2026-10-08 - Board of Zoning Appeals

01:30is to approve the minutes from the

01:32September 17th, 2026 meeting

01:35to approve.

01:42>> Great. Uh modifications or discussion?

01:49No content corrections. Yes.

01:51>> Uh, all those in favor?

01:53>> I I opposition. None. As extensions,

01:56none. Minutes are officially adopted.

01:58Okay. Um, the board will now conduct the

02:02public hearings on today's agenda.

02:03First, the applicant or the applicant's

02:05representative will state the reasons

02:06for the requested variance and present

02:08any material or documentation which is

02:10to be considered regarding the proposal.

02:12Next, persons wishing to speak in favor

02:14of the proposal will be given the

02:15opportunity to address the board. Then

02:18persons who wish to speak in opposition

02:20will be allowed to address the board.

02:21Finally, the applicant or a

02:23representative will be given the option

02:24to make any closing arguments or

02:26comments to the board. Following the

02:28public hearings this afternoon, the

02:30board may make a decision on each

02:31application heard. The board may also

02:33decide to hold its decision until the

02:35next public hearing. If the hearing is

02:36closed, no additional information will

02:38be allowed into the record except for

02:40information that the board may request.

02:42That information will be available for

02:44public review at the zoning office at

02:46one Parkplace, 300 South State Street.

02:48Um staff will now introduce the first

02:51application, please.

02:53>> Before I do that, I have one

02:54announcement on a postpone

02:58uh item on the agenda today. It's uh the

03:01first listed item under new business,

03:04area variance v-2026-15

03:08at 111 Essex. anybody watching or in

03:11attendance uh for that item. It is

03:14postponed by the applicant and we expect

03:16to have it on a future meeting agenda.

03:19We will renotice if that and when that

03:22happens. Uh that means our first item is

03:27also an error variance v-2026-18

03:31at 316 Delaware Street, the Spanish

03:34Action League of Anadia County in the R5

03:37zone district. Is anybody here for that

03:39item?

03:43So, I suggest we hold it for a moment

03:46while we do the next one. See if anybody

03:48shows up. Great.

03:48>> Before we adjourn,

03:50>> uh, the last item on the agenda is also

03:53an area of variance. V-2026-21

03:57at 527 Jamesville A. This is in the R1

04:01zone district.

04:05Abs certainly. Yep.

04:08[clears throat]

04:09>> Hello, this is Rebecca Baker with the

04:11city of Syracuse uh zoning

04:12administration. I would like to make a

04:14correction. Um we noticed this uh

04:18referencing a 30 front setback. Um it is

04:24incorrect in our noticing. Um typically

04:28in this zone district the

04:32if a block is undeveloped we look at

04:34that 30 foot distance. Um because this

04:37block is developed and already has a

04:39principal structure on it, the setback

04:41is then set by definition under article

04:457 section 7.4 which is the definitions

04:49section of our code. Um the applicant is

04:52requesting to encroach into the existing

04:55front setback which is set at 38 ft from

04:59the structure. Um and the proposal will

05:01not come the proposal will end at 32

05:05feet from the property line. So um just

05:07a point of clar clarification, we're not

05:09talking about 30 ft. We're talking about

05:11an existing front setback as defined

05:15under code and um coming forward of that

05:18existing setback which is still within

05:21the um

05:24maximum setback that we set for the

05:26stone district. So it's six feet then 38

05:29to 32.

05:30>> Uh no the it yeah yes because part of

05:35the 8oot is set behind the primary the

05:37facade of the primary structure. Um we

05:40can after the applicant repres uh after

05:42the applicant uh speaks to their

05:44project. Um I will jump to the screen

05:46and show you the survey in which the

05:48proposal is laid out and you will see

05:51the portion that comes forward of the

05:54front of the structure um is about six

05:57feet.

05:59>> Thank you. Um is there a representative

06:03of the project here?

06:06>> Great. Hi.

06:07>> Good afternoon. Um my name is Mir Zich.

06:10I've been residing at 527 James Soul

06:13Avenue

06:14uh since 2003 been living there and uh

06:18reason we applying for this new addition

06:20is really practical for us uh living

06:23there for many years uh culturally for

06:26us is when we enter the house we take

06:28the shoes off right now if you look at

06:30the front house the front door I don't

06:32know if you do we have a picture

06:34screenshot of the front door

06:39is

06:41Yeah, that's fine. So maybe that.

06:48So as soon as you walk in the front door

06:50right now, what we have it's about 8 ft.

06:52Half of that is the front door and then

06:54the other half is basically stairs

06:56leading up. And challenge for us is

06:58always soon as you walk in, we take the

07:00shoes off in front of there, we drag all

07:02the dirt upstairs. And it's been very

07:04frustrating experience with with four

07:06kids in the house. Mhm.

