2026-10-08 - Common Council Economic Development Committee

06:51Good morning everybody. It's 11:00 so

06:52we're going to get started. Um I'm

06:54joined today by councelor Hudson,

06:56councelor Williams. I think there's more

06:57on their way. Um just to set the table a

06:59little bit. We just have some questions

07:02um regarding the special use permit

07:04process, the zoning process. So, we

07:06asked Jake Disha uh to come and sit with

07:09us and just kind of talk it out so we

07:10could get some questions answered. Um

07:12and then we'll go from there. So, Jake,

07:14floor is yours.

07:17>> Good morning and thank you. Um just for

07:20anybody watching or observing online,

07:22Jake Dishaw, deputy commissioner of code

07:25enforcement and zoning administration by

07:27title uh by function serving as the

07:30city's zoning administrator. Um, so what

07:33I wanted to start off with and I passed

07:34out a PowerPoint to each of you is just

07:38some basic real basic highle background

07:40on

07:42zoning map here and the zoning districts

07:44and just kind of get into explaining how

07:47that's set up and how it creates uh

07:50different uh zone districts and

07:52different allowable uses by right and by

07:54special use permit and just kind of go

07:56through that and I think naturally that

07:58might lead into some questions and some

08:00answers to to walk through this. So, uh

08:03the first page is our Syracuse zoning

08:05map. It's uh made up of a number of zone

08:08districts uh all uh based in different

08:11colors. We have residential spanning

08:13from R1 to R5 which is single unit is

08:17R1. R5 is a high density residential.

08:20Then we get into our MX districts. Um

08:24MX1 [clears throat]

08:25through five. We have commercial,

08:27industrial, uh, planned institutional

08:30districts, planned development

08:31districts, and open space or parks. Um,

08:35so you can kind of see like our urban

08:36core is more towards the center of the

08:38city, our most dense, it's kind of MX5,

08:41uh, and then MX4 as you get further out,

08:43a lot of the residential, uh,

08:45surrounding that on sort of the

08:46outskirts of the city. Um and then you

08:49know various districts scattered

08:51throughout.

08:56>> We're joined by councelor Na'vi and

08:57councelor Jones Rouser.

08:58>> Thank you.

09:00>> So from there um you know once you have

09:02your districts we have a table of

09:06allowed uses. Uh now this table has

09:10changed very slightly uh since its

09:13original adoption but the structure of

09:15it has remained the same. We put uses

09:18into primary use categories. And then

09:21underneath that we have specific use

09:23types. And then we have a chart based on

09:27zone districts on where these types of

09:30uses are permitted

09:32either by right which is a P for

09:35permitted by right an S which is

09:37permitted by special use permit or if

09:41it's blank that means it's not allowed

09:43in that zone district. But that would be

09:45establishing something new. There are

09:48pre-existing

09:50legal non-conforming uses that may have

09:53been established and maintained prior to

09:57the new zoning code being adopted. So,

09:59it doesn't mean that something can't be

10:03legal if it doesn't match this. It means

10:05it's probably existing legal,

10:08pre-existing legal non-conforming.

10:11I'll use the term grandfathered. uh it's

10:13not really in the code, but just for to

10:15explain it. Um you know, in plain

10:17language, a lot of people use that to

10:19sort of explain um something that may

10:21exist uh legally that's nonconforming

10:25today.

10:27Um,

10:29and again, just to kind of go down the

10:31rest of the chart, like you can see it

10:32starts in residential, but then we get

10:34into institutional and civic use, and

10:36then there's commercial uses, and then

10:38that breaks down into subcategories

10:41like restaurants of certain sizes, over

10:44a,000, under a,000, bars, smoking

10:48establishments,

10:49uh, etc.

10:51Um I think explaining permitted by right

10:54is is is simple. Um if it's permitted by

10:57right it means uh they don't need a

11:00special zoning approval from a governing

11:03body. That means um you know they don't

11:06need a special use permit. Um they might

11:08be subject to a site plan review. Um but

11:11that is uh really it. It means it's an

11:13allowed use in that location and if they

11:15meet the zoning requirements to be there

11:17and they meet all the other uh

11:20requirements that you know they can have

11:22uh that land use there and we review

11:24that too as part of a building permit

11:26process or a site plan review.

11:28>> So Jake, can you apply an example of

11:30that? So So

11:32>> yeah, correct.

11:32>> Is Armory Square versus another spot in

11:35the city where a whole street so Walton

11:38Street all of those buildings are

11:39permitted bars. a special use permit

11:42doesn't come in front of us versus

11:44>> correct um versus like well let's use

11:47the the most recent one uh Bernett um

11:49the 648 Bernett uh 648 right uh I don't

11:55have the district in front of me I

11:56believe it was MX3

11:58MX3 so yeah that's sort of a

12:00transitional kind of it's not in your

12:03urban core downtown entertainment

12:04district it's nearby residential living

12:08and special use permit doesn't mean is

12:10not permitted. It just means it has to

12:13go through kind of more scrutiny and

12:16thorough review to meet the criteria for

12:18approval and we want to consider

12:20different things and the governing body

12:22which is the council to make a decision

12:24on special use permits can evaluate

12:27certain things that have impact on a

12:29neighborhood.

12:30>> So let's use for example, let me just

12:32use Chadwicks because it's down the

12:33street from me. So that's in a

12:34residential neighborhood on James

12:36Street. It's a bar. Now, if they were to

12:38move out, the next person that comes in

12:41there has to ask for a special use

12:42permit or is it going to be okay to be a

12:44bar no matter what?

