2026-10-08 - Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board

05:10Okay, good morning everybody. This is

05:12the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board

05:14meeting of October the 8th, 2026.

05:17Present at today's meeting are

05:19>> Trish,

05:20>> Nicole Fragito,

05:21>> Ed Gregory,

05:22>> Jeff Romano,

05:23>> Hillary Donghue,

05:25>> Sam Prescott,

05:27>> and Kate. Any excused?

05:29>> Um Bob steering will be is on his way.

05:32>> Thank you. [clears throat]

05:34May I have a motion to accept the

05:36minutes of September the 17th, 20126?

05:39>> I move to accept the minutes.

05:40>> Do I have a second on the motion?

05:43>> We'll second.

05:44>> Second. Any modifications to the

05:46minutes?

05:49Okay. All in favor of the minutes as

05:52submitted? I

05:53>> oppose.

05:56Same. Thank you.

05:58>> [snorts]

05:59>> Motion carries. Public hearings. Excuse

06:02[clears throat] me. The board will now

06:04conduct the public hearings on today's

06:05agenda. First, the applicant or the

06:08applicant's representative will be

06:09invited to describe the proposed scope

06:11of work and present any material

06:13documentation regarding the proposal to

06:15the board. Next, persons wishing to

06:18speak in favor of the proposal will be

06:20given the opportunity to address the

06:22board. Then persons who wish to speak in

06:24opposition will be allowed to address

06:26the board. Finally, the applicant or the

06:29representative will be given opportunity

06:30to make closing comments to the board.

06:32Following public comment, the board may

06:34vote to approve, approve with conditions

06:35or deny the application just heard. The

06:38board may also include to excuse me,

06:39decide to hold this decision till the

06:41next public hearing. If the hearing is

06:43closed, no additional information will

06:45be allowed into the record except for

06:46information the board may request. That

06:49information will be available for public

06:51review with the board staff. Staff, will

06:54you please introduce the first

06:55application?

06:57>> Absolutely. Good morning. Uh the first

06:59application is CA-26-21.

07:02It's a certificate of appropriateness

07:04for 931 Comtock A. This is a front porch

07:08uh roof restoration and railing. Um and

07:13uh this is the property is within the

07:15Berkeley Park Preservation District.

07:19the applicant here.

07:22>> If you could please come up to the stand

07:24and introduce yourself.

07:28>> Bob Dy

07:30>> Deborah Bandolin. It's our house.

07:33>> Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Welcome.

07:35And what is uh can you describe your

07:37project for us, please? Sir,

07:39>> um the front low slope roof on the sun

07:42room

07:45and the

07:46>> [clears throat]

07:46>> um

07:49We're going to

08:16Brian Brian Cass

08:33shows.

08:39So we hired

08:43Search.

08:58We have the picture

09:00on the side. We have remnants of the

09:04post.

09:11built up.

09:26So all the restoration

09:41So all mold, all exterior molding is cut

09:43from

09:47>> interior

09:49>> and the interior.

09:53>> That's great.

09:55Any uh questions or

09:59discussion from the board?

10:01>> What did the drawing here?

10:21You did that.

10:32The original shutters.

10:45>> We're trying to keep everything

10:47original.

10:55wanted it.

11:04>> Beautiful. Okay. Uh any further

11:06questions or clarifications? Since this

11:08is a public hearing, I need to ask if

11:10there's anyone here uh wishing to speak

11:12in favor of this proposal to come

11:13forward at this time. [clears throat]

11:15Please come up to the podium and

11:17introduce yourself, sir.

11:19>> Rex Jardine, 112 Circle Road, a

11:21neighbor. This is an out of the park

11:23home run for Preservation District. I

11:26appreciate that they hired Crawford and

11:28Sterns who clearly know what they're

11:30doing and they're clearly doing

11:31everything right. 110% behind this

11:35project. They deserve a gold star.

11:37>> All right. Thank you very much. Anyone

11:39else here in the audience wishing to

11:40speak in favor of this project, please

11:42come forward at this time.

11:47>> Good morning. My name is Chris Capella

11:49Peters and I'm a neighbor and this is

11:51the kind of work that all of the

11:52neighbors hope we are all held to the

11:54same standard. Every property owner in

11:57park in Berkeley Park should be held to

11:59this standard. So, congrats to our

12:00neighbors for doing a great job. Thank

12:02you.

