Therefore, I recommend that you answer all of the sub-questions, no or small.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh I've been going quickly.

I'm gonna pause here for a breath.

Are there any questions as I've moved through this quickly that you want me to go back to?

No.

Just because the record's complete and we've already had in the other uh review of your applications.

We've discussed all the steps that are being taken to avoid excessive noise and excessive pollution.

So that's consistent with what we're answering.

Yes and no to here.

Yeah.

And we're specifically gonna uh soon we're gonna we're gonna um talk directly about odor dust and noise, and that'll be one of the questions we cover.

Yeah.

Uh number seven is impact on plants and animals.

I recommend you answer this no.

This is a built environment.

I don't think there'll be a destruction of any habitat.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Number eight is impact on agricultural resources.

I recommend you answer this no.

There are none present at the site.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Number nine is impact on us on aesthetic resources.

I recommend that you answer this yes, based on part one of the EAF.

Um, the Central Technical High School is 1200 feet away, and it's listed on the national and state registers.

Um, does the board agree to answer this question?

Yes?

Yes, yes.

That being said, as you look at the sub-questions, um, given the present use of the property, generally for residential purposes, and the um uh you know the new use will be roughly the same.

And uh it doesn't seem as if any of the placement of these structures would impede view of the high school, certainly not the front facade since it's on the opposite side of the property.

I would recommend that you would answer no or small for the impacts on central technical high school.

Does the board agree with that?

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Number 10 is impact on historic and archaeological resources.

I recommend that you answer this question yes due to the social significance, social and historical significance of the pioneer homes.

Does the board agree?

Yeah.

That being said, in a memorandum on seeker issues provided by the engineer for the applicant, um the applicant uh argues that preservation of the architectural resource of pioneer homes is impractical due to the age of the buildings and it's preferable to replace them with newer housing.

That being said, the alternative that is provided by the applicant's engineers is to preserve that that history through photographs and the creation of exhibits that would be displayed that would um talk about the uh historic significance of pioneer homes so that that history is um uh preserved, even though the buildings will not be.

Uh does the board uh if that being the case, I would recommend that letters A and an E sub questions Rome uh Roman numerals one and two be checked, yes, or moderate to large, I should say, and the balance of the questions be checked no to small.

I know that's a lot I just threw at you.

Does the board understand what what it is that they are proposing in terms of um uh the way to you know, rather than preserving the actual buildings, they would photograph the buildings, they'd create historic exhibits, and those would be available for the public on display for the public to learn about the history of pioneer homes, yeah.

Put it more directly.

Does the board agree with all that?

Yes, yes.

Excuse me, Brody, could you back up a second to the aesthetic resources?

So you mentioned uh central tech.

I just curious, is central tech and and not the steam school?

That's on historical same thing.

Resources.

So going back and considering that to letter nine or yeah, aesthetic resources that central technical high school is the listed building on the national register.

Is that the question?

Yeah, yeah.

So it's just is just the tech school and not steam school.

Or is it oh I know what you mean.

There's a building behind it, right?

No, I don't think that's listed.

I don't think that is because that's not that's central tech.

The other building, the building on historical uh is a steam school, that's not central tech.

Okay.

Okay.

So make sure that's I should be, yeah, it should be precise what I'm saying here.

The listed building is a central tech.

And they they list that is the one that's on the national register.

If I something I said made it sound like a different building, that's not true.

Okay, yeah.

Just because for preservation purposes, the building that is now the steam school was also uh several times before this body, there were groups that came here seeking to preserve it.

And so there may be some of the community that value it as a historic resource, but it may not be on the list yet from uh any of the state groups or the secretary.

Yeah, because it was vacant.

If you think there are additional aesthetic resources um that should be considered, uh that's appropriate, uh, even if they're not listed.

So now the way that that could be addressed, if you know, if if you feel that any of this project is going to interfere with the viewing of those historic buildings from a public viewpoint from the street or that kind of thing, then you know you could you could request modifications.

Um if in terms of you know the viewing of those resources are negatively affected by new construction, you could you could request screening, you know, that sort of thing could be part of the the site plan.

Do you do you feel that uh we should explore some of that more for those two?

I mean I don't think so.

No, I mean it's the same issue.

I I was just curious about the the names because it was surprised it was central tech and not the steam school, which is much older and more historically significant building.

I see, but I understand.

So I'm going off part one of the EAF.