12:47>> So, I think breaking down the what runs

12:50with the land is a probably a better

12:54>> Yeah, sure. Um, and

12:58I know we have some council here, but

12:59I'm going to give just kind of a high

13:01level. Some some of this can depend on

13:03specifics like did Chadwicks have a

13:07special use permit from way back when

13:09that is still governing today. Um but to

13:12your point, uh Councelor Jones Rouseer,

13:15um special use permits have historically

13:17run with the land and that means it just

13:20stays with the land. Whoever whoever

13:22owns it, it stays with it and if they

13:24comply with that uh condition uh the

13:27conditions of approval within that

13:29special use permit that they can

13:31maintain that use that's there. Um we

13:33saw that in a recent hearing where we

13:35evaluated if somebody stayed in

13:36compliance with the conditions of a

13:39special use permit or not. Um, now with

13:42that, uh, it it's important to note on

13:45our last round of amendments, we no

13:49longer allowed new

13:53special use permits to forever run with

13:56the land. We made them renewable,

13:59meaning we would be doing an

14:00administrative sort of check and say,

14:03"Hey, are they complying with the

14:05conditions of the special use permit?

14:06Are there any issues that we've been

14:08seeing here? If so, we we now have the

14:11ability under our our newest amendment

14:13in the zoning code to push those back

14:15before the planning commission to review

14:18or in extreme cases

14:21we and we've done it a handful of times

14:23with you all on the council. I can draft

14:26a report for revocation if I feel like

14:28these are egregious major violations of

14:31conditions of approval within a special

14:33use permit that warrant review by this

14:35body for consideration for revocation.

14:38So, there's kind of two options um for

14:40that now. But prior to that, if you got

14:43a special use permit and you weren't

14:45facing revocation, you weren't violating

14:47any conditions of approval, that

14:49approval stayed with that land forever.

14:52If it all of us owned it, you know, 50

14:55years ago, 40, 30, and I own it now.

14:57Like, same thing. It stays with me. Um,

14:59but they have to continue to follow the

15:02conditions of approval and and a lot of

15:04them are somewhat standard like property

15:06has to be maintained and good order has

15:08to be maintained. Like that's a big part

15:10of it. Sometimes there's specifics like

15:13uh on a lot of food and beverage uh

15:15neighborhood market or corner stores.

15:17There's hours of operations that have to

15:19be followed. um could be some other

15:22unique um conditions of approval and

15:26those can come from planning commission

15:28recommendations that are then final and

15:30confirmed by this body or this body can

15:33create conditions of approval um if they

15:37wish. Which is which is why it's

15:38important that this body evaluates

15:40special use permit uh applications even

15:44if it meets the full criteria for

15:46approval by our code and by state law.

15:50you can still consider certain

15:52conditions that you may wish to add

15:54based on whatever impacts you think it

15:56could have on a neighborhood. Um, and

15:59it's also important because in in my

16:01professional opinion, if somebody's

16:03carrying a special use permit approval,

16:05that's like gold to them. You lose that

16:08you we've seen the results and the

16:11consequences if you lose that and what

16:14that means. So it to me

16:18we have some I don't want to use the

16:20word controls but if if issues start to

16:23arise or challenges at a property that

16:25have a special use permit we have a

16:26mechanism to review that and to evaluate

16:29if there are problems or challenges that

16:32are worthy of a revocation.

16:34I don't take that lightly. I know that's

16:36somebody's livelihood. It's their their

16:38business. But um this is why this

16:40process exists and this is sort of

16:43standard statewide in New York State

16:45that special use permits the governing

16:47body has the ability to not only approve

16:49but to revocate based on the conditions

16:52and criteria of approval within the code

16:54and the conditions of approval uh

16:56recommended by the reviewing bodies and

16:58the deciding bodies which here in

17:00Syracuse is you all in the common

17:02council. be helpful for us to be aware

17:05of it earlier than later because a lot

17:07of things get dumped on us at the last

17:10minute.

17:11>> So, I've communicated to uh the admin uh

17:14executives and secretaries in your

17:16offices to follow the planning

17:19commission's uh schedule, which is every

17:223 weeks, mostly on Mondays. We do move a

17:25couple to Tuesday to not conflict with a

17:28couple Jewish holidays, but the agendas

17:31are posted online. The addresses are

17:34there. They're they're advertised in the

17:36newspaper. They're on Syracuse.com. Many

17:39of you have attended the meetings uh

17:41council NAV uh most recently. Um and

17:45that's something that we'll work with

17:47your office secretaries on to make sure

17:49>> Jake is even deeper than that because

17:51you talked about amendments. So they

17:53don't know about the amendments. So when

17:55you do these amendments in the zoning,

17:58our our secretaries, they don't know

18:00about the amendments that you do. So how

18:02do we know about amendments that you

18:04>> So all the amendments we've done, we've

18:05had private meetings with the council

18:07body. We've had working session meetings

18:09with the council body, a committee

18:11meeting prior to taking it to study

18:13session, multiple public meetings, and

18:15public hearings. I I mean I understand

18:18what you're saying, but I think we've

18:19done our due diligence to make sure that

18:21everybody, at least internal to the

18:22council office, is more than well aware

18:24and informed about amendment or text

18:27amendment changes to the code, some of

18:29which were driven by folks sitting at

18:31the table.

18:36But I I want to continue on special use

18:38permits for a section. Just back to the

18:40uh the PowerPoint in front of you. Uh

18:42the purpose of it, and again, I'll read

18:44this out loud. purpose. The special use

18:46permit procedure provides a mechanism

18:48for the city to evaluate proposed

18:50development and land uses that have

18:52unique or varying operating

18:55characteristics or unusual features.

18:58This procedure is intended to ensure

19:00compatibility with surrounding areas and

19:02that adequate mitigation is provided for

19:05anticipated impacts. That includes

19:08environmental stuff too like we're the

19:10planning commission is performing

19:11seeker. Our process includes the

19:13planning board

19:15uh performing seeker and issuing a

19:17declaration on seeker. Our staff reviews

19:20that too. We look at things like noise,

19:23pollution,

19:24bats, I mean all sorts of things are

19:27being evaluated that water runoff, storm

19:29water, all that's being evaluated

19:32um prior to it going before the planning

19:35board and then coming to you where you

19:37essentially are affirming the decision

19:39of the well, if it gets to you, it's a

19:43negative declaration for seeker, but

19:45then you're evaluating the rest of the

19:46approval process um from there. Jake,

19:50when we talk about potentially

19:52longstanding old special use permits

19:55that are tied to the land rather than to

19:57the establishment,

20:00>> what would the process be to modify or

20:02to amend those longstanding and existing

20:07>> special use permits?