12:03>> Thank you very much.

12:09>> Mike Stanton, 315 Berkeley Drive up the

12:12hill, also in the historic district. Uh

12:14I want to also encourage you to Um, vote

12:18yes on this measure, please.

12:21>> Thank you very much.

12:24>> I approve of this project. I believe

12:26they've done their name.

12:28>> Oh, Don Peters from uh Circle Road

12:31>> uh resident and u you know I just

12:34appreciate that these people went to

12:35this great length to uh you know to do

12:38things in a proper way. Really

12:40appreciate it.

12:42>> Thank you very much.

12:44Anyone else wishing to speak in favor?

12:47If not, uh, is there anyone here

12:49speaking in opposition to this project?

12:51Please come forward at this time.

12:56Seeing none, thank you. Um, so we're

12:58going to close the public comment on

13:01this proposal and board. Um, thoughts,

13:05motion, where are we?

13:08Any questions, clarifications for the

13:11for the owners?

13:16No. Okay.

13:19>> Yeah. I just um I have clarification or

13:22just a question. So, it looks like it

13:24was a a [clears throat] flat roof

13:26>> and then at some point it was shimmed.

13:28>> Yep.

13:28>> And so, it was

13:29>> it was elevated at the house to draw the

13:31water away. So, that

13:34>> um addition, if you want to call it

13:35that, is going to be removed.

13:36>> Removed.

13:37>> And then

13:44>> complete remove.

14:02Will you be removing that little tent

14:04roof that

14:05>> Yes.

14:07>> What?

14:13>> No. Below that. Below that. little pent

14:15roof that attaches.

14:17>> No. Yes. That that component will that

14:20be replaced in in total as well?

14:21>> Already

14:25shingles.

14:26>> Yeah. Okay. So that's Okay. So that

14:29remains

14:31>> correct.

14:34>> Correct. It's a major contributing

14:36factor to the house.

14:37>> Okay. So that remains.

14:41>> Thank you. So what you're showing is a

14:44hip roof that's going in going in its

14:46place, but you're matching the profile

14:49that's of the original.

14:51>> Oh, yeah. Of the original portrait.

14:59>> Understood.

15:01>> Okay. And so, uh, the drawings that are

15:03showing the railings that return to the

15:05house, that current new post that is

15:09buried will be fully exposed because the

15:11roof is coming all the way down and

15:12being flat.

15:24It doesn't need to meet modern code for

15:26a deck.

15:28>> Okay.

15:30All right. Okay. Those are my questions.

15:38Right

15:48on the front.

15:59>> So, there's a gutter in place and that

16:01basically will shed forward away from

16:04the house and be caught and be captured

16:06for that.

16:18Okay. Um

16:20quality of wood sounds like it's

16:22exterior an ex exterior uh material. So

16:25that sounds good for the species

16:27selection. Uh if there's any other

16:30discussion if not please make a motion.

16:32>> I move to accept the application as

16:33submitted.

16:34>> I'll second.

16:35>> Second. Any questions or modifications

16:38to that? All in favor?

16:41>> Oppose?

16:43Abstain. Motion carries.

16:46>> Terrific project. Thank you so much for

16:48being great stewards.

16:50>> Beautiful house. Thank you.

16:52>> It's a phase.

17:11Great. Thank you.

17:12>> Thank you. Great. Thank you very much,

17:14folks.

17:16>> Okay, Kate. Next on the agenda, please.

17:18>> Um, actually, the next application,

17:202623,

17:22the property owners have asked um to

17:24postpone uh this application. for 403

17:29Cedric Avenue for uh I'm sorry, Cedric

17:31Drive for gutter installation. Um and uh

17:38they did so um a couple a couple weeks

17:42ago to to ask for that postponement. So

17:45um I think we the the board can can move

17:49forward and we'll we'll hold the public

17:51hearing at the next uh at the next

17:54meeting.

17:55>> When they have additional information,

17:57>> can we just hold. We need to vote.

17:58>> Do we need Do we need to to open it

18:01first and then

18:04just be held?

18:09>> Okay. So, 403 Cedric Drive. We're going

18:10to be on hold until next meeting.