It is possible that I that some of the information I provided is incorrect since I'm relying on that.

Right.

But um we can seek clarification from the applicant too, actually right now.

Um so uh if you know so the question, I don't know.

The question is the uh central technical high school is listed in part one of the EAF, uh, but there's also the STEAM school, and we're wondering if maybe that was mislabeled basically.

Um, perhaps but it's the same building.

Well, I guess it is.

I mean, the central tech building is a additional construction to the original uh central high.

Okay, and so they're two separate buildings, and one is historical, the other one, I don't I mean it's surprised that Central Tech is So I suspect what has occurred, Brody, is Central Tech, which is the oldest okay building in school building in downtown, was most likely likely designated when it was vacant prior to it being now the new steam school.

So it is the same, it's a new use, it's a school with a new focus on steam.

Which I think that is the name but I suspect the structure itself was designated prior to that.

Central tech.

They they believe on the listing, the the the protected building still listed as central tech, but I what I would recommend is that um we instead of pop quiz aspect of the program, why don't you figure that out and then you can uh edit the memo and address the board's um question and in the revised memo.

Yeah, we'll do that.

Okay, we'll do that.

Thank you.

Um the uh so I I think we decided to check on number 10 A and uh E Romanets one and two as moderate to large and the rest um small or no.

Does the board agree with that?

Yes.

Okay.

Impact on um open space and recreation.

I recommend that you answer this question, no.

This project is not um removing any open space.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yes.

Number 12, impact on critical environmental areas.

There is not one present.

I recommend that the board answer that question no.

Do you agree?

Yes, yes.

13 impact on transportation.

I recommend that you answer this question yes, because this project will generate many additional vehicle trips.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

That being said, a traffic impact study was prepared in 2023.

They supplemented it in 2024.

We met with um the team for the developers along with uh planning staff and the engineering department.

We've asked them to supplement again uh uh provid some information from the the traffic consultant that that the that data is still valid since it was generated in 2023, and they'll provide that before the next meeting.

Um with that in mind, the traffic impact study did not recommend that any changes to the infrastructure were required and that the current road infrastructure is adequate to um support the proposed development.

Um with that in mind, I'd recommend that the board answer all the sub questions, no to small.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Impact on energy.

Um I recommend that you answer the question yes, based on uh the EAF, there will be a significant amount of energy required uh above and beyond the status quo.

Does the board agree with that?

Yes.

That being said, as you look at the sub questions, I recommend they answer all those no to small.

There's mainly because there's no need for additional infrastructure.

This is not the type of project that's gonna result in the construction of a new substation or that kind of thing.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

Okay.

Number 15 is what we alluded to before.

This is impact on noise, odor, and light.

Um, and I'm incorporating dust into this as well.

I recommend that you answer this question yes, because the construction phase of this project may result in an increase in noise, odor, dust, or light.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yep.

I recommend that you check letter A, moderate to large, because this project will generate a significant amount of noise.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

We've asked the uh applicant to provide a plan um that will be uh in addition to the memo that they've provided about um steps they can take to reduce noise during the construction phase.

Mainly that's gonna deal with the placement of equipment that is particularly noisy in relation to where people live and to avoid um placing those two things near to each other.

The memo currently contains um a plan that limits the hours of construction to seven to five, Monday through Friday for the most part, unless there's a special situation where they'd have to go through the permitting office.

Um they also offer um in where decibel levels will exceed a certain threshold at a residential location, window and wall um attenuation and alternate ventilation.

So this is something that's addressed in in the engineer's memorandum already, and we've asked them to provide some more information about noise.

The other thing, um, dust, and I'm gonna recommend that you check uh other F, yes, and we're gonna we're gonna label that dust.

Um there uh the plan includes water trucks um to to be used regularly on the construction site to reduce dust, and also the use of sweeper trucks on the roads to reduce the amount of um dust that's deposited on the roads.

Um we've also uh asked them and they've provided a a plan, a dust attenuation plan that is part of the uh part of the record that um the board could make a condition if it chooses to.

Um all that being said, I recommend that uh B and C D and E all be checked, no to small.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yeah, yes.

If I could just make a comment here uh for the developers, I guess at this point.

Uh on uh the 15th of this month, there was a presentation before the Transportation Common Council Committee uh on construction of I-81.

And during that presentation, there was a very long discussion about all of the issues that we're talking about right now with noise, dust, et cetera.