20:10>> I will defer to council on this, but I'm

20:11not sure we can unless we revoke

20:14entirely

20:16or they apply for a new one. I'm not

20:19sure we can really mandate or require

20:22any change unless they're violating

20:24terms of condition within that approval.

20:28>> We've got head nodding in the audience.

20:30Okay.

20:30>> Yep.

20:32>> And you know that was a I'll just say

20:34that was a one of the challenges we

20:37recently faced with West Theater when it

20:39came to our body. Our choices were you

20:42know allowed to continue as is or

20:45revocation and there is no middle

20:47ground. Is it, you know, is that based

20:50upon New York state law or is that

20:52something that we have established as a

20:54local policy not to allow an amendment

20:56to that special use permit?

21:00>> I mean, I'm going to say I'll give my

21:02answer what I think. Um, there's nothing

21:05in our code that says we can do that. um

21:11once somebody receives that approval and

21:13they've got that like

21:16I mean maybe it's possible to create a

21:18new local requirement

21:21potentially and that's kind of what we

21:22did with no longer making new special

21:24use permits run with the land. We're

21:25making them renewable. Um but I'm not

21:28sure that we can essentially change

21:30somebody's approval without them

21:33violating any of the conditions or terms

21:35within. But um I I I can have our our

21:39law team can definitely look into that.

21:41But to your point, I want to be clear

21:43that like we made it sure that we were

21:46clear that this doesn't preclude

21:47somebody for reapplying for a special

21:49use permit following revocation. Now

21:52obviously there's considerations when

21:54that comes back in but that is possible

21:57like if they if somebody is to apply for

21:59a similar use or almost identical I mean

22:05then there would be questions about like

22:07operations right and probably ours and

22:10other security and whatever else and you

22:12could put new conditions in on somebody

22:14like that's that's not off the table

22:16like that is we've never said that

22:18wasn't possible. Um, we've been tried to

22:21be clear from from the beginning like

22:23that, you know, that is a possibility

22:25and I Commissioner Collins wants to say

22:28something.

22:28>> Yeah, if if if I may. Uh, Michael

22:30Collins, Commissioner for Neighborhood

22:32Business Development. So to uh deputy

22:33commissioner Dishaw's um point on the

22:36fact that it is somewhat binary in the

22:38choice in that um one of the uh one of

22:42the points uh that deputy commissioner

22:44and first deputy chief Trudeell made in

22:46the uh committee meeting that you all

22:48held is um we don't just say well you

22:53broke the rules so that's it we got to

22:54go in front of you right so there had

22:55been a year's worth of work with the

22:59establishment owner to uh to gain

23:03compliance. So, it's not, hey, you broke

23:06the rule, therefore you must close. It's

23:08you broke the rule, let's work on this

23:10so that you don't break the rule again.

23:13And we're only coming to you when to the

23:16point that uh that Jake made earlier,

23:18there has been egregious ongoing

23:22problems. Uh and so that to your concern

23:25like hey, we didn't have a choice,

23:27right? It was this or that. Totally

23:29understand. When we when we look at what

23:31the chain of events are, we have done

23:35everything possible to not have to bring

23:37it to you for you to even have to make

23:40that choice prior and that has been so

23:43there are um other cases where we have

23:47had to temporarily close a uh places as

23:50we did with the WCOT work with that

23:53establishment owner and they have

23:55changed uh changed the way that they do

23:58business and you guys never had to deal

24:01with it at all. So, I just wanted to

24:04make sure that

24:05>> we address it that part that

24:06>> I only hold that up because it will

24:08happened in the past month.

24:10>> Yeah. Oh, it's an excellent point.

24:12Absolutely. I just wanted to add add the

24:14additional context.

24:15>> We don't live in a binary world.

24:17Exactly. You know, we live in a world of

24:18nuance. Correct. Feels to me like being

24:21able to put some type of potential

24:23intervention in front of this body or to

24:25be initiated by this body prior to that

24:29end point as councelor Hudson keeps

24:31talking about you know by the time it

24:32comes to us it's gone through all of

24:34this. You know, would it be beneficial

24:36to think about the potential to, you

24:38know, often we think about hours of

24:40operation to have shifted hours of

24:42operation at an earlier point to say,

24:45all right, now here's another criteria

24:47that should you violate, then that is

24:50additional support for revocation. Um,

24:53it feels like intervention earlier on

24:55through the permitting process may be

24:58beneficial. And and that and that's one

25:00of those those situations where I think

25:01when we look at the interventions that

25:03we take uh because you all saw through

25:07the video

25:09>> change in hours operation was not the

25:11issue right the the issue was

25:14understaffing the issue was uh disregard

25:16for public safety

25:18>> um and so what time of day that happens

25:22>> uh is irrelevant uh so I totally

25:25understand

25:26>> again we defer to law what possible

25:28getting the word of a you know

25:30proprietor is different from codifying

25:32conditions.

25:34>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to make

25:35one comment is that when people apply

25:38for certificate of use,

25:40>> they know what the rules are in that

25:44contract and unfortunately they know

25:47what they're supposed to do. But

25:48unfortunately, when they uh disobey

25:51this, they break the the rules of the

25:54agreement in their own manner, there are

25:57consequences. And it's what and that's

26:01unfortunately we had to go before the

26:02common council because of one person. Uh

26:05we had the same situation with Tommy's

26:07too. I wanted to point that out. So

26:09Jake, that's a good segue for for me

26:12councelor Nab what he said. So I think

26:13what happens is by the time that the new

26:15ones get to our agenda, I think the

26:17public that's first time sometimes they

26:19see that something is coming to their

26:20neighborhood. So off the top of my head

26:23here, bars, liquor stores, and smoking

26:25places that sell whether it's cannabis

26:27or non-cannabis or beer over the counter

26:29like the corner store thing. So by the

26:31before it gets to us, can you walk

26:33through what happens and where

26:36where it can be stopped, where it can be

26:38where the where the public can weigh in,

26:40where the council can weigh in before it

26:41gets to us? Because I will tell you, I

26:43I've had situations where places want to

26:45open in my district. I will send a

26:47letter to either the liquor authority or

26:49cannabis management and say I as a

26:51district counselor don't think that's

26:53the best spot for it. I think they just

26:54ignore that and you know they go by the

26:56rules and put it there. But it comes to

26:58us and we're the ones that the first

26:59time the public sees it is like oh the

27:00common council says yes to a liquor

27:02store on a corner but often it's too

27:06late for us to do anything because the

27:07liquor authority has already given them

27:09the license. So

27:10>> sure.