18:13>> Yes. Okay. So, the next application is

18:17>> uh CA-26-24

18:19uh for 310 Highland Avenue. This is a

18:22certificate of appropriateness for front

18:25entrance redesign. The property is in

18:28the Cedric Highland James Preservation

18:30District.

18:33>> Is that applicant here? If they can

18:35please come forward.

18:36>> Let me see if this is the right one. I

18:38can't.

18:39>> Give us your name and address and speak

18:41about the project at hand, please.

18:43>> Hi, my name is Maryanne and I live at

18:46310 Highland Avenue, Syracuse, New York.

18:48>> You can pull that down.

18:49>> Oh, thank you.

18:49>> There you go.

18:51>> Um

18:52So, we ended up getting the door redone

18:55without um consulting with anybody, but

18:59I do have the glass here.

19:01>> Okay, great.

19:02>> Thank you.

19:05>> So, we got the door redone due to lead

19:07in the house, but um we w I wasn't aware

19:10that we had to um have a meeting for it.

19:13So, after talking to our contractor and

19:15talking to Kate, she helped me um go

19:17through with the contractor. She

19:19actually met up with the contractor and

19:21um to discuss what we need to do to turn

19:24the door back into the way that it at

19:26least similar to the way that it used

19:28to. Um so the glass that I just handed

19:31you guys is the glass that he does plan

19:33on using. And he did send me a few of

19:37the stuff that um like the wooden the

19:40trimson and all that he want he plans on

19:43using I think.

19:45>> Sorry. Yeah.

19:48For some reason that page isn't coming

19:49up

19:58>> of course very very helpfully the

20:00[laughter] page

20:03>> um it's yes it's page three and your

20:06application is

20:09>> proposed

20:12>> yeah sorry about that okay so the um

20:16this is the post door that he did create

20:19and

20:20[laughter]

20:22I'm sorry. Um, yes. So, he is going to

20:26use that glass to do the um the skylight

20:30and everything like that for to so that

20:32it can at least be similar to what the

20:34door used to be. There was glass on the

20:36frames. Um, and he is I'm not sure if he

20:41he probably is going to replace the

20:43door. I'm not sure if he said he would

20:45or not, but the wood he's going to use

20:48wooden frames for the door. So, that is

20:50not white like the way that it is. Um,

20:53so where the white is is going to be

20:55glass and then the frames is going to be

20:58wooden. Um,

21:04stuff that I think I have on my phone

21:06the the product the materials that he's

21:08going to use.

21:09>> Oh, the material material I think the

21:11material is

21:14Facing and trim. Construction materials

21:162x6 by eight number one ground contact

21:19crust treated southern yellow pine

21:21>> which would be for structural and

21:23support. Decorative finishing may

21:25include finger joint border round

21:27molding or trim and detailing around the

21:28panels and framing color tozo brown.

21:32>> Yes.

21:35>> Yeah. So,

21:37>> okay. Thank you very much. As this is a

21:40public hearing, are there any folks here

21:42in the audience wishing to speak in

21:44favor of this proposal to please come

21:46forward at this time?

21:50Hearing none. Seeing none, anyone here

21:52wishing to speak in opposition to this

21:53proposal at this time.

21:56Hearing none, seeing none, we will close

21:58public comment and open it up to board

22:01deliberation.

22:03board members.

22:05[clears throat]

22:07>> Just one clarification on your drawing.

22:09>> Yeah.

22:09>> Um

22:12I can see that you're going back with

22:14something approximating the original

22:16which I appreciate.

22:17>> Um it appears just looking at the

22:20sidelines basically the section of the

22:23wood right between the house and the

22:24glass. Right.

22:25>> Yes.

22:26>> Is a little

22:28>> narrow so it's not clear whether we're

22:30actually just seeing the frame. holding

22:33the glass as opposed to a a sash where

22:36you would actually have a frame

22:39manufactured that's holding the glass

22:41and then that gets

22:43>> So he does have a original picture of

22:46the way the door used to look. So he's

22:48going to make sure to make it look not

22:52exactly but at least close to the way

22:54that it used to look.

22:56>> Yes.

22:57>> And I'm just asking [clears throat]

22:58because we're

22:59>> Yeah.

