City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Syracuse City Planning Commission for tonight. I'm covering for our normal chair, Steve Kulik, so we're asking everyone to be on their 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 adopt the minutes as presented without any amendments or modifications. And do we have a second?

I'll second that motion.

Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? All right, the minutes are approved. That's distributed. Before we get to our public hearings tonight, I'm going to make 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 of 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 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 first by asking staff if any of the hearings that are on tonight have been postponed.

Yes. A little update for the agenda. We have two items postponed. The first one is R-2026-42, Z-2579-1, and Z-2021. This item is at 1405 East Genesee Street for the receptivation and project plan review. This is a postpone. The item is not ready for deliberation. And the second item postponed is the last item on the agenda, SB-2026-17. It's a special use permit for neighborhood market at 308 to 18 North Krauseff. Those will be postponed as well.

Thank you very much. Could you call the first item of new business? Yes.

The first item of business is R-2026-10. It's a resubdivision at 901 Hiawasa Boulevard and 971 Spencer Street. The owner is RSVP's CP Syracuse NYRC and Angelo Larfay's Every Workable Trust. And this is CM's own district.

Thank you. The applicant here.

Good evening, everybody. So I'm representing the Angelo Face Revocable Trust. The new owners of 901 Hiawatha Boulevard purchased this earlier in 2026.

Could you give us your name and address?

Sure. Sure. My name is Mike Morabito. I work for Paris Beach Law Firm and for the purposes of the public hearing, representing the Angelo the Face Revocable Trust. So the RSVP group had purchased 901 Hiawatha Boulevard earlier this year. Picture might be a little bit more difficult to see. The larger parcel there on the left with all the mini storage building facilities in a row is the 901 Hiawatha parcel. The current owner, the irrevocable trust of 971 Spencer Street being the small rectangle to the right. Essentially the western border of the 971 Spencer Street parcel runs through the easternmost mini storage facility building. You can see the dashed line kind of runs lengthwise through the middle there. So when the RSVP folks purchased this, they propositioned the trust with selling off a parcel there so they could include that building in their property insurance and in their title insurance coverage from a practical perspective it's a lot line adjustment 12.5 feet to the east of the building running between the structures of each adjacent parcel so there's a sale pending on that about 3 500 square foot strip pending the approval of the subdivision There's no new construction. Both businesses are going to operate as they were. RSVP purchased the mini storage facility to operate it as a mini storage facility. The current business at 91 Spencer Street is going to maintain its business there. So there's no new construction, no new proposals, and to my knowledge, no current ideas other than to adjust the lot line.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any questions from the members of the commission? All right, any questions? All right, have a seat, sir. We'll find out if there are 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 Councilor Marino Nave. Although it does not represent my common council district, I am quite aware of this area. Near there was a gas station at one time. So this area's run down. 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 I don't know the gentleman, I'm acquainted with Mr. LaFace, but I'm coming here as my own. I think this would be an opportunity to take some of this property and put it back under the tax rolls. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone who wants to speak in opposition? Seeing no one who wants to speak in opposition, I'll ask the commission members again. Any questions? Normally, if there's not 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 are going to entertain Seeker on this. Thank you. Yes. Yes. And since there's no public comment, we will, except for Councilman Navi, we'll close public comment. Thank you.

Okay, now move to the secret part. Has everybody has a chance to review the short EAF part one?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Okay, do you believe this project will have any moderate to large impacts? Because you do not believe there will be any moderate to large impacts, I recommend you to issue a negative declaration under CEQA and complete the ERA Part 3 accordingly.

Thank you.

And do we have a motion to issue a negative CEQA 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 Onondaga County Clerk's Office within 60 days of approval of the resubdivision, which is tonight.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion? We have a second. All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstaining? All right, the motion passes. Thank you.

Okay, the next agenda items, R-2026-37 is a resubdivision of 416 Monticello Ave. On our applicant is Greater Syracuse Land Bank and Peter Arnor. 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 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 a model called the Laurel there that's just about 1,100 square feet. It's three bedrooms, two full bathrooms. And these are unusual in the large list of homes that we're planning soon. These are the only ones with attached garages. So these Laurels would each have a one-car attached garage. And I'm going to 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 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 enter the copy into the record. Thank you very much.

When we do pull the building permits, the permit staff and engineering staff will review our stormwater plan for this site. There is a steep slope at the back of the site, and our plan is to plant on the slope plants that will retain the soil and prevent erosion, plants with robust root systems. 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. Do you have any questions that I can answer?

Those two properties, 6 and 7A, were they vacant for a long time, or were 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. Would anyone from the public like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wants to speak in opposition to the application? Good evening. Could you give us your name and address, please?

Kathy Strubly, 316 Monticello Drive North. And I'll give you a copy of what I'm going to talk about here.

Did you send a copy earlier? Okay, thank you. And we'll have a copy of the letter entered to the record. Thank you.