27:10>> I don't know what my question was there

27:12but I think you get it.

27:13>> I'm following. Okay. Okay.

27:16As a segue, as a response, um I want you

27:18to look at the special use permit review

27:21process chart on the next page in your

27:22PowerPoint. I want to start there. Um

27:26if a use

27:29[clears throat]

27:30is

27:32requires a special use permit, we have

27:34to follow that procedure and process

27:37within our code, but also within the

27:39confines of New York state law. So, we

27:42have a pretty robust

27:44uh condition of or criteria of approval

27:48for a special use permit in the code.

27:49But I want to just draw attention to the

27:51very bottom where it says special use

27:52permit. And you can kind of see the

27:55process. Um we get an application,

27:57meaning zoning staff get an application.

28:00Uh and we we we do a review of that. Uh

28:04we send it out to multiple departments.

28:07um we uh are are reviewing the code

28:11against it. We actually a lot of times

28:13even tell uh applicants that they need

28:16to reach out to their district

28:17counselors and many times we make sure

28:19that they do that on a lot of

28:21applications. Um but then we by law

28:24we're required to do a public notice, a

28:27written notice and a posted notice on

28:30site prior to the planning commission

28:31meeting. Um but usually prior to that

28:36when it involves state licensing of

28:38something

28:39uh we get notification from whatever

28:43body that may be most of the time it's

28:45state liquor authority but uh also

28:47office cannabis management. We get a

28:50notice of intent of an application for a

28:53license and that goes through the city

28:55clerk's office and it's sent out to all

28:57of you. it comes to me to the police

28:59chief. And when I get those, I

29:02personally review, do we have code

29:03enforcement issues here? Do we have open

29:05violations? Do we, you know, what are

29:07the problems here? And I communicate

29:09with our police department on that, too,

29:10and see, do they have issues at this

29:12location? Um,

29:15that is probably the first usually the

29:18first kind of indicator or notice that

29:20we get of something trying to be

29:22established somewhere. Um, I think we've

29:24done a little bit better uh as a city in

29:27trying to make sure that we're

29:29responding to those timely and paying

29:31close attention to those and trying to

29:33even maybe draw attention to those to

29:35district counselors as well. I' I've

29:37been trying trying to be more deliberate

29:39about that when I see something like,

29:40hey, like counselor, have you seen this?

29:42Just making sure I don't have any issues

29:44with history with code enforcement here.

29:46Um, and usually it ends up with people

29:49saying, yep, no concern, no known

29:51history of anything. Um, but then from

29:53there it goes into what I was just

29:54describing, the the noticing, the public

29:57noticing process for the planning board

29:59to hear it.

30:01Uh, 10day notice we post it on our

30:03online. We send out postcards

30:06uh to owners um within a certain

30:09proximity of the location. A sign is

30:11posted at the site and then it's

30:14published in the newspaper and in

30:15Syracuse.com.

30:16>> So use cannabis as an example. So by the

30:18time cannabis gets in front of the

30:20planning commission, do they already

30:21have a license from cannabis management

30:23office?

30:23>> Conditional. Yeah.

30:26>> Basically pending, you know, the the

30:29approval from the municipality that

30:31they're in. Um which we've chose to

30:34govern those under the use category of

30:37smoking establishment

30:40um that carries a special use permit.

30:42But again, there's certain we were not a

30:45community that opted out of not allowing

30:48cannabis. So, I don't want to say our

30:51hands are tied, but like we do not

30:54license that. We are approving a land

30:57use approval to go with that and there's

30:59criteria of approval with that, but we

31:00have to follow kind of the state laws on

31:03that as a community that did not opt out

31:06and follow our code on that. So I

31:09realize sometimes things come before

31:10this body and you may say like well why

31:13do we have to approve this? Like why

31:15does it come before us if we have to

31:16approve it? Well because there has to be

31:18rules and criteria on what can what gets

31:22approved and what doesn't. We can't be

31:24arbitrary in our review on saying well I

31:27don't like it or I think something bad

31:29could happen here. So I'm I want to I

31:31don't want to allow this. There has to

31:32be stated reason that's based on our

31:35criteria. If it doesn't meet it, you can

31:38deny something, but if it's licensed by

31:41the state, like we have to follow what

31:43their licensing are, and we can consider

31:44other factors outside of that in our

31:47review. Um, but back to the chart, like

31:51the this body is the decision maker on

31:54special use permits, but I I do want to

31:56and I'm not pointing this out saying I I

31:58think we should change it, but we could

32:00change it if if there was appetite for

32:02that.

32:03I believe Syracuse and Buffalo are the

32:06only major cities outside of Long Island

32:08and New York City that the common

32:11council is the deciding body for special

32:13use permits.

32:15Other cities, it's the planning board.

32:19I'm not I'm I'm not advocating one way

32:21or the other. This the way we were

32:23structured is the way it's been since as

32:26far as as long as I know. Um but there

32:29is a possibility of that if if there was

32:31appetite for that. May I ask one

32:34question about this? What you should

32:37also add

32:40and what has not been done is the

32:43property owner is tax delinquent. I've

32:46had it's happened twice a cannabis shop

32:50the person was very much tax delinquent

32:53and I went to the planning commission

32:56and I went to one person company I said

32:59oh by the way before we get this go

33:01through the common council you have to

33:03pay your taxes he was behind $17,000

33:06and that should be as a requirement

33:10through uh taxation finances though is

33:13this person up to car uh with his taxes.