And it was interesting because although that meeting focused on I-81, uh it also then developed into a discussion of that problem with all of the construction that's going on, including project 15 and the difficulty residents are having, for example, tell me the difference between different trucks.

Is it an I-81 truck?

Is it a Project 15 truck?

Who you call, et cetera.

And in terms of the water truck and the sweeper, et cetera, there are some complaints that even after the water truck goes through, there's residue that's still there that can become airborne later.

So I just wanted to make that comment as an issue that is a part of a big discussion.

Yeah.

Yep, we heard those same complaints.

Um, and we we mobilized quickly to put together that dust mitigation plan and also talk to residents and talk to the city about ways that we can improve not only our response to it, but our communication around it.

So to that effect, tomorrow, actually, you guys will see infographics uh on our East Adams website as well as social media and also sent to residents on the plan that we uh included in your packet.

Um, and you know, there's no value in differentiating whose dust is whose.

We you know, we work we're partners of NISDOT, we work closely with them along with the city, and I think we all just have to do better to make sure that the impact is minimal to the residents in this neighborhood.

Yeah.

A lot of dumb trucks driving around a city right now.

We all we all got to do better.

Thank you.

So uh, like I said, there's a standalone dust plan already.

We've asked them to produce something similar for noise, and then we're we're gonna talk about environmental justice in a minute.

We're we're having them produce a standalone plan for that too.

And um, you know, those are all things you could consider uh as conditions if you want to flag them when you get to the site plan phase.

But for now, they're um part of the project, and they're gonna be they're gonna revise the plans and cross-reference those plans in their site plans so that they're made part of the part of the plan.

Um the next question is number 16.

Uh, impact on human health.

I recommend that you answer this question yes, because I want to talk to you a little bit about the presence of soil contamination on the site.

Does the board agree?

Yes.

So uh letter B deals with whether the site um of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.

Um this site is near the urban core of the city, and so perhaps not surprisingly, uh, when they've performed phase one and phase two environmental studies, they found VOCs, S VOCs, metals, PCBs, a variety of different um soil contaminants.

So the um several without going through each phase individually, several of the phases, the blocks have nothing, and there's no there's no excedences.

But most of most of them do.

And so, as part of that, the the applicant proposes going through the brownfield cleanup program, which is the DEC's program where they will create um a record of decision and a work action plan, and then they'll have to comply with the DEC's uh requirements and bring the soil contamination thresholds down to a multi-family residential level.

So that is currently in the engineer's memo as their intention.

We've asked them to make through the meeting last week some adjustments to make it clear that they will be required to bring you know the entire site before construction of any building um for each phase to that multifamily residential threshold in order to proceed, whether they go through the brownfield cleanup program or not.

And so with all that in mind, I recommend that you answer sub question B is moderate to large and the balance is no to small.

Does the board agree?

Yes, okay.

Um, in terms of uh question 17, uh consistency with community plans, I think it is.

I'd recommend the answer to that question no.

Does the board agree?

Yes, yes, yeah.

In terms of consistency with community character, I think it is uh clear that it's consistent with the community character.

This project will be used for housing.

And that would require us to answer that question, no.

Does the board agree?

Question 19 impact on disadvantaged communities.

I recommend that you answer this question yes, because the proposed project may impact uh one or more disadvantaged communities.

Does the board agree?

Yeah, yes.

So, what we've asked them to do is create uh so their memo uh cover covers a lot of these issues in terms of what they've done in the past in terms of community engagement and meetings at regular intervals to get uh uh input from from the community.

Remember, people live in a lot of the areas that are being demolished where the construction is happening and you know the those those housing units are are being replaced, but there's a transition there.

Um what we've asked them to do is go a little further uh coming out of the meeting last week, and for them to create a standalone engagement plan going forward, not just talking about what was done in the past in terms of what they'll do to meet with uh the neighbors during the construction phase to make sure that their concerns are addressed promptly.

So again, that plan will be provided prior to your next meeting, and you'll have an opportunity to review it.

With all that being said, I recommend that you answer sub questions A and E as moderate to large, and the rest notice small.

Does the board agree with that?

Yes, yeah.

Okay.

Future physical climate risks.

I don't think there are any given the location of the project.

I recommend that you answer that question.

No.

Does the board agree?

Yeah, we do.

Okay.

So I appreciate you taking time as part of your meeting to go through this.