Yeah, the main applicant, my issues are with the main applicant, not with the 400 Monticello Drive owner. I don't oppose new housing or manufactured housing on appropriate sites with adequate infrastructure. Our neighborhood has a very broad mix of housing types, single and multifamily. The application fails to accurately describe or portray the conditions at this site. does not include photos of the conditions prior to early March when they stripped the side of all the trees and vegetation without any notice or discussion of the neighbors, including the 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 into underground streams. There's a survey dispute with a property to the east, 412 East Glen Avenue. And the owner is here tonight, and he will talk about that. So I'm not going to go into it, but I attached the surveys. We looked at it yesterday. Their markings and his markings, which are from 2012, but he has a long historic background there, do not match up. You can't do re-subdivision when there's a dispute. 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 his property. Okay, and that's still in process. So there's a legal claim here. All right. This proposed subdivision increases stormwater runoff on the Monticello Drive north, and it drains onto Clarence Avenue, where there are no stormwater drains. You also approved on 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 sits 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 the land bank has proposed a rain garden. Now if you look at the site pictures, there's a huge slope going up toward Loretto. 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 this rain garden as they explained to us at one meeting. There's no documentation that a rain garden, which people don't know how to maintain, believe me, low-income people or anybody, most normal people don't know how to maintain a rain garden. So to depend on that is very iffy. So they have presented no analysis to that. And 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. Okay, DBW, we had a huge flood in the neighborhood in Easter. DBW drives through the neighborhood with flashing lights after large storms like yesterday. Okay, so 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. Ms. Rivley, I'm going to have to ask you to conclude your remarks.

I will do that. So I have a diagram of the drainage. I have a picture 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 Mr. Brown's property. And this last month, they took out stumps and disturbed the whole slope again.

Now, you can't plant... Mr. Tribbley, I ask you to conclude your remarks, please.

Yes, you can't plant plants on a western-facing slope. They'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 going to 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 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.

Thank you.

So I asked you to put this off. 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?

This is my first time. I just got the comments as I received it. We believe the survey is made by a licensed surveyor, and we haven't heard this before. Okay.

All right. We'll take the next speaker. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition? Good evening. My name.

My name is John Camerota, 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 Stibley has said is correct about drainage. My concern is density. Three-bedroom houses, if you drive into that area, particularly that one block, all these houses are very close. It's really not appropriate. When I drive from downtown, if you know where the old Sears building is and 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 the initial tract was laid out, the lots are very narrow. Houses are very close. So this affords a bit of beauty and an accommodation to the neighbors. I don't want to keep you too long. Historically, there's only been one house there, and it was demolished in the 90s. It was a two-family house. 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 400 feet range. Fortunately, neighbors informed 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 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.

I'm the owner of- What's your 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 Monticello 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 East Glen Ave in 2012, Lear Land Surveying prepared a certified on the ground boundary survey That survey was based off my property original abstract of Tider, dating back to February 12th, 1890. The verified boundary using historical deed records and existing iron pipe monuments from that field. In 2018, the Greater Syracuse Land Bank sold me an adjoining property at Fort 10 East Glen Alph. The land bank retained Lear Land Surveying to perform the physical boundaries surveyed before closing that, surveyed 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. McCauley Land Surveying that proposes moving the established boundary line approximately two feet under my property. I contacted the 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. The 2026 survey raises two serious concerns. First, it relies on ImageMate tax mapping. ImageMate 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 survey, were performed on the ground and were tied to the original abstract dating to 1890 and were verified using existing iron pipe monuments. Both surveys independently reached the same conclusion. This dispute line directly affects the 225 foot boundary shared with the land bank property. 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 am 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 that were place disputed boundary line into public record and create uncertainty. that may ultimately have to be resolved through litigation. I respectfully request the Common Council table the resolution and refer it back to Planning Department so that the Land Bank's 2018 survey and my 2012 survey, the original abstract of title, All relevant to historical records can be reviewed, reconciled before the boundary 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, sir.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Anyone else who'd like to speak in opposition to the application? Do I have my little right here in hand? Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Rhonda Vesey. 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, then 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. My home is a ranch style, but yes, some of the homes are older because of how old the community is, but let them be single family homes where a family can bring a young family and stay there for years like we have. I've been there since the late 60s. The community is a good community, well-kept community for the most part. I don't see where these kind of homes are gonna do any good for our bottom line. I think that was, were they, were developers looked at? Did we give anybody a chance to bid to build homes, single family homes in the community? Was that looked at? 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 all this work just started. And it's loud. It will be the same thing, of course, so I'm not gonna complain about that 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 be, especially the homes on Monticello, which are on a slope. And those trees should never have been ripped out like the way they were awful. So that's my comment. Thank you.

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.

We did hear from the neighborhood residents and from the Valley TNT group that they felt three homes was going to be too much of a squeeze there. So we did change our plans in response to their input to reduce it down to just two homes. 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. 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. These are the 1,100 square foot version. On Otto, we're planning two that are the 1,500 square foot version, 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. There's been some discussion about tree removal. 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 we've gone around sites in the city there's fifty two sites where we're building homes 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. Our thinking is that if there's a tree in the backyard that's going to become a problem in the future, certainly easier to remove it now before the house is installed. And we're selling these to low to moderate income home buyers. So we wanted to get those taken care of now. rather than selling them the house, and maybe it becomes a problem five years down the road, and it's a surprise $5,000 expense. 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 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 onto 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 are you looking? Was the land that was conveyed, Mr. Brown, a land bank property?

