OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Syracuse, New York/Public Meetings
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Syracuse Planning Commission Meeting - August 10, 2026

Public Meetings — Monday, August 10, 2026
BodySyracuse, New York
SessionPublic Meetings
DateMonday, August 10, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Original source
Transcript — Verbatim
4:04

Good evening.

4:05

And welcome to this meeting of the Syracuse Planning Commission.

4:09

We'll begin our public hearings momentarily.

4:12

First, we will take action on the minutes of our previous meeting, which was July twentieth.

4:17

Those minutes have been distributed in draft form to the members of the commission.

4:21

It'd be appropriate at this time for a motion for action on those minutes from July twentieth.

4:27

Is there such a motion?

4:28

Move approval of the minutes of July twentieth, twenty twenty-six.

4:51

So those minutes are approved as distributed.

5:01

Just uh word of guidance for those who might be unfamiliar with our process as each application is announced.

5:09

We ask that the applicant or the representative come to the podium in the center of the room, provide your name and address for the record, and then a brief summary of what's involved with your application.

5:21

Excuse me.

5:22

Following any questions from the commission members, we will then open the floor for members of the public who wish to speak in favor of that application, and then another opportunity for those who wish to speak in opposition to the application.

5:33

Where comments are offered in opposition, we will encourage the applicant to return to address the comments made in the opposition.

5:40

We ask that everyone keep their comments either for or against to approximately three minutes so that everyone who wishes to speak has an opportunity to do that, and so that we can conclude the meeting before we have to exit the room because of security reasons.

5:55

Um when the place closes for the evening.

5:59

So with that, I do want to ask.

6:12

Yes.

6:12

Uh, first we have an old business item that was withdrawn by the applicant.

6:16

This was a resubdivision R-2026-37 at 416 and 400 north Monticello Av.

6:25

Uh, this was on a recent meeting uh rather than coming back, uh, it's just been withdrawn.

6:30

So they would have to resubmit a new application if this uh were to come back.

6:35

The second is under new business item, it's a special use permit sp2026-42 at 2910 Erie Boulevard East.

6:46

Uh, we are still pending OCPB review and comment, so um, we expect to have that on possibly at the next meeting.

6:55

So, anybody here for those two uh apologies?

6:57

Those two will not be heard tonight.

7:00

Um that's it.

7:02

Okay, and notification will go out if they should return uh in similar fashion to what was presented uh by way of notification for this evening's meeting.

7:11

So uh stay tuned.

7:13

So with that, we first have some old business to deal with.

7:16

Could you give us the introduction for the moratorium item?

7:22

Yes, um not only uh are we so the council recently approved an extension of the battery energy storage moratorium.

7:33

Uh what we are seeking going through tonight is a discussion about amending the language, and it's up on the screen, it's also in your packets, but uh the previous moratorium before we extended it, excluded regulating uh what I would just call residential uh battery energy storage systems at 80 kilowatt hours or less.

7:53

Uh we did not have an equivalent exception for commercial buildings, these are not connected to the grid.

7:59

Uh, think a generator connected to a commercial building, those are still um uh covered in the moratorium, so those can't move forward.

8:07

That is not our legislative intent behind uh the future local law that we're working on uh to regulate those.

8:14

So we are seeking to add language to add that exception to allow for a commercial building with under 600 kilowatt hour uh device to move forward with normal permitting and zoning review.

8:27

So they're not they're still subject to review, but um they would not be captured by the moratorium language any longer.

8:34

Okay, thank you.

8:37

Any questions for Jake on the rationale behind this?

8:42

Uh just out of curiosity, Jake.

8:43

Are there any queued up that uh are waiting for consideration?

8:47

Uh yes, uh, there is a building that's pending a grant actually, too.

8:52

Um, but this would, you know, it's not just for that.

8:55

This would open it up for anybody who's uh wishing to make one of these installations on a commercial building, which as you can see in the definitions, it's anything other than a one or two family or town home in a residential zone district.

9:08

So commercial is really more broad than what most people think.

9:12

Right.

9:15

Thanks.

9:15

Any other clarification or questions?

9:17

I just have one comment, Jake.

9:19

That I would ask that staff include a review of the town of play's recent legislation that well, ordinance that was passed for battery storage regulations and do a comparative to what we will propose.

9:36

Uh being that they are very similar in requirement.

9:42

Understood, we've definitely looked at it among others.

9:45

Um, it's been a coordinated city effort, um, kind of co-led uh by deputy commissioner of planning and sustainability, Owen Kearney.

9:54

So um a bunch of us are involved with that from multiple departments, but uh we'll be sure to well we have done that, not so thank you.

10:06

All set, thank you.

10:11

The extension.

10:13

I'll make a motion for the extension.