33:17This has happened twice and where I had

33:20to confront the owner. You're tax

33:22delinquent. You're going to pay your

33:23taxes cuz we're not going to we're not

33:26going to approve this.

33:27>> Yeah, council. Good point. And I I

33:29believe in those instances we were able

33:31to get a payment. Um, but I do want to

33:34point out I'm not sure on the legalities

33:36of us possibly being able to add that as

33:39far as a building code review or a land

33:43use review, but I will say it exists in

33:45our local business certificate of use

33:48ordinance and it does get applied and

33:52cannabis requires

33:55retail cannabis sales establishment

33:57requires a business certificate of use.

33:59So, and they need that to open and

34:01operate. So if they did not, let's say

34:03in that scenario they did not pay um

34:06that would have been part of the CFU

34:08review and they would not have received

34:10one and therefore would not have been

34:12able to open or operate.

34:14>> Can I ask a question?

34:15>> I I know that when the cannabis and well

34:18recently the bar come in front of us, we

34:20normally check and see is the

34:21application file with the clerk's office

34:23because that's part of the state

34:24requirement. Uh and we don't see the

34:26application. So I think that I heard you

34:28say that um before they come in front of

34:31the council that they are vetted and the

34:33count and the state have already

34:35approved

34:36>> cannabis or liquor license

34:38>> cannabis for sure

34:40>> um because we we check um I would have

34:43to defer to our legal team if I don't

34:46know that land use can be land use can

34:49review can be held pending uh SLA action

34:53because that is always one of our

34:55conditions of approval that you have to

34:57have proper license from, you know,

34:59state uh review. So,

35:02>> they can operate. Can you get land use

35:05approval and then get your license after

35:07the fact? Like I I think you can uh

35:09we'll have to review if there is

35:11something we can we can do about the

35:13liquor side of it. But

35:14>> yeah, that's a big um that's a big

35:16review. Do you think that the clerk

35:18office should check and see have the

35:20application been filed because it's one

35:21of the requirements before you put it on

35:23the um an agenda in front of the council

35:26since it's one of the requirements.

35:28>> Yeah, I mean we should always have in my

35:29opinion I think we should always have

35:30that notice of intent um out there. I I

35:35guess I defer

35:38I think it's a legal question on if we

35:40can hold it up if it doesn't. I I don't

35:43know the answer to that. Well, the

35:44reason why I asked is because the

35:45council would be voting on that and we

35:48don't know. We don't even know.

35:50>> Yeah. I mean, I think the distinction

35:52there is like the council has other than

35:54being able to voice uh you know,

35:57opinions or comments to those boards,

35:59SLA or OCM, um they don't really have

36:03any decision in the matter. Yeah. And if

36:05if those boards either one of those

36:08liquor authority or OCM decide to not

36:10grant a license then obviously those

36:12establishments can't open um I don't

36:16know uh

36:16>> yeah but I'm saying it's kind of like

36:18putting a car or whatever

36:20>> proving it without proper license.

36:22>> So I just wanted to point that out if

36:24there's an avenue that can come through

36:26us. welcome to like when it come

36:30through us, we can check and see do we

36:32have an application on file because it's

36:34required by the state um for them to

36:36file with the clerk's office.

36:39>> Understood.

36:41>> I don't know if our lawyers have

36:42anything to add to that.

36:46>> We'll look into it.

36:52So

36:56this might be more of a legal question.

36:57So a lot of times we get the question,

36:59so if a corner store is open selling

37:02tobacco and alcohol and it's a problem

37:04and it closes,

37:06the next person that comes in to try to

37:08put the same kind of business in that

37:10same location, are we are the sins of

37:13the past following the past the building

37:16or the per the new person? Like so what

37:18what happens when someone else wants to

37:20open a store in the same location where

37:22it has been a problem? You close it for

37:24nuisance abatement on Bernett A just

37:26picking a street randomly and a year

37:29later someone else wants to open the

37:30same sort of establishment in the same

37:32building. What do we do?

37:42I mean I can give a a brief answer um

37:45non- lawyer answer I guess um I think it

37:49depends on what the what the issues and

37:51reasons are but we do have the ability

37:53to do a look back on what is h

37:56especially within our licensing

37:58ordinances c of view which uh

38:01neighborhood market or food and beverage

38:02corner store is required to have we can

38:05definitely do a two-year look back

38:07period

38:08on everything. What has happened here?

38:11Arrests, violent incidents, like all

38:14sorts of things. Land use review gets a

38:18little bit trickier because land use

38:20combining land use and behavioral

38:22problems. It's it's kind of not as I

38:26don't want to say clearcut, but like

38:28they're they're different. Licensing

38:30review and a land use review are two

38:32different things and they they look at

38:33different factors. even though a

38:36location might require both. So, I'm not

38:39trying to dance around the answer, but I

38:40think it just depends on what's

38:42happened. Now, you mentioned tobacco and

38:44alcohol. A new operator would then have

38:48to obtain licenses for that. We do have

38:51a local tobacco license now, which if

38:54somebody closes, those don't transfer.

38:58And we've kind of have limited we've

39:00like we have a ceiling now and then you

39:03have to meet certain proximity

39:04requirements. So if you were

39:05grandfathered in and then sell or close

39:08and somebody else opens doesn't mean

39:10they automatically get the tobacco

39:12license. Alcohol a little bit different

39:14like for a store to sell beer and wine

39:17products um they have to be able to

39:20obtain the license from the state liquor

39:22authority which they would review and

39:24they control all of that. We have other

39:26than again responding to the notice of

39:28intent we have staff council we have

39:31zero control over their review and

39:33issuance of those. Um, but I think

39:37combined with land use review, whether

39:41it's site plan review, which does not

39:43come before this body, it's more

39:44administrative with staff and myself as

39:46zoning administrator or the planning

39:48board, special use permit. But when you

39:52combine that with certificate of use,

39:55um, I think we kind of cover all areas

39:58of potential

40:02issues in the past.