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

Okay. And is that part of the land that has the land survey question? 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? We may have questions for you.

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

So I'm not sure if that still stands if that's the case with respect to this dispute or not Yeah at the I mean I wasn't the City zoning attorney at the time of that so I don't know off the top of my head But I could certainly look into it for you What we can confirm with staff as Applicant says the survey that's in front of us with this resub division was conducted by a licensed land surveyor

Correct. And it's updated December 2025. So compared to the survey neighbor provided, we believe that this is more updated. And we also confirmed the city engineer staff conditionally approved the proposal. If there are any disturbance in over 10,000 square feet, the city engineer would ask him for a sweep to program more stone water run over. And this will become before central permit office for a building permit, because there is a single family house.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Any questions to the other members of the commission?

I have a quick one. Caitlin, 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.

If that were to be the case, I would let Mr. Brown certainly also. 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 RESA 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, 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 with holding it if it makes sense. We do, 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 the case for several meetings, and the dispute was never resolved, and so we were advised that we could go ahead and take action on the resubdivision and allow this civil dispute to play out. So I'm just making that as an observation.

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

It should just, if it shifts two feet, three feet on the wedge line, 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 going to 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.

Yeah, next meeting will be August 10th.

Okay, all right.

It works for us. If the commission agrees.

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.

Yeah, it's worth the provision. Let's do this in one meeting because I won't be in favor of holding this successive meetings if we can't resolve the dispute.

Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all the speakers. Staff, can we call the next hearing, please?

Next agenda item, R-2026-50. It's a resubdivision at 215 and 217 to 19 West Borden Ave. The owner-applicant is Greater Syracuse Land Bank as well. This is R2 Zone District.

Again, Caitlin Wright with the Greater Syracuse Land Bank at 1941 South Salina Street. We own a vacant lot at 217-19 West Borden Ave. It has 50 feet of road frontage and I recently had to jog my memory about how we got to this point. 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. 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, and 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, 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. 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. 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. So we only offered it to him in this case.

And again, how long has he been maintaining it?

He purchased this property in 2021, so about five years he's been mowing it.

All right, thank you. 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. Did the 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.

Does everybody have a chance to review the short EAF Part 1? Yes. Is everyone familiar with the 11th question of the short EAF Part 2? 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 an active declaration under CEQR and complete the EAF parser accordingly.

Thank you. And do we have a motion regarding CEQR?

I move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Any discussion about the motion? All in favor, please say 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 subdivision with the 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. Any opposed? Any abstentions? The motion passes. Thank you. Can we call the next hearing, please?

Yes. The next item, the last resubdivision, R-2026-40, 303 and 307, Emerson F. The owner is St. Peter and Paul's Church. The representative is Fr. Ambrose, and this is R2 Zone District.

Great. Fr. Ambrose, Rector of St. Peter and Paul, and Tipperary Hill. And we've owned this property, I think, since 1926 for a very long time. Church is built in 1927. We own most of the properties, actually all the properties that you see there. And so we have two residential properties, one on the left and then one on the bottom you see there. I think the parcel on the bottom... of the map. Actually, I don't think I know. We had an old building there. See where that sidewalk? Yeah, right there. Excellent. So that sidewalk comes up. There was a house there that was demolished, I think, in the 1990s. This was before my time. So two residential parcels. And so we are just wanting to simplify the process. The ministry is very complicated. And 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 to the property.

Understood. Could you give us the address where you live and the address of the property, please?

307 Emerson. And then what's the one on the bottom? 303. 303.

So 307 and 303.

And then also there's a... The top there, that one, which one is that one? That's 410, is that it, Hamilton? What is it? 411, thank you.

Before you go, Father, I just have to ask staff, did he cover everything he needed to cover for the resub?

Yeah, that's pretty much the change that Father's asking for, only the resub, yeah.

Excellent, excellent.

Bear with us for just a minute.

And then 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 wanna do a kid's 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 wanna 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 parish?

Actually, it is. We're almost there. We have a permit, site work permit, and so it would be right there exactly where the cursor is. So volleyball court, basketball court. Right now we have a makeshift volleyball court. I'm an Orthodox priest, so I'm married, so I have children. So my youngest son... plays on it, and then breaks it, and then the older kids are upset with him. So something a little more permanent, a little bit more stable. So that'll be a nice addition for the community as well. 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. Any other questions? All set? All right. Bear with me. I'm just going to ask if there are any comments from the public. Thank you. Is anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone present who would like to speak and hear what you've 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. All right. If there are no questions about the application, it could be Review Seeker. Yes, sir.

Has everybody had a chance to review the short EF part one? Yes. Is everyone familiar with the 11th 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 vote to issue a negative seeker declaration and complete the EF parser accordingly.

Thank you. Is there a motion regarding seeker?

Move to issue a negative secret declaration.

Thank you.