10:16

Second discussion on this motion.

10:19

Uh so could we uh just clarify this is this is a a recommendation to the common council for approval recommendation for action.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Regulation█████████████████████████████████33%
Procedural███████████████████████23%
Cannabis Regulation████████████████16%
Parking Management███████7%
Affordable Housing████4%
Energy Infrastructure███3%
Environmental Protection███3%
Historic Preservation███3%
Procurement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Syracuse Planning Commission Meeting - August 10, 2026

The Syracuse Planning Commission held its regular meeting on August 10, 2026, acting on resubdivisions, site plan reviews, and special use permits. The commission approved several items unanimously and forwarded recommendations to the Common Council. Public comment was heard on three special use permit applications.

Minutes

  • The commission approved the minutes of the July 20, 2026 meeting as distributed.

Old Business: Withdrawn and Deferred Items

  • Resubdivision R-2026-37 (416 and 400 North Monticello Ave) was withdrawn by the applicant; a new application would be required if pursued.
  • Special use permit SP2026-42 (2910 Erie Boulevard East) was deferred to the next meeting pending OCPB review and comment.

Battery Energy Storage Moratorium Amendment

  • Staff requested an amendment to the recently extended battery energy storage moratorium to add an exception for commercial buildings with battery storage devices under 600 kilowatt hours, matching the existing residential exception for 80 kWh or less. The commission approved a motion recommending the amendment and extension to the Common Council. Staff noted that the Town of Clay's recent battery storage regulations had been reviewed for comparison.

Time Extension: 710 Van Rensselaer Street (Core Development)

  • Kate Johnson, on behalf of Core Van Rensselaer Street Company 4, requested a third one-year time extension for SR-23-13, a 62-unit senior affordable housing project at the Inner Harbor. The project is funded largely through 9% tax credits via HCR; a prior application was denied due to a funding gap. The commission approved the extension through September 18, 2027, retaining the original six conditions.

East Adams Street Redevelopment

  • The commission approved a SEQR negative declaration for the East Adams Street redevelopment project (phases three through twelve), after receiving revised Part 2 and Part 3 EAF documents addressing prior discussion.
  • The commission then approved the major site plan review application MESRP-2026-28 with nine conditions, including compliance with general conditions, on-site snow storage, 30-year affordability requirements for affordable units, coordination with the Onondaga County Department of Water and Environmental Protection, and a noise and dust control mitigation plan.

Resubdivision R-2026-56 (2126-28 and 2130 South Ave)

  • Caitlin Wright of the Greater Syracuse Property Development Corporation proposed combining two lots at the corner of Hutchinson and South Avenue to build an approximately 1,500 square foot single-story home with three bedrooms, two baths, and a detached garage. The commission issued a SEQR negative declaration and approved the resubdivision with one condition requiring the filing of the resubdivision map in the Onondaga County Clerk's office within 62 days of approval.

Resubdivision R-2026-64 (107-109 McAllister Ave)

  • Jamila and Jordan Damiani proposed merging their two lots at 107 and 109 McAllister Avenue to create a driveway and parking pad for their existing duplex. The commission issued a SEQR negative declaration and approved the resubdivision with two conditions (the first condition was not captured in the transcript; the second required the applicant to apply for all applicable permits for site improvements from the Central Permit Office).

Special Use Permit SP2026-41 (2000 Park Street)

  • The applicant requested a special use permit for a vegetarian restaurant with takeout, operating 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Councillor Marino Navi spoke in favor, noting the property was formerly a vacant gas station and praising the restaurant concept while raising traffic concerns. The commission issued a SEQR negative declaration and approved the special use permit with five conditions, including installation of curbing and landscaping to prevent right-of-way parking, on-site snow storage, maintenance of a certificate of use, and adherence to approved hours. The recommendation goes to the Common Council.

Special Use Permit SP2026-45 (658 West Onondaga Street)

  • Hillary Donahue, representing Syracuse 7 Properties, presented a proposal for a partial change of use of the former Silas Hahn mansion (built 1884) to offices and a small restaurant under 1,000 square feet, possibly a wine bistro. No restaurant operator has been selected yet. Hours are proposed as 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Two neighbors, Susan Hamilton and Glenn Kime, spoke in favor. The commission issued a SEQR negative declaration and approved the special use permit with eight conditions, including compliance with certificate of use, hours, no neon signage, screening of outdoor storage, alcohol licensing, and an ADA-compliant lead walk to a main entry. The recommendation goes to the Common Council.