40:05when we evaluate all of that because a

40:08CFU requires a background check

40:12and they look at arrest history, they

40:13look at all that. Um, we do look at

40:16taxes, we look at water on those. Um,

40:20the legalities of putting that into the

40:22land use review, I'm not certain on, but

40:24again,

40:25>> I think you were clear with the land use

40:26part of it. So, now go down the other

40:28fork in the road and follow the person.

40:29So, if Joe Smith opens an establishment

40:32and we have nothing but problems with

40:33Joe Smith at that establishment and a

40:35year later he decides to try to move,

40:37pick up shop and go somewhere else, does

40:40everything that he did at location A

40:41follow him to B, C, and D as we go

40:44forward? Because these are the questions

40:45that we get arguably. I think the

40:47confusion comes from the public is

40:49listen this person was a bad actor in

40:51one spot and has now moved somewhere

40:52else or this place has been a problem in

40:55the neighborhood and I can they just

40:57tore a building down in my district

40:58which was a problem over and over and

40:59over in front of Parkside Commons. And I

41:02think that was more than one owner that

41:03was a problem. It wasn't just it was the

41:05building was a problem owner over after

41:07owner. So

41:09>> for my own confusion and for the

41:10public's you know these are we get the

41:12weeds here. So,

41:15>> and without getting over technical on

41:16it,

41:17>> that building was a great bakery once

41:18upon a time though.

41:19>> It was a great bakery when I was about

41:20three years old.

41:21>> Snowflake

41:22>> for licensing. [clears throat]

41:25My opinion is we can and we have the

41:27ability to do that and evaluate that.

41:32Um, for land use, I think it depends on

41:37a number of factors. Are we talking

41:39about

41:41same ownership

41:43meaning land ownership, same tenant?

41:48Are there connections? Like a lot of

41:51that is looked into deeply in licensing.

41:53And I'm not saying it's not for land

41:55use, but again, I'm trying to keep those

41:58in separate lanes serving two separate

42:00purposes. Um,

42:05I do believe we have the ability to do

42:06that. Definitely with licensing

42:09>> and I think Jake as we're on the

42:11licensing I know an issue that councelor

42:14Na'Vi has brought up and councelor

42:16Hudson and Caldwell are

42:21smoking establishments, corner stores,

42:23you know, tobacco, alcohol, cannabis

42:25within proximity to a church or to a

42:28school.

42:30And I know that

42:33OCM and the state liquor authority get

42:36involved with the licensing at that

42:38level. Do we have the ability to impose

42:41more strict limits on where those

42:43licenses can occur within our own city

42:46either through land use or through,

42:50you know, a local licensing process? as

42:53it relates to a license from the liquor

42:56authority or office cannabis management.

42:59I don't believe we do. Now,

43:03something not regulated by them, like if

43:05we just wanted to look at density of

43:08corner stores,

43:11we could do that. It would take some

43:13work and some amendments to the code to

43:15look at how to do that. Um, I'll give an

43:18example. Baltimore,

43:21they uh basically created a zoning law,

43:24and I think I've talked to you some of

43:26you about this. Um they created a zoning

43:29law, I think a few years ago, where they

43:31basically eliminated all their

43:32non-conforming

43:34um liquor corner stores. Um I'm not

43:39suggesting that's what we do, but I'm

43:40just there's possibilities if you want

43:42to do something like that, but it can't

43:44be tied to anything that the state

43:46regulates or licenses. It have to be

43:48outside of that. I don't know if that

43:50makes sense.

43:51>> We can't go above and beyond in terms of

43:53our requirements.

43:54>> Not for not for licensing of alcohol

43:58sales off on on prem or off-rem, meaning

44:01like a liquor store or a bar or a retail

44:04cannabis. I I mean, I don't I don't

44:06believe we can, but like they're direct

44:08counties.

44:09>> What's the exact square footage when

44:12they're sending out Well, that that

44:14regulates the distance between those

44:17church, school.

44:19>> Um, so I think it it depends on what the

44:26what the license is. Um, and so if it's

44:31like a let's say it's a corner store

44:33that's selling beer and wine products, I

44:36think it is it 500 ft

44:40and they measure. So we can get all this

44:43to you. I don't want to misstate, but I

44:45believe it's I believe it's

44:48>> 200 or 500.

44:50>> And it's not it's not a direct line from

44:52the closest point of the property to the

44:54closest point of the property. They

44:56measure from like the front door of the

44:58establishment to the front door of the

45:00school for example. Um if if that was

45:04measured. So

45:05>> So is that New York State?

45:07>> Yes. Yes. We only the only thing we uh

45:11we do ensure that uh for OCM that the

45:15distancing requirement we look it up too

45:17and verify but like we verify with OCM

45:20that like they they meet it. Um the the

45:23only thing that we're directly in charge

45:26of looking at is measurements for

45:28tobacco in uh proximity to these things

45:33under our newest um our new local

45:36tobacco licensing ordinance.

45:39>> Could

45:41Could we So I understand that the school

45:44district at one point instituted

45:46essentially a healthy vending ordinance.

45:49So even though it was all school

45:50district property and their own

45:52contracts, but they mandated that any

45:54vendors that brought food into the

45:56schools or sold food to their students

45:58had to have a certain percentage of

46:00healthy like it couldn't be soda, it had

46:02to be juice, etc. Could we do something

46:05similar in terms of organizations or

46:08corner stores that sell in proximity to

46:11schools?

46:16Not sure. But um could we

46:18>> like you mean regulating what a store

46:20could sell that's near a school?