Is there a second? 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 resubdivision map of R-2026-40 in the Onondaga County Clerk's Office within 62 days of subdivision approval. 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. Second the motion. Second the motion. Thank you. Any discussions? 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, MASPR-2026-26 is a major site plan review at 300-10 Montgomery Street. This is St. Paul Church in downtown, and this is a MX-5 zone district.

Good evening. Good evening. My name is Randy Coogan. I'm with Shop for Architects, 1111 James Street, Syracuse, New York, 13203. I'm also joined by Philip Major of St. Paul's Church, Andrew Lunetta, Executive Director of A Tiny Home for Good. We're seeking approval to renovate approximately 9,200 square feet of the existing second floor of St. Paul's Parish House by converting the space into 10 residential apartments. All the units 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 MX-5 district, which permits multi-unit dwellings. 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 placed 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 Montgomery Street, 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'll ask just a moment. Any questions from the commission?

I just want to follow up on the comment of the transportation planner regarding bike parking. There is none in this particular plan. I do understand, though, 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 the ratio is one to six. So if it's 32 parking spots, then the bike would be six parking spaces.

Okay. We will accommodate that on the drawings. Okay.

Any other questions? we just wanted to make sure in terms of the affordability of all the units the ten units is below the requirement for city code and that's great it's fantastic if you want to do that but if you bring it in under the city code certification process with the neighborhood and business development program then that applies for thirty 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 locks it in for that period of time.

I think I understand that now. And if Andrew is okay with that, that's the way we'll proceed.

Andrew Linetta, Director of Tiny Home for Good, 1222 South Ave. Right. We understand that loud and clear. Good. Great.

Fantastic.

Just want to make sure. Get that on the record.

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 a tiny home for good, obviously in this proposal for several years, I just wanted to say a few things from our perspective, the first is that. 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, probably 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 We really need to move forward with some sort of project such as this. So for me, there's urgency about having the space up and running again. And the last thing I want to say is that St. Paul's just recently completed $2.5 million in renovations, including for us, replacing all the roofs above the space, repairing all the exterior surfaces, repairing all the windows, making all the entrances completely accessible for wheelchair use, Installing an elevator to access this space so 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 He's definitely speaking in favor, but just in case 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 forward with Seeker. Thank you.

Has everybody had a chance to review the short EF Part 1?

Yes.

Is everyone familiar with the 11th question of the short EF Part 2?

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 it. Negative declaration on the seeker and finish part three accordingly.

Thank you. Is there a motion regarding seeker?

I move to issue a negative seeker declaration.

Is there a second? A second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Any abstentions? Any nays? Can't forget the nays. Regarding the application, is there a motion?

I move to approve MASPR-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 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 or all affordable dwelling units must be certified by the City Department of Neighborhood and Business Development Administration and five the affordability replace requirement shall be in effect for 30 years from the date of the certificate of a 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 item is major site plan review and C-curve review also. In 927 South State, project ID is MASPR-2026-28. Just for the public record, this will be one of the top phases for east side and redevelopment. And this is our MX2 zone district and owner is Syracuse Housing Authority.

And this is a presentation tonight, is that right?

Yes, there will not be any action will be taken by this board. We will have a developer to introduce the project and also have a secret discussion with you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you all for having us. My name is Allison Carpenter, here to represent the East Adams Phase III project team. I'm with McCormick Baron Salazar, the development team, in partnership with my colleagues at the Syracuse Housing Authority. And you'll hear in more depth from our architect team, Ashton McGraw Architects, as well as counsel to speak to Seeker. Before we get into it, I just want to say, you know, we've got great progress with the East Adams Transformation Plan 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 investment in this East Adams and historic 15th Ward community. In phase three, I think we've 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. 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 longstanding engagement. So a different approach that we plan to adopt on all future phases. So happy to walk through the master plan, or if you want us to dive directly into phase three, I can pass it over to the architect team.

Are you comfortable going into phase three? Yes, you can go into phase three.

So I'll pass it to Andrew Schuster with Ashland McGraw Architects.

Thank you.