Special Use Permit SP2026-30 (814 Wolf Street)

  • Lee Harrington and owner Timothy Bregan presented a request for a special use permit for a New York State-licensed retail cannabis dispensary with no on-site consumption. Proposed hours are 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday, and 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday. A parking issue arose regarding vehicles backing onto Wolf Street; the applicant was open to limiting on-site spaces to employees and possibly coordinating with an adjacent property owner. Councillor Marino Navi noted the owner's tax delinquency and urged him to resolve it. An email of opposition from Samuel Prescott dated August 5 was entered into the record. The commission issued a SEQR negative declaration and approved the special use permit with 15 conditions, including completion of a SEPTED survey within 12 months, retroactive permits for completed work, paving of the rear gravel area if used for employee parking, restrictions on land coverage, curb cut improvements, a bike rack, repair of sidewalks, a sewer capacity letter, no backing out onto Wolf Street, and adherence to the stated hours. The recommendation goes to the Common Council.

Special Use Permit SP2026-10 (745 North Salina Street)

  • The applicant was not present, and the item was held over to the next meeting.

Other Business: Three-Mile Limit (Town of Salina)

  • The commission approved application 3S-2026-11 at 131 Old Liverpool Road, with concurrence from the City Engineer.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved minutes of July 20, 2026.
  • Recommended to the Common Council the battery energy storage moratorium extension and amendment.
  • Approved a time extension for the 710 Van Rensselaer Street senior housing project through September 18, 2027.
  • Approved a SEQR negative declaration and major site plan for the East Adams Street redevelopment.
  • Approved resubdivisions R-2026-56 and R-2026-64.
  • Approved special use permits SP2026-41, SP2026-45, and SP2026-30 as recommendations to the Common Council.
  • Held SP2026-10 for the next meeting.
  • Approved the three-mile limit application in the Town of Salina.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. And welcome to this meeting of the Syracuse Planning Commission. We'll begin our public hearings momentarily. First, we will take action on the minutes of our previous meeting, which was July twentieth. Those minutes have been distributed in draft form to the members of the commission. It'd be appropriate at this time for a motion for action on those minutes from July twentieth. Is there such a motion? Move approval of the minutes of July twentieth, twenty twenty-six. So those minutes are approved as distributed. Just uh word of guidance for those who might be unfamiliar with our process as each application is announced. We ask that the applicant or the representative come to the podium in the center of the room, provide your name and address for the record, and then a brief summary of what's involved with your application. Excuse me. Following any questions from the commission members, we will then open the floor for members of the public who wish to speak in favor of that application, and then another opportunity for those who wish to speak in opposition to the application. Where comments are offered in opposition, we will encourage the applicant to return to address the comments made in the opposition. We ask that everyone keep their comments either for or against to approximately three minutes so that everyone who wishes to speak has an opportunity to do that, and so that we can conclude the meeting before we have to exit the room because of security reasons. Um when the place closes for the evening. So with that, I do want to ask. Yes. Uh, first we have an old business item that was withdrawn by the applicant. This was a resubdivision R-2026-37 at 416 and 400 north Monticello Av. Uh, this was on a recent meeting uh rather than coming back, uh, it's just been withdrawn. So they would have to resubmit a new application if this uh were to come back. The second is under new business item, it's a special use permit sp2026-42 at 2910 Erie Boulevard East. Uh, we are still pending OCPB review and comment, so um, we expect to have that on possibly at the next meeting. So, anybody here for those two uh apologies? Those two will not be heard tonight. Um that's it. Okay, and notification will go out if they should return uh in similar fashion to what was presented uh by way of notification for this evening's meeting. So uh stay tuned. So with that, we first have some old business to deal with. Could you give us the introduction for the moratorium item? Yes, um not only uh are we so the council recently approved an extension of the battery energy storage moratorium. Uh what we are seeking going through tonight is a discussion about amending the language, and it's up on the screen, it's also in your packets, but uh the previous moratorium before we extended it, excluded regulating uh what I would just call residential uh battery energy storage systems at 80 kilowatt hours or less. Uh we did not have an equivalent exception for commercial buildings, these are not connected to the grid. Uh, think a generator connected to a commercial building, those are still um uh covered in the moratorium, so those can't move forward. That is not our legislative intent behind uh the future local law that we're working on uh to regulate those. So we are seeking to add language to add that exception to allow for a commercial building with under 600 kilowatt hour uh device to move forward with normal permitting and zoning review. So they're not they're still subject to review, but um they would not be captured by the moratorium language any longer. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Jake on the rationale behind this? Uh just out of curiosity, Jake. Are there any queued up that uh are waiting for consideration? Uh yes, uh, there is a building that's pending a grant actually, too. Um, but this would, you know, it's not just for that. This would open it up for anybody who's uh wishing to make one of these installations on a commercial building, which as you can see in the definitions, it's anything other than a one or two family or town home in a residential zone district. So commercial is really more broad than what most people think. Right. Thanks. Any other clarification or questions? I just have one comment, Jake.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com