46:22>> Well, so essentially we can't sell tell

46:24them whether they sell alcohol or

46:27tobacco. Um we I think one of the one of

46:31the um questions recently was a corner

46:35store that was in close proximity to a

46:37school although I guess within

46:38regulation that had lost its tobacco

46:41license but we were concerned about

46:43illegal sales that had happened at that

46:45premises and might happen at that

46:46premises again. So I am wondering if we

46:50are able to mandate in a positive

46:52direction that

46:55things that sales organizations or

46:58retail establishments that are near or

46:59proximity to our schools do things that

47:02are positive for our students who might

47:04be the basis of their customer base. The

47:06other thing I want to ask is on a

47:08regulatory enforcement, could we do

47:11something that's or all institutions

47:15that are within a certain amount of

47:17space between schools that exceed,

47:20excuse me, exceeds the liquor license or

47:22exceeds the tobacco minimum. Um that we

47:26check we have the police go and check

47:28their um their

47:31operations on a on a reoccurring

47:33schedule. something that might provide

47:35more oversight or accountability.

47:38>> Sure.

47:39>> So, I just threw two things that you

47:40>> Yeah. The first part of it is

47:42>> unsure about the first part. Um, we can

47:45check with our law team, but what I do

47:48know is like the food portion or the

47:51product the food products within these

47:52stores

47:54typically from what I've experienced is

47:56they're regulated by agen markets. And

47:59I'm not sure that we can necessarily say

48:01like you need to sell some healthier

48:04products in here. I I don't know. Maybe

48:06it's possible, but I understand what

48:08you're saying like the premise behind

48:09it. I just don't know that we can when

48:12those things are governed by other New

48:13York State authorities like Agon

48:16Markets, OCM, SLA. I'm not sure we can

48:19do anything

48:20more restrictive than what they're

48:24regulating,

48:25>> but we can look into it.

48:28I think we're concerned about the

48:29economics that if a corner store is

48:31operating without tobacco sales and it's

48:34right next to or liquor sales and it's

48:36right near a school and they're not

48:38selling actual mainstream groceries,

48:41we're wondering how are they going to

48:43stay in operation?

48:46>> Yeah. Uh um regarding, you know, ongoing

48:49enforcement, um

48:53all neighborhood markets or corner

48:56stores require a 2-year inspection for a

49:00business certificate of use. Now, maybe

49:02you might say like that's not frequent

49:04enough, but um I'll also point out the

49:09results that we've had on closing a lot

49:12of these problematic and illegal uh

49:15activities happening at a lot of these

49:17places in the last couple of years. I

49:19think we're somewhere between 40 and 60

49:23um overall covering all sides of the

49:25city. Um and that's with partnership

49:29with fire prevention, police department,

49:31code enforcement, re really every every

49:33every department in the city that um

49:36touches those. But uh we do look at

49:38those every two years. And if they have

49:39a tobacco license, we are looking at

49:41them annually as well. Um if they're in

49:44a mixeduse building, that's another

49:47inspection. If they have like apartments

49:48above it, like that's a separate another

49:51touch [clears throat] point where we're

49:52there. And we can always go on

49:54complaints. um you know, if we get

49:56public complaints. Um plus we have

49:58inspectors that are in geographical

50:00territories based on historical data on

50:05you know we we used to just be deployed

50:09based on our construction debris and

50:11leaf debris pickup which was quadrant

50:13made no sense. Um a few years ago we

50:17created geographical catchment areas to

50:20assign our inspectors. So, these

50:22[clears throat] inspectors doing

50:23different things are assigned to their

50:24territories. They know their

50:26neighborhoods. They know I mean they're

50:27they're going by these things. Um, but

50:30yeah, that's about as frequent as we can

50:33look at these right now based on our

50:35staffing levels.

50:35>> I want to com I want to commend you

50:38because as district counselor, I've gone

50:40to a lot of these establishments and how

50:43they have brazenly lied to me. Where are

50:46your permits? Well, I'll bring it to you

50:48tomorrow. I left it at home. all these

50:51excuses whether on butternut street,

50:53Bernadet A, East Division Street. I've

50:55called you personally numerous times

50:59working with the law department. We shut

51:02them down. They brazenly just break in.

51:04They do it again and again and again.

51:06They think they're above the law. And

51:08this takes up a lot of our time and

51:10energies as counselors, specific

51:13district counselors, because we have to

51:14go after the bad apples a lot. and they

51:17brace and think that they can do things

51:19uh behind our backs. But I want to say

51:22through uh through uh the law department

51:26and colds permits uh we've had a lot of

51:29discussions and that and with Syracuse

51:32police. It's not easy. It's hard. But um

51:36that's what we have to do. We really

51:38have to stay on top of these issues.

51:41Jake,

51:41>> how do you monitor stolen stolen stolen

51:45goods?

51:46Uh, I [clears throat] don't my our team

51:48doesn't personally, but um, we can

51:51definitely get an answer from SPD on how

51:52they do that. My guess is they somehow

51:56got tipped off or had a lead or

51:58complaint and were able to verify. Um,

52:02when those things happen and proceed

52:04accordingly.

52:05>> Is it frequent? Um, well,

52:07>> you don't know. Uh,

52:09>> I'm not sure how prevalent it is to be

52:11honest, but I mean I'm sure it happens.

52:16Um, can you just go over the use

52:18variance because I think something that

52:20um, councelor Williams brought up with

52:23the WCOT situation? Um, but not for the

52:27rest situation but just asking about

52:29>> if after somebody

52:31>> the land use stuff, but

52:34>> I think the variance could have answered

52:36that.