I wasn't sure if we were doing Seeker first or the building first. 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 phase three of 12 for the East Adams redevelopment. And the site is bounded by State Street on the left, Townsend on the right. And to the north, it is McKinney Street, which is a new street that's soon to be built as part of phase one. And then to the south, Linear Park, which is intended to connect Jackson Street with New Street and help connect Rossler Park and Wilson Park. So those are the four sides of the site and then in keeping with Strong urban planning principles the buildings are built out up to the plot line all the way around the block and then more Resident focused amenities parking play area patio things like that are on the interior of the block 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 really to capture a full range of everything from single people to large families. And this is also intended to replace housing that's recently been demolished from the same site to ensure that the unit mix available to the Community stays the same. If we go to the next one. So the site itself is owned MX2. This is a mixed income residential development. So the majority of it's tax credit financed affordable housing. And then there's an unrestricted component to it so that it's not entirely affordable housing, but it's mostly. And then the buildings are a mixture of two- and four-story buildings. I'll get into that in a minute. And we have 91 parking spaces provided, so a little bit more than half of the units are parked. This is, as a mixed-income property in MX-2, we're only required to provide 1.25 spaces per unit, so we've doubled the required parking capacity. 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 apartments on a hall, four stories, 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 leaseable office for an office tenant. And so that is gonna be a mixture of one, two, and three bedroom apartments. We go to the next one, that's 3B, so very similar apartment format. This has a mixture of one, two, three, and four bedroom apartments. In order to provide a single-story four-bedroom apartment for a very high degree of accessibility, we have that in the apartment buildings. And then this will also have about 3,000 square feet of ground floor retail, which is intended to face the linear park and provide a complementary amenity to the park itself. And then there are some community amenities in that building as well. If you keep going. So the next three buildings, they're very similar. So these are all townhomes. They're a mixture of three-, four-, and five-bedroom townhomes. Building C and then in the next one, if you keep going, Building 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, two-bedroom stacked, three-bedroom, four-bedroom, and five-bedroom townhomes. And those are all door on the street, door in the rear, very conventional infill townhomes. So this is an image of building 3A, and this is looking with the linear park to the right and State Street on the left. These buildings are all intended to be a lot of masonry. They're intended to be really urban forward buildings. We're not transposing any sort of suburban architecture to the city. Most of the apartments have balconies. We have very large windows, a lot of natural light in these buildings. And then we really wanted to have an architecture that had the rhythm and broke down the scale a little bit so they're not just big blocks of housing. Even though these are mixed use, we wanted to still be in keeping with that sort of architectural rhythm that the zoning is requiring for the purely multifamily buildings. And then you can see here the straight-on elevations, so you can see kind of how that rhythm goes and the balconies in between. The exterior materials are a mixture of fiber cement siding, concrete block, brick, and a terracotta shingle tile to give it a little bit more texture, a little bit more color. One of the things we heard from the community is to be willing to take a little bit more color into these buildings and not just have them as kind of white boxes. And if you go up a little bit, so this on the bottom right there, that's actually the courtyard facing elevation. So I wanted to call attention to it. We don't have balconies facing the courtyard. We have Juliettes. So there will be a door that opens with a railing in front. But in keeping with the city zoning, we want it, you know, the city says to have all four fronts. So we can't really design with a back. So we really kept the same architecture even on the courtyard side. And this is 3B, so this is the one with retail. And so you can see this is the retail corner. So that'll be about 3,000 square feet of retail facing the park on the left, facing Townsend on the right. The main entrance to the building's a little bit further down in that other canopy. And similar, but not quite exactly the same. Those two buildings' finishes are different. The way that we treat the roof lines and stuff are a little bit different, just to make sure that 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 we've raised up the front stoops a little bit as much as we could, while maintaining Ada access to the sites as well 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. And then the rest of these are all own entry townhomes. And that in front of us is building E. And I just have one elevation here for reference. I didn't put all of them in here because they're all fairly similar. 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 their own street. And if you go, mind scrolling all the way back up to the master plan. What you can see here on McKinney and Monroe Street, so you have Adams Street and then one block down is McKinney and Monroe. This is really intended to be a residential scale townhome 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, and that feels like a smaller scale and a more intimate street compared to what's around it. So if you go to the end, I think we just have one more image of Block C, and then I think that's it I have for the introduction.

One last thing I'd just like to add. So this project will follow, again, we have a choice neighborhood grant that the city has received along with the housing authority. So the program for this phase, it's gonna be 147 total units. 72 of those are gonna be replacement housing units for returning public housing residents from McKinney Manor or Pioneer Homes. And then the balance of that will be a mix of LIHTC and market rate housing. So it's truly a mixed income community. With that, I think we'll wait for your questions.

Okay.

Are there questions for the applicant? The 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 park? Rustler.

Yeah, it's meant to be a connective park from Rustler Park to Wilson Park.

That's right. Okay, great. Thank you. The other question I have is, 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. What's that referring to?

So the Site 12, if you see there on the master plan, we have for a long time penciled that site as a potential site for grocery. Now, as we've said for a while, Phase 12, it's not a part of the Choice Neighborhood grant program. Phases 1 through 11 are. Phase 12 is going to take a lot more planning. It's going to take a lot more resident engagement. So 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 is the wish to have more grocery stores based in there.

So the intent is that there would be one full-service grocery store, not a bunch of bodegas around?

Right, yeah. 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, in my understanding correctly, will face inside and outside.

Yeah.

And all of them, most of them will have it. Sorry. Entrance on both?

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

Mm-hmm.

So for the townhomes, they do. Okay. So the townhomes are through the block, 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. Okay.

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? Is that correct?

72. 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 market rate units. But throughout the process of closing, sometimes those numbers tweak a little bit. The commitment that will never change is the number of replacement units we're going to have for our returning residents.

That's the highest priority, I would assume. You bet, you bet. And they're all rental units in this space?