07:08>> Um and that's why so and the existing

07:10structure is a concrete you call it

07:13porch is that the deck how you call it

07:14how you def stoop and it's really bad

07:17shape. So it's time to replace it. So

07:19idea is really we were hoping to remove

07:22it completely and then build this 8 by8

07:25enclosure which is similar to the house

07:27next door um for the right side of us uh

07:31to have something so as a mud room we

07:33can take the shoes off and then walk in

07:34and also as additional storage as well.

07:37So that's really the idea and and what

07:39we trying to accomplish.

07:41>> Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions from

07:43the board for the applicant.

07:47>> This the stoop is smaller than the

07:50addition you're proposing.

07:51>> Actually the the stoop is bigger but I

07:54we would build on top of part of that

07:56stoop. So stoop is about

07:59>> extends into the

08:00>> Yeah.

08:00>> Oh I see.

08:01>> So

08:03[clears throat]

08:04this isoopoop.

08:11this part and remove this.

08:16>> Thank you.

08:20>> Okay. Uh, thank you.

08:22>> Thank you.

08:24>> Uh, is there anybody else who would like

08:25to speak in favor of the application?

08:29None. Anybody who wishes to speak

08:31against the application?

08:34None. All right. Uh in that case I will

08:37call this public hearing closed.

08:40[clears throat]

08:42Um or do we want to go through and vote

08:43right now?

08:44>> Seeker seeker.

08:45>> Yeah, we'll do seeker and then um make a

08:49motion and go from there.

08:51>> Uh what is our what are we doing? Seeker

08:53here.

08:53>> I I'll walk you through it.

08:55>> Okay.

08:56>> I'm trying to find it and I can't.

08:58>> Yeah. Uh has everyone had an opportunity

09:00to review the EAF part one prepared by

09:02the applicant and contained in your

09:04packet? Yes. Yes.

09:05>> Has everyone had an opportunity to

09:07review the EAF part two prepared by

09:10staff and contained in your packet?

09:12>> Yes.

09:12>> Does anyone believe that the proposed

09:14action will have a moderate large impact

09:17under SECRA?

09:18>> No.

09:20>> No. Thank you. Um, having determined

09:23that the proposed action will not have a

09:25moderate large impact, I recommend that

09:28the board of zoning appeals make a

09:29negative declaration and prepare the EF

09:32part 3 accordingly.

09:35Uh, can I have a motion for a negative

09:37declaration?

09:40>> All those in favor of the neg.

09:44>> Opposed extensions. Okay. Next, uh, we

09:49have to motion for the area variance on

09:532026

09:5421.

09:57>> Yep. when doing so again just as a

09:59reminder make sure you this is an area

10:00variance so slightly different criteria

10:04for from a use variance. So um go

10:06through that and you know uh make a

10:10record uh of your findings um during

10:13this meeting. Then somebody can make a

10:14motion if they wish and just pay close

10:16attention to the two recommended

10:19conditions of approval on page 37 of

10:22your packet. Um, I recommend if you make

10:26a motion that you include those in your

10:29uh motion.

10:31>> Great. Um, would someone like to make a

10:34motion and take us through the area

10:36variance standard?

10:39>> I'd like to make a motion that we

10:40approve this request for an area

10:42variance.

10:44>> First question is whether or not it will

10:46produce a undesirable change in the

10:48character of the neighborhood. As Mr.

10:50just explained it kind of mirrors a

10:52nearby vestibule and looks similar to

10:55neighboring properties. Uh can the

10:57benefit be sought by some other method

10:59uh other than an area variance? There's

11:01really no other way to get an indoor

11:02vestibule uh on the front of this house.

11:06Uh is the area variance substantial? No.

11:09As Rebecca explained, it's behind the

11:1230-foot statutory setback line.

11:16Uh, and is the alleged difficulty

11:18self-created?

11:20I skipped one, didn't I? Sorry. Will the

11:22variance have an adverse effect on the

11:24physical or environmental conditions in

11:26the neighborhood? Um, no. And I think

11:28that relates pretty closely to what we

11:30talked about under the first one. And

11:32then is the alleged difficulty

11:33self-created? The house was built

11:36probably a hundred years ago. It's

11:38positioned this way in relation to the

11:40street. It is what it is.

11:43And uh I would also add that uh to

11:47approve this application with the

11:49following conditions. That the proper

11:50permits shall be obtained prior to

11:52construct conducting any work and that

11:53the property shall be maintained as a

11:55single unit detached dwelling.

11:59>> Uh would anybody like to second

12:00Caitlyn's motion?