52:37>> Yep. Um there are different types of uh

52:41variances which are requests to seek

52:44relief uh from something that's not

52:46permitted in the code. Uh a use variance

52:50is exactly what it states. Um a use

52:52variance is asking permission for a use

52:55or approval for a use that is not

52:57permitted. Not permitted by right, not

52:59permitted by special use permit. Flat

53:01out not permitted. Um, I'll use an

53:03extreme example like you want to put,

53:05you know, a commercial store in a

53:08residential single family neighborhood,

53:10right? Um, that's an extreme kind of

53:14example, but um, the purpose of a

53:18variance, and I I'll read it just for

53:19the, you know, everybody watching um, in

53:22attendance. Uh the variance procedure is

53:24intended to provide limited relief from

53:26the requirements of this ordinance where

53:28strict application of the ordinance

53:30would result in exceptional practical

53:32difficulty or undue hardship preventing

53:35the use of the property as otherwise

53:37allowed by the ordinance. Border zoning

53:39appeals may authorize by variance the

53:42use of land for a land use type that is

53:44otherwise not allowed or is prohibited

53:47in the subject zone district or to use

53:50the land in a manner that does not

53:52comply with the dimensional standards

53:54contained in this ordinance. So that

53:56points to the other types of uh

53:58variances. There's area variances which

54:00are dimensional like I want to have more

54:03structural coverage on my lot than is

54:05allowed by code. I want my fence higher,

54:09slightly higher than what's allowed by

54:11code. Um those are area variances or

54:13dimensional. Um and there's strict

54:17criteria on this um legal criteria to uh

54:21to meet these um to to get relief or

54:24request um and get approval for one of

54:27these. So all that goes through the

54:28board of zoning appeals and they review

54:30that. Um

54:33did that answer your question? um kind

54:36of, but that was more or less like the

54:38the um exterior stuff. But the um for

54:44instance,

54:46I had a salon and

54:49it was a salon prior to me, but it's in

54:51a residential property, fully

54:54residential. They had a use variance. So

54:57then I had to get a use variance. I know

55:00someone who has a property currently, it

55:03was a laundromat. when the laundromat

55:06closed.

55:06>> Thank you, Jacob.

55:08>> It's attached. Well, it's not attached,

55:10but it's right next door to a store. And

55:13when the laundromat closed,

55:17the sale for this property was told that

55:20this is a residential property. It's

55:23just a flat building.

55:24>> Told by who? Real estate.

55:27>> No, by you guys.

55:30Yeah, we can connect afterward on the

55:32specifics, but

55:33>> variances are similar to old special use

55:36permits they they run with the land

55:39>> um should stay with it unless

55:40>> this might not be a variant. I don't

55:42know I don't know if anyone, you know,

55:45went after a variance, but

55:46>> okay,

55:47>> this property per se is it's it looks

55:50very commercial. It's commercial.

55:52>> Okay.

55:52>> But but it people were told that it was

55:57residential.

55:59um and no one has been able to utilize

56:02the property since. And so that's where

56:06I just wanted to try to get um

56:08information to the public about a use

56:10variance.

56:11>> Sure. Let's connect after this on the

56:13specific, but like

56:15>> we will we we tell the public a lot. We

56:18get a lot of inquiries like what zone

56:20district is this in doesn't necessarily

56:22mean it doesn't have like a legal

56:25non-conforming use permission via

56:28something you know prior to uh

56:31requirement changing or variance but so

56:34it could be in an R3 zone district but

56:36it's possible it could have a variance

56:37and is is legal because of that as long

56:40as they follow the terms and conditions

56:42uh within

56:43>> but what if it's in an R1

56:46>> I mean variances can be issued.

56:49>> Yeah.

56:49>> Yeah, we can look at that, but um yeah,

56:53we'll connect after this on that

56:55specific address if you want.

57:00>> Jake, I just one question. Um so on

57:03Butter on Dale Street, there's a

57:05restaurant there and it was Tik Tok and

57:08I was told that he is going to put

57:12someone else is going to put a different

57:14restaurant. Does that person have to get

57:16a certificate of use? Do they go for the

57:18planning commission?

57:20>> Um, new owner definitely requires a new

57:24business certificate of use license

57:26>> and liquor license.

57:28>> Yep. Um, as far as land use approval, it

57:33would depend on various factors like if

57:35they had one before, when they had it,

57:37what they're changing, what are they

57:39proposing, does it trigger new site plan

57:41review, does it trigger a new special

57:43use permit? But um at the very least um

57:47new liquor license, new certificate of

57:49use.

57:50>> Okay. So it doesn't go before the

57:51planning commission council.

57:52>> It could if they're proposing changes

57:54and um it meets the threshold and you

57:58know development to go before them. It

58:00it's possible.

58:01>> Okay.

58:02>> Um again I'm not trying to dance around

58:05answers. It just depends on the history

58:08of how something came to be today,

58:10>> right? impacts what the code states and

58:13you have to evaluate both of those. What

58:15does the code state? What has happened

58:17prior to this code being in effect that

58:20could allow something to exist lawfully

58:22today? And those are the the two paths

58:24we have to evaluate.

58:26>> Okay.

58:26>> Do we still have properties that have

58:30this long-term land use? We still have a

58:33lot of those.

58:34>> Um,

58:37yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think we have a

58:38lot of special use permits that were

58:40historically issued prior to reszone.

58:43Yes.

58:45For a number of uses. I mean, not just I

58:48know a lot of this has been centered on,

58:50you know, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis

58:54stores, but like there's other types of

58:56special use permits for um we had one

59:00for a contractor yard recently on a

59:02boulevard basically storing his energy

59:06efficient windows and vans and stuff in

59:08a fenced in area like so there's

59:10different types of special use permits

59:12for different uses. So, I know that um

59:16probably in the last six months or so,

59:20maybe eight months, a lot of businesses

59:23received like a notice um and I'm not

59:26100% sure of the language, but that they

59:30needed to

59:34renew or um

59:37>> Well, that sounds like it could it

59:40sounds like it's that's more business

59:42certificate. of use license, but um we

59:46do make an effort to make sure that

59:48everybody that needs one of those

59:50understands and that they're noticed. So

59:52sometimes we do these batch kind of

59:54mailings on, hey, you you are a certain

59:58type of establishment that requires this

1:00:00license. You need to apply,

1:00:03but I'm not sure if that's what you're

1:00:04referring to or not. It might have been,

1:00:06but it Well, I know because I spoke with

1:00:09two business owners and they said like

1:00:11when they called down, they they were

1:00:13told like a bunch of these had gone out

1:00:16to people.

1:00:17>> Okay.

1:00:17>> And it wasn't like a targeted situation.

1:00:20>> Yeah.

1:00:22>> You

1:00:23>> okay?

1:00:28>> Any more questions? Anybody? Okay.

1:00:30Thanks, Jake.

```*