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 is 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 is Monique Mitchell. I approve of this because for those who are like me, but there's low income, we really need this in our community. Maybe to stop 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 up. Hello, I am Ivan Monroe, and I am from Lutheran 15, 819 South Sauna Street, and I've been working with Andrew along with his project. It's been really great to work with him, and it's been great to work along with the residents, as I hold about 10 or so residents every month or twice a month to give feedback with them, and it's been really great to get alongside with them, as well as Andrew, to get a more... 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, what yes is possible and how can we further expand what they want to get to a better meet happy medium. So yeah, it's been really great. And also I'm really excited for this project.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor?

Good evening, everyone. My name is Tara Harris. I am a lifelong resident of this area we're talking about. I was born and raised there. I'm in favor of the project. I lead up the resident design team for this, so it's very important that the resident's voices are heard at every table. This is where we live, so these changes are affecting us, so glad to be able to be a part of the decision making in this process, so I'm definitely in favor. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor of the application? Does 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'd 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, total more 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, you all come out and keep commenting.

Thank you. All right, anyone else? A comment or a question? All right. Tonight, we are, are we going to proceed with Seeker?

We will have a council come before you, introduce the Seeker, and see if there are any questions you have based on the material you have.

All right, thank you. Good evening. Council, 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 an attorney at Bonshenick and King, and I have been retained by the city to help you with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, portion of this application. This is a type one action. The Seeker review is actually more than just phase three. In order to avoid segmentation, it is wise as part of Seeker 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 12. So I'm going to walk you through some documents that you have in front of you. Again, this is type one. So we're using the long form of the environmental assessment form. And we'll start there. So the expanded version of this project, not just restricted to phase three, involves 29 acres, six blocks. It is boarded 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, MX-2, MX-3, and MX-4. 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 And now we're looking at the seeker for three through twelve 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. There are now 20 questions as of last month. The form has been modified by the DEC. And those questions that we check yes are gonna then be covered in part three. 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 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 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.

So there are sub-questions to each of these 20 questions. I recommend that the first question be No, we're small because the and I'm taking information from part one of the, um, for your benefit here, the, uh, construction on land, the depth of the water table is actually 7 to 14 feet. For B, 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 bedrock is actually well deeper than five feet from grade. Does the board agree with those three, that no to small impacts?

Yes.

For letter D, I propose that you actually answer this moderate to large. 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 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. The proposed action does include 29 acres of impervious surface, but it's really not gonna be very different than what's there now. Does the board agree?

Yes.

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 want to revise what I said before. I'm recommending that you answer this question yes. And the reason being is I want to deal with the water and sewer infrastructure issues here. Does the board agree that in terms of the additional load on the water and sewer that it makes sense to answer this question yes? Yes. 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 take into account that 29 acres of impervious surface. Does the board agree to check that one moderate to large? 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 in the sewer systems. Does the board agree? I RECOMMEND THAT YOU CHECK THE BALANCE OF THE SUB QUESTIONS IN SECTION 3, SMALL TO NO. DOES THE BOARD AGREE WITH THAT?

YES.

QUESTION 4, IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU ANSWER THIS NO BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WILL BE ON PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. DOES THE BOARD AGREE?

YES.

Number five, impact on flooding. I recommend the answer to this no, because the EAF provides information that is not part of a floodway or floodplain. Does the board agree?

Yes.

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. Notwithstanding, I think it being appropriate to answer it yes, looking at the thresholds and all the sub-questions, 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. I've been going quickly. I'm going to pause here for a breath. Are there any questions as I've moved through this quickly that you want me to go back to?

Just because the record is complete and we've already had in the other 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 Soon we're gonna we're gonna Talk directly about odor Dust and noise and that'll be one of the questions we cover 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 aesthetic resources. I recommend that you answer this yes. Based on part one of the EAF, the Central Technical High School is 1,200 feet away and it's listed on the national and state registers. Does the board agree to answer this question yes? That being said, as you look at the sub questions, given the present use of the property, generally for residential purposes, and the new use will be roughly the same, and 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?

Yeah. Yeah?

Okay. Number 10 is impact on historic and archeological resources. I recommend the answer to this question, yes, due to the social significance, social and historical significance of the Pioneer Homes. Does the board agree? That being said, in a memorandum on seeker issues provided by the engineer for the applicant, the applicant 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 history through photographs and the creation of exhibits that would be displayed that would talk about the historic significance of Pioneer Homes so that that history is preserved, even though the buildings will not be. Does the board, if that being the case, I would recommend that letters A and an E sub-questions, Roman numerals 1 and 2, be checked yes, or moderate to large, I should say, and the balance of the questions be checked, notice small. I know that's a lot I just threw at you. Does the board... understand what it is that they're proposing in terms of the way to, rather than preserving the actual buildings, they would photograph the buildings, they'd create historic exhibits, and those would be available on display for the public to learn about the history of Pioneer Homes, to put it more directly. Does the board agree with all that? Yes.

Excuse me, Brody, could you back up a second to the aesthetic resources? So you mentioned Central Tech. I'm just curious, is Central Tech and not the STEAM school that's on the historical? Same thing. So going back to letter 9?