I think it's important with larger projects, especially type one projects, we do the law the the long form that we have this record so that if anyone you know were to question in the future, did the board actually discuss and consider these impacts?

We because of the great comments that you provided, now there's a you know uh definitive the answer to that is is yes.

The discussion was had and additional um information was requested from the applicant, which will be provided before your next meeting.

General question.

Um I understand why we're doing this now for phases three through twelve, the desirability of that.

Uh, but there's a lot of variables, uh, moving pieces, especially as we get further on, 10, 11, 12.

What what would we required to uh redo the seeker?

If what kinds of changes would have to occur, how extensive would that be in order to require an amendment of the seeker?

Yeah, I'm glad I'm glad you asked.

So what you're doing seeker on is the plan that they've put in front of us.

If they were to alter that plan in such a way that, for example, increased in a significant way the number of dwelling units, increased in a significant way the number of parking spaces required, um, increased in a significant way the resources required in terms of water, sewer infrastructure, then new seeker would be required.

As long as they stay at the thresholds that we've been discussing or less, then uh then no, the seeker they they could alter the plan somewhat and and keep the same seeker review.

Okay, like so far we're up to like 1725 total units, maybe 1500.

Like what would be a significant difference?

Well, I have uh 1,563 in the phases that we're looking at.

So phases three through twelve.

Um I had an potentially additional 250 for phase 12, depending on what happens with that.

Sorry.

Maybe your colleague also wants to help you with the answer to the question.

Oh, sure.

Um didn't contemplate that very question when we start process and output the numbers in your packet process.

Okay, they're actually way above what community is maybe with the plan.

Um we did include that cushion that's so we're the worst impact, you know, with the highest and worst impact.

So there's already that cushion built in, and I would be stunned if we ever got to those numbers.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And in terms of you're asking for like a number in a meaningful way, I mean, one wouldn't be enough.

A hundred would definitely be um, you know, it sort of depends on how much it changes.

That being said, your question's well taken too, because there's something I didn't mention that was part of the process when we were when when the engineering department was asking questions.

Obviously, the specific infrastructure required for phase three, because it's completely designed beyond the concept phase, you know, those those discussions and back and forth is happening on the exact modifications, for example, with sewer lines that need to happen.

Now, because the future phases haven't been designed to that level of detail, you know, something that's going to be recommended you know when we get to the you know to the approval process is that the engineering department be given the authority to dictate those changes in the future phases, and that you know, if there's some disagreement, then we're gonna have to look at that.

But um, so there's a couple things like that, but for the most part, I think the thresholds um are sufficiently definite that you can do a meaningful environmental review.

Okay, great, thank you.

Any questions on this side?

Okay, thank you for walking us through that, and thank you for the cooperation between staff and your office.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting me help with this project.

And all the folks who came out tonight to support the project.

Thank you.

Uh just for public notices purpose.

Uh whenever this project coming next meeting will uh resend the public notice again, just before everybody using um aware of this.

Because definitely the hearing is still open.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you for that reminder.

Um we have another hearing.

I I have to do that, of course.

I have to ask you that.

Um what action are we taking tonight on this project?

There's no action in the ATT.

Okay, thank you.

Pass to Steve.

Now may I ask if there's another hearing on the agenda?

Okay.

Um the last agenda items.

Uh SP that's 2026.

That's 30 A is a special use permit for smoking establishment land use type and 900 to 16 East Bayas Street.

Um the honor is 900 East for Yah groups L C.

This is a MX4 zone district.

Rowan against the crowd here.

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

Uh, here for the special permit application for 900 East Fayette Street.

So this is directly on the southeast corner of Fayette and Irving Avenue.

This is in the MX for zoning district, and this is actually an existing property that's currently um a mixed-use residential apartment building.

Uh used to be the Sylvester apartment building, it's now called the Uncommon Apartment Building, uh converted and improved and added upon probably six or seven years ago at this point.

So it's an occupied building.

Uh currently has 42 apartments, and it also has three tenant spaces on the ground floor.

Um the application before you tonight is for a special permit that's required for a retail cannabis dispensary.

Um we do know that um, you know, defined by the zoning code, this is described as a smoking establishment, um, which which is further defined in the code as any business that sells products for uh either on or off-site use, and I just want to be clear that the proposed special permit um is only for the retail sales, and this doesn't include any type of on-site consumption or use.