23:00>> looking at the material that's provided

23:01today. So I I wanted to confirm that

23:03that was matched the intent.

23:10>> Any other questions or clarifications

23:12from the board?

23:13>> The only other comment I would have is

23:15I'm not clear whether the glass sample

23:17that you provided tempered which is

23:20basically a means of it's a type of

23:23safety glass. So anytime you've got

23:25glazing that close to the door and you

23:26have people moving things in and out

23:29possibly glass you have people

23:34Um it's important to make sure that you

23:35use that type of safety if

23:40>> you get small kind of brown granules as

23:42opposed to sh. So that's that's the only

23:45other comment I have is just a safety

23:49>> glass and you'll know because it has a

23:52stamp on it. Okay.

23:57>> Thank you. All right. Anybody else

23:59comment? There it is.

24:02>> [laughter]

24:07>> So yeah, so just to to reiterate

24:46Yeah. So, I'm going to um like I I did

24:50tell them he and I believe Kate as well

24:52told him that we do need it to look

24:54similar to the way the door used to look

24:56and he's more than aware of that and I

24:58will re like tell him that and tell and

25:01um we state that we need to make it look

25:04the way that it used to look so that at

25:05least we can fit to the standards that

25:08it the house used.

25:10>> Yeah.

25:12>> No, I think this is a positive reaction

25:14to our comments from before. So, I

25:16greatly appreciate um you coming back

25:18and presenting this. It replicates the

25:20existing panels as it was with the

25:22original design um and the etched glass

25:26for privacy but also for that trans that

25:28transparency that the original design

25:30had without replicating the original

25:32design. So, um we we I appreciate that

25:35coming to the board with that. So, thank

25:36you very much.

25:38>> With that, do I have a motion on the

25:39table?

25:41>> I'll motion to approve the project as

25:43submitted.

25:43>> Do I have a second? I'll second.

25:45>> Thank you. Any additional comments or

25:47modifications to the motion? All those

25:50in favor?

25:51>> I oppose. Abstain.

25:55Motion carries. Thank you very much.

25:56Good luck with the project.

25:59>> Terrific house.

26:11the last um you know what I'm going to

26:14get this up on the screen.

26:32We'll see if it comes up.

26:34let you be the Yeah, here you go. Okay.

26:37So, the

26:40>> the um next public hearing is CA-26-25.

26:46It's a certificate of appropriateness

26:48for 29 2 92327

26:52Comtock Avenue. Um this is an addition

26:56um to an existing facility and the site

26:58work. It is in the B uh Berkeley Park

27:01Preservation District.

27:04Uh Ben Larson, HomeK Architects.

27:07>> Good morning. Welcome.

27:09>> Um so this [clears throat] is uh our

27:11third iteration. Um we've tried to

27:15redesign the parking to on the north

27:17lot, which is going to be our main point

27:19of contention, I believe. Um because

27:23this this lot used to be designed as a

27:25garden uh lot. Um and we the facility

27:30needs additional parking uh and zoning

27:33would also require it. So we are trying

27:36to find that balance as to what would be

27:39acceptable to the district and uh and

27:42this board.

27:45There's a couple of options that we

27:47could do for this. Um there the we're

27:53considering larger tree plantings at the

27:56back row between the two uh streets

27:58between Comtock and Circle Drive to

28:01limit the vision lines for the neighbors

28:04for the building addition itself because

28:07it is an increased height uh due to

28:09religious needs and sight lines inside

28:11the building. Um

28:15but the the parking area out on the

28:18north, uh we're trying to work out how

28:22um what additional plantings might we

28:24might be able to do to to get this

28:27through. Um, and I I believe at this

28:31point this is probably going to need to

28:33be some more a more collaborative effort

28:37between um board members, uh,

28:39residences, um, people who live in that

28:43area to try and reach some type of

28:46consensus because as it is now, it

28:49appears to be a guessing game and nobody

28:52has the time for that. Um, but if we

28:56want to go on to the building sections

28:59and building plans, I mean, the parking

29:01area

29:04essentially represents a 4,000 square

29:06foot reduction in addition to green

29:08space from the uh original parking plan,

29:11which was property line to property line

29:13paving. Um, uh, you can see in the red

29:17line, that was the building addition

29:18that was previously proposed. We've uh

29:22listened to your comments and we've

29:23reduced that building footprint by 50%.