Yes, aesthetic resources, that's Central Technical High School is the listed building on the National Register. Is that the question?

yeah yeah so it's just it's just the tech school and not steam school 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 that's not that's Central Tech the other building building on historical is a steam school that's not Central Tech okay

Okay, so I should be, yeah, I should be precise what I'm saying here. The listed building is a Central Tech, and they list, that is the one that's on the National Register. If 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, several times before this body, there were groups that came here seeking to preserve it. And so there may be some community that value it as a historic resource, but it may not be on the list yet from any of the state groups or the secretaries.

Yeah, if you think there are additional aesthetic resources that should be considered, that's appropriate, even if they're not listed. So now the way that that could be addressed, 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 could request modifications. If in terms of the viewing of those resources are negatively affected by new construction, you could request screening. That sort of thing could be part of the site plan. Do you feel that we should explore some of that more for those two?

I don't think so. I mean, it's the same issue. I was just curious about the names because I was surprised it was Central Tech and not the STEAM School, which is a much older and more historically significant building. I see. I understand.

So I'm going off part one of the EAF. It is possible that some of the information I provided is incorrect since I'm relying on that. But we can seek clarification from the applicant to actually right now. So if you know. So the question, I don't know, the question is the Central Technical High School is listed in part one of the EAF, but there's also the STEAM school. And we're wondering if maybe that was mislabeled, basically.

It's the same building. But it's the same building.

Well, I guess it is. I mean, the Central Tech building is an additional construction to the original building.

Central High and so they're two separate buildings and one is historical the other one I don't I mean surprised that Central Tech is so central tech which is the oldest school building in downtown was most likely likely designated when it was vacant prior to it being now the new steam school So it's a new use. It's a school with a new focus on STEAM. But I suspect the structure itself was designated prior to that.

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

Thank you.

So I think we decided to check on number 10, A and E Romanettes 1 and 2 as moderate to large and the rest small or no. Does the board agree with that?

Yes.

Okay. Impact on open space and recreation. I recommend that you answer this question no. This project is not removing any open space. Does the board agree? 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. 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 the team for the developers, along with planning staff and the engineering department. We've asked them to supplement, again, provide some information from the traffic consultant that that data is still valid, since it was generated in 2023, and they'll provide that before the next meeting. 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 support the proposed development. 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, I recommend that you answer the question yes. Based on the EAF, there will be a significant amount of energy required 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 that you 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. 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? I recommend that you check letter A, moderate to large, because this project will generate a significant amount of noise. Does the board agree? We've asked the applicant to provide a plan that will be in addition to the memo that they've provided about 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 placing those two things near to each other. The memo currently contains 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 they also offer and where decibel levels will exceed a certain threshold at a residential location window and wall attenuation and alternate ventilation so This is something that's addressed in the engineer's memorandum already, and we've asked them to provide some more information about noise. The other thing, dust, and I'm going to recommend that you check other, F, yes, and we're going to label that dust. There the plan includes water trucks 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 dust that's deposited on the roads. We've also asked them and they've provided a plan, a dust attenuation plan that is part of the record that the board could make a condition if it chooses to. All that being said, I recommend that B and C, D and E all be checked no to small. Does the board agree?

Yes, if I could just make a comment here for the developers, I guess, at this point. On the 15th of this month, there was a presentation before the Transportation Common Council Committee 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 all of that meeting focused on I-81. It also then developed into a discussion of that problem with all of the construction that's going on, including Project 15. The difficulty residents are having, for example, telling 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 part of a big discussion.

We heard those same complaints and 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 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 nice dot we work closely with them along with the city and then 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 dump trucks driving around the city right now we all got to do better thank you so

Like I said, there's a standalone dust plan already. We've asked them to produce something similar for noise, and then we're going to talk about environmental justice in a minute. We're having them produce a standalone plan for that, too. Those are all things you could consider as conditions, if you want to flag them when you get to the site plan phase. For now, they're part of the project, and they're going to be they're going to revise the plans and cross-reference those plans in their site plans so that they're made part of the plan. The next question is number 16, 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? Okay.

SO LETTER B DEALS WITH WHETHER THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING REMEDIATION. THIS SITE IS NEAR THE URBAN CORE OF THE CITY, AND SO PERHAPS NOT SURPRISINGLY, WHEN THEY'VE PERFORMED PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THEY FOUND VOCs, SVOCs, METALS, PCBs, A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SOIL CONTAMINANTS. several without going through each phase individually several of the phases the blacks have nothing and there there's no there's no exceedances 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 a record decision and a work-action plan and and then they'll have to comply with the DEC's requirements and bring the soil contamination thresholds down to a multifamily residential level. so that is currently in the engineers 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 the entire site before construction of any building for each phase to that multi-family 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. In terms of question 17, consistency with community plans, I think it is. I'd recommend the answer to that question, no. Does the board agree?

Yes. Yeah.