12:02>> Second.

12:02>> Great. Anything to add?

12:06>> Just wondering if you should just too

12:07the minor encroachment into the right.

12:10Isn't it a

12:16No, I mean the the addition is not

12:18there's already a structure there even

12:21though it's not vertical

12:24>> but I don't want to complicate things

12:25just just seems like a minor

12:32>> you should not be sorry

12:33>> oh my god

12:36>> um the encroachment that I believe the

12:40board member is uh referencing

12:43is regarding the uh conc the existing

12:47concrete stoop that serves an entrance

12:49here and here uh for the home. This

12:53concrete stoop and existing steps is to

12:57be demolished to accommodate the

13:00construction of the new uh for your

13:02entryway if you will. Um so this uh

13:05encroachment will go away. The applicant

13:08owns a po a parcel that was um created

13:12after a street abandonment

13:15um just on the south side of this parcel

13:19and they are planning to resubdivide

13:21that to ensure that their driveway is um

13:24in the in the larger parcel. So the

13:27encroachment here uh will go away when

13:30the applicant um applies for their

13:32demolition permit to remove that

13:35concrete uh stoop. Um, and they they

13:38won't be returning it until they do the

13:40reubdivision because it would not be

13:42permitted under code to build in what is

13:44the side setback. Um, so there are plans

13:47to potentially uh put a a deck in this

13:51area, but it cannot happen without a

13:54resubdivision joining those two lots.

13:56>> Okay.

13:57If you want to include that as a

13:59condition, you can regarding removal of

14:03encroaching um concrete stoop um pending

14:08reubdivision, but that's up to you.

14:10>> But they're already planning to remove

14:12it.

14:12>> They're planning on if you want to put

14:13it in as a condition of approval, you

14:15could do so if you want.

14:21>> I kind of think maybe we ought to add a

14:22conditioning upon

14:24>> Yeah, add it. I mean, it's it's

14:25definitely that's non it's non-compliant

14:28leaving it that way even though he's

14:30saying he's going to like the condition

14:32adds it to the record that for him to be

14:34in compliance with the variance um he's

14:37got to remove that.

14:38>> Okay. Well, I was going to suggest that

14:40if him filing for the resub because

14:42otherwise we've just approved something

14:43in the sideyard setback like you said.

14:46>> Yeah, I I meant like uh him removing it,

14:49right? But you can mention that too. Um

14:51this happens from time to time. There's

14:53some paper streets where

14:55stuff is existing like this, but it's a

14:58good way to clean it up.

15:01>> So, with those additional conditions,

15:04the

15:06>> removal of the concrete and the side

15:08step backs for subdivision condition.

15:11All those in favor?

15:13>> I against

15:16none. All right. Motion carries. Um, do

15:19we have a representative from

15:222618

15:24here.

15:24>> Are you here for 316 Delaware?

15:27>> Great.

15:27>> Okay, perfect.

15:32>> Yep. We announced that. Okay. At the

15:34beginning. Okay. Just clarifying that.

15:36>> Uh could you state your name and address

15:38for the record and present for us? Thank

15:39you.

15:40>> Sure. Christian Freeman 121 Ruskin A

15:42Syracuse here from Kepler Freeman

15:44Associates. We're landscape architects

15:46on the La Liga project. Um the 316

15:49Delaware parcel represents the largest

15:52um development of a sixpronged uh

15:55development from Spanish League La Liga

15:59which is um a scattered site style of

16:02development. We previously received

16:04approval on this project I believe it

16:07was roughly a year ago, a year and a

16:09month. Um and what the project features

16:12is

16:13um we have one mixeduse component at 601

16:17primarily housing. This is a very

16:19specific um demographic for the housing

16:23um component. We're featuring in

16:26particular um women's groups who uh

16:30women and children who are in need of

16:31housing um and who may have had issues

16:34with security uh of partners in the

16:36past. So that's the 316 component. Um

16:39other components of the project which

16:40obviously are not relevant here, I'm

16:42giving you context. um are a community

16:44garden and um seven units, four units

16:49and three units, smaller smaller um

16:51residential components on smaller

16:52parcels. As Caitlyn is intimately fig,

16:55uh familiar, we went through a

16:57subdivision process to combine lots from

17:00the land bank to get here. So, um I'm

17:03back here today asking for a variance

17:05related to glazing on one side of the

17:09street. Which side of the building is

17:11the glazing variance requested for?

17:12>> Uh I believe it's on the short side.

17:15>> Yep.

17:20>> That's facing.

17:21>> Yes.

17:22>> Okay.

17:24>> Okay. Uh other questions from Sorry,

17:27>> you're good.

17:28>> That your s and substance there.