29:27Um we've uh taken that into account.

29:31We've consolidated spaces on the

29:33interior to achieve that uh which

29:35accounts for reductions in the uherary

29:39space as well as the uh women's space

29:42above.

29:44Um continue please.

29:58planting plans.

30:01>> Uh [clears throat]

30:02the the building floor plans.

30:07>> Yes, please.

30:10>> Yeah, [laughter] if we can find them.

30:18Okay. So, what this represents is

30:21essentially for theerary space a 12-oot

30:24expansion on the back and a 12t

30:26expansion on the side. That gets us to

30:29about just under 500 uh occupants for

30:32that space. Um we could go to the next

30:35plan. The the basement has been

30:37significantly reduced. As you can see,

30:39there's a lot less wasted space. Um,

30:46we've eliminated the secondary elevator

30:49which also helps with sight lines on the

30:52exterior as well as space spatial use on

30:54the interior. Um, the functions that are

30:58not addressed in the current building.

31:01Um, we really can't reduce those any

31:04further than we already have. Uh, such

31:07as the the body receiving and cleaning

31:10areas. Um, and the second bathrooms

31:13upstairs that serves the women's needs

31:15for services. Um, we could go to the

31:19elevations if you like.

31:24So, we've simplified the elevation from

31:28previous. Uh, this represents um a more

31:32traditional uh representation of what

31:35mosque architecture would look like. Um

31:38the materials for the exterior currently

31:41are proposed as Ephus. Um however, given

31:45some feedback on that, we would probably

31:48want to transition that into a hard coat

31:50stucco over an exterior finish

31:52insulation system. Um so there would be

31:55exterior insulation outboard of the

31:58sheathing. However, we would go

31:59transition the soft coat to a hard coat

32:02which is traditionally more durable.

32:04Um, we've incorporated some texture on

32:07the on the building, but we're also

32:09trying to keep that simple. Um, the dome

32:13is still there. However, we are still

32:15below I believe the back's elevation,

32:19which would be the highest point is at

32:2136 feet above grade and the front is is

32:26less. So,

32:29we can scroll down

32:32the elevations. These represent um

32:36artificial intelligence [laughter]

32:39renderings of the plane model that we

32:41have. So the lighting shown here is

32:45probably ideal for a modern neighborhood

32:48in Southern California, but maybe not

32:50appropriate for this. Uh we haven't

32:51really developed lighting uh plans other

32:54than the site lighting that is existing

32:57and washing into neighbors properties is

32:59going to be eliminated. We're going to

33:01go with more ballard type lighting and

33:05probably a lesser maybe look more like

33:07the lower image some lighting for the

33:09building for accents, but it's going to

33:11be minimal. Um, just enough to get some

33:13light in the space so you can see when

33:15you're walking around. um

33:19uh the neighborhood elevation. I

33:21apologize. I couldn't get the uh

33:24properties behind the uh street

33:28elevation in this uh with with any

33:30reliability on height uh because I I can

33:34measure heights, but I I can't I have no

33:36idea where they relate in relation to

33:37this plan. Um, so you can see that we're

33:41still

33:43uh below the site the elevation

33:45requirements for the zoning district.

33:49Um, and we've uh significantly reduced

33:53the the visual impact of the building

33:56itself. Um,

33:59now with regards to plantings and

34:01screenings, there's probably a lot more

34:03that we can do. um and especially in

34:06regards to uh compensating the district

34:08for the parking needs uh that the client

34:11has as well as zoning.

34:14So I I believe there's a collaborative

34:16effort to state again that we need to do

34:19here between this submission and

34:22possibly the next because we would like

34:24to continuation to uh explore that with

34:28uh yourselves and members of the

34:30community. So with that, thank you.

34:34Thank you very much.

34:37[clears throat]

34:40Back to the public hearing. If there's

34:42anyone here wishing here wishing to

34:45speak in favor of this proposal to

34:47please come forward at this time. I

34:49remind you we are requesting a threeinut

34:53limit on each presentation

34:57for each presenter.

35:01Please come up. State your name and

35:02address for the record sir.

35:