In terms of consistency with community character, I think it is 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 one or more disadvantaged communities. Does the board agree? So what we've asked them to do is create, so their memo 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 input from the community. Remember, People live in a lot of the areas that are being demolished where the construction is happening and, you know, 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? 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 where you do the long form, that we have this record so that if anyone were to question in the future, did the board actually Discuss and consider these impacts we because of the great comments that you provided and now there's a you know a definitive the answer to that is is yes the discussion was had and additional Information was requested from the applicant which will be provided before your next meeting General question I understand why we're doing this now for phases 3 through 12 the desirability of that

But there's a lot of variables, moving pieces, especially as we get further on 10, 11, 12. What would be required to redo the seeker? 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 you asked. So what you're doing, Seeker, on is the plan 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, 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 no. They could alter the plan somewhat and keep the same seeker review.

So far we're up to 1725 total units, maybe 1500. What would be a significant difference?

Well, I have 1,563 in the phases that we're looking at, so phases 3 through 12.

And I had a potential additional 250 for phase 12, depending on what happens with that.

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

We're the worst impact, you know, the highest, you know, worst impact in the community. So there's already that cushion built in, and I would be stunned if we ever...

OK, thank you. And in terms of you're asking for a number in a meaningful way, I mean, one wouldn't be enough. 100 would definitely be. 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 the engineering department was asking questions. Obviously, the specific infrastructure required for phase three, because it's completely designed to be on the concept phase, 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, something that's going to be recommended when we get to the approval process is that the engineering department be given the authority to dictate those changes in the future phases, and that if there's some disagreement, then we're going to have to look at that. So there's a couple things like that. But for the most part, I think the thresholds are sufficiently definite that you can do a meaningful environmental review. 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.

Just for public no notices purpose whenever this project coming next meeting we will Resend it public notice again just in for everybody using a very for this Because definitely the hearings still open. Correct.

Okay. Thank you for that reminder Do we have another hearing? What action are we taking tonight on this project

There's no action you need to take.

Thank you. Pass to Steve. Now may I ask if there's another hearing on the agenda? Okay.

The last agenda items, SP-2026-30A is a special use permit for smoking establishment land use type at 900-16 East Fayette Street. The owner is 900 East Fayette Group LLC. This is an MX4 zone district.

Rowan against the crowd here. Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting, 300 South State Street, Syracuse, New York. 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 a mixed use residential apartment building used to be the Sylvester apartment building is now called the uncommon apartment building converted and improved and added upon probably. six or seven years ago at this point, so it's an occupied building. Currently it has 42 apartments, and it also has three tenant spaces on the ground floor. 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. is only for the retail sales, and this doesn't include any type of onsite consumption or use. There's no smoking lounge or smoking room. so it's purely the retail aspect here. Operating business is On the Bus, Inc. The business name at the location will be Cuse Clouds. It'll actually occupy one of three tenant spaces that are existing within the building. The space that's proposed to be occupied here is immediately on the street intersection. It's the corner space, 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 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 there's also no exterior modifications to the site or surrounding site plan, the only improvements would essentially be the interior renovations for. retail display cases, sales counter, and then the required security systems. So essentially the floor plan stays the same. The building's already outfitted with sprinklers, HVAC systems, fire alarms, and restrooms for the customers. So basically this is just a change of use. We did submit with the special permit application forms, a copy of the property survey. We did submit the short EAF, which hopefully is a benefit there. 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?

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

Correct. 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 septet, which is required, hasn't been completed until the major site plan review is approved, the SUP is approved, and it goes to the special permit. But the expectation is that the owner or the applicant will comply with the SEPTED when it is completed. Normally that gets completed before we review it, but in this case it's not. The other stipulation is that there's no signage that's approved yet, and apparently most of the windows are covered, and there's at least a 40% transparency requirement that should be taken care of when they apply for the site plan permit. I just wanted to note that rather than making it as a condition, it should be taken care of as part of that process.

Understood.

Sure.

Any other questions from the Commission? No. 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 who would like to speak in favor of this application? Any members of the public would like to speak in opposition? All right, seeing no questions, can we proceed with Seeker?

Before Seeker, I just want to, for the public record, this is a state-approved cannabis retail sales. We did receive the license confirmation from the applicant. For the septet requirements, We believe this is beneficial for the owner, future operation, because the store like this with high value that it's easy to be broke. So sub-task, we believe this is a good way that can protect the site with best practice. Yes, agreed. Happy the applicant willing to comply during the building permit. All right. Take care. Has everybody has a chance to review the short EF part one?

Yes.

Okay. 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 to issue a negative secret declaration and complete the EF Part 3 accordingly.

Thank you. Is there a motion regarding secret?

I 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 there a motion regarding the application?

I move to find the special use permit application SB-2026-38 in compliance with the special use permit criteria as demonstrated by the criteria analysis continued in the staff report pursuant to Syracuse Zone Ordinance Section 5.4B7A-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 through a valid license from the New York State Office of Candidates. Cannabis management must be maintained for the duration of the business. We have received that certificate. It is in place, but it must be maintained for the duration of the business. Four, hours of operation shall not be extended beyond those approved by the Planning Commission and the Common Council, which is 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. And five, the crime prevention through environmental... design review by the Syracuse Police Department shall be conducted once the project has applied for all necessary permits. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission that 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. Any opposed? Any abstentions? The recommendations are Passing this motion is a recommendation, as the 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? Is there a second? Second. Thank you both. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? We are adjourned.