17:30>> I think I'm good. Okay. Unless you guys

17:31got questions.

17:32>> Any questions from the board?

17:34>> Um I just don't have my packet in front

17:36of me. So this is the and the reason for

17:38it is because it's mostly utilities and

17:40bathrooms. Is that right? Or

17:41>> utilities and bathrooms that the

17:43architect I think was was referencing.

17:46Um I would again reference um that we're

17:49dealing with a little bit of security I

17:52think too might should be should be

17:54factored in like I said by the use of of

17:57who will be in this building. Um so we

17:59want to be sensitive to that and we're

18:01we're doing the glazing in other areas.

18:17All right. I just want to announce for

18:19the record, um, normally I would recuse

18:21myself from a application like this

18:23because the land bank is selling the

18:24property to the Spanish Action League of

18:25Anandaga County, but I'm not going to do

18:28so today so that we have sufficient

18:30votes to move this item. Um, and it is

18:33not technically a conflict of interest.

18:35Uh, I'm not personally financially

18:36benefiting from this transaction. I'll

18:38continue to get paid even if this

18:39application was denied. Um, so

18:42>> and your involvement in the project

18:45would have ended at the theoretical

18:48subdivision acceptance. Correct. So,

18:51>> you're no longer in the ownership.

18:52>> Kind of makes sense.

18:53>> Oh, you still Okay.

18:55>> So, just for the sake of full

18:57transparency. No, appreciate that. GML

18:59is there for a reason. Uh, any other

19:02comments, questions?

19:09No. Great. Okay, I think we're we're

19:13good, John.

19:15Okay. Uh, all right. Thanks.

19:17[clears throat] I will ask now if uh

19:19anybody would like to speak in favor of

19:20the application.

19:24My favorite part. None. Uh, anybody wish

19:26to speak against the application?

19:29Furthermore, none. Okay. Uh, then I will

19:33entertain a seeker exciting prospect.

19:37[clears throat]

19:38>> Has everyone had an opportunity to

19:40review the EAF part one prepared by the

19:42applicant and contained in your packet?

19:45>> Yes.

19:45>> Has everyone had an opportunity to

19:47review the EAF part two prepared by

19:49staff and contained in your packet?

19:51>> Yes.

19:52>> Does anyone believe that the proposed

19:53action will have a moderate to large

19:55impact under SECRA?

19:57>> No. Having determined that the proposed

19:59action will not have a moderate large

20:02impact, I recommend that the board of

20:04zoning appeals make a negative

20:05declaration and prepare the EAF part

20:08three accordingly.

20:10>> Great. Uh, can I get a motion for the

20:11negative declaration?

20:14>> A motion.

20:15>> Can I get a second?

20:17>> All right. All those in favor of the

20:18negative declaration.

20:20>> I opposed. Moving on. All right. Uh can

20:25we have a motion on the area variance

20:27for V2618?

20:31>> A motion uh to approve the variance um

20:34along with the the staff conditions both

20:37one and two. Um I think uh as far as

20:42neighborhood character goes with this

20:44whole project. Um there's not a negative

20:46impact. uh new needed housing and um as

20:51far as the feasibility of alternatives,

20:54I think that this was met and there's

20:57there's a rationale um clearly stated

21:00for why this variance is being sought

21:02both with the makeup of that side of the

21:04building and um some of the unique uh

21:07characteristics of of the folks that are

21:09going to be living there. Um

21:12I think this is substantial um but

21:14that's okay. And as far as adverse

21:18effect, not see any um immediate adverse

21:21effect or no neighbors here to speak to

21:23that. Um and is it a self-created

21:26difficulty? I think it is.

21:29>> Anything to add, John?

21:31>> Great. All right. All those in favor of

21:35approving area variance 202618

21:38with the two staff conditions uh

21:40complying with general conditions for

21:42approval on the variance application and

21:45that the proposed area variance only

21:47grants the ground ground floor

21:49transparency

21:508.12% conflict along Delaware Street at

21:53the south side of the building uh 9.3%

21:56conflict along Grey Street at the west

21:58side of the building and a 21.5%

22:00conflict along Kellogg Street at the

22:01east side of the building.

22:05uh that the applicant shall submit an

22:07additional variance application if they

22:08intend to expand the proposed

22:10nonconformities. Having said all of

22:12that, all those in favor?

22:14>> I

22:14>> I against

22:18Great. Uh motion passes.

22:22Uh motion to adjurnn unless there's

22:24other business.

22:25>> That's it.

22:25>> That's it.

22:27>> Second.

22:27>> All right. We are all those in favor.

22:30>> I adjourned. That's an 215

22:33>> 45.

22:35So the trans

```*