There's no smoking lounge or smoking room, uh, so it's purely the retail aspect here.

Umperating business is on the bus inc.

Uh the business name uh at the location will be Q's Clouds.

It'll actually occupy one of three uh tenant spaces that are existing within the building.

Um the space that's proposed to be occupied here is immediately on the street intersection.

It's the corner corner space uh formerly occupied by buried acorn.

I think we were here for the restaurant special permit back under the old zoning for buried oak acorn, but that is obviously since closed and the space is now vacant.

Um hours of operation for the dispensary will be 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

seven days a week as part of this project.

There is no exterior modifications to the building, which is important.

We know it's a historic building.

Um there's also no exterior modifications to the site or surrounding site plan.

The only um improvements would essentially be the interior renovations for retail display cases, sales counter, and then the required security systems.

Uh so essentially the floor plan stays the same.

The buildings already outfitted with sprinklers, HVAC systems, fire alarms, uh, and restrooms for the customers.

Um so basically this is just a change of use.

We did submit with the um special permit application forms, a copy of the property survey.

Um we did submit the short EAF, which hopefully is a benefit there, uh, along with a copy of the operating entity's license issued by the state for this location.

Any questions?

We have questions from the commission members.

Any questions?

Ryan, you they realize they there's a required certificate of use as well.

Correct.

Um I think part of that is like inspections by the police department and stuff like that.

So well aware of that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And this application is a little bit strange in the sense that they're not there yet.

And so the SEPTED, which is required hasn't been uh completed uh until uh the rub the major site plan review is approved or the SUP is approved and it goes to the process.

Right.

But the expectation is that the uh the owner or the applicant will comply with the SEPTED when it is uh completed.

Completed.

Yeah, uh normally that gets completed before we review it, but in this case it's not.

The other uh stipulation is get there's no signage is approved yet, and apparently most of the windows are covered, and there's a at least a 40% transparency requirement that should be taken care of when they apply for the site plan permit.

So I just wanted to note that rather than making it as a condition, it should be taken care of as part of that that process.

Understood.

Sure.

Any other questions from the commission?

Okay.

All right, let's see if there's any members of the public that would like to speak in favor.

Any members of the public would like to speak in favor of this application?

Any members of the public who'd like to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing no questions, can we proceed with seeker?

Uh before I seek, I just want to uh for the public record.

Um this is uh they approve uh cannabis retail sales with the receive the license um confirmation from the applicant um for the sept requirement.

Um we believe that this is a beneficial for the owner um future operation because uh the store like those was high wallow that um it's easy to be broke, you know.

So uh SEPT has we believe this is a good way that um can protect the site was uh best practice.

Yes, agreed.

Happy the applicant willing to comply um doing a beauty permit.

All right, um has everybody has a chance to review the short EF part one?

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, um is everyone familiar with the 11 question of the short EF part two?

Yes.

Do you believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts?

No because you do not believe there will be any moderate to large impact.

I recommend you will to issue an active secret declaration and complete the EF parsery accordingly.

Thank you.

Uh is there a motion regarding secret?

Move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Seeker motion passes.

And is remotion regarding the application?

I move to find a special use permit application spend-38 in compliance with the special use permit criteria as discriminated demonstrated.

Thank you.

Uh by the criteria analysis continued in the staff report pursuant to Syracuse Zone Ordinance Section 5.4 B 7, A through H, and to recommend approval by the common council with five conditions.

Those five conditions are as follows.

The applicant shall comply with the general conditions for approval of all special use permits.

A certificate of use shall be obtained prior to the operation of the proposed business.

Uh three, a valid license from the New York State Office of Canvas cannabis management must be maintained for the duration of the business.

We have received that uh that certificate is in place, but it must be maintained duration of the business.

Four hours of operation shall be extended, uh shall not be extended beyond those uh approved by the planning commission and the common council, which is 10 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

And five, the crime prevention through empowermental and design review by the Syracuse Police Department shall be conducted once the project has applied for all necessary permits and is the uh understanding of the the planning commission that uh the owner will comply with the recommendations of the SEPTED review.

Thank you.

Is there a second to the motion?

Second.

There's a second.

Is there any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The recommendation are our passing this motion is a recommendation as the uh person who brought the motion said, and so this will proceed to the common council.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there any other business coming before us tonight?

That's all.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you both.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Can you oppose the abstentions?

We are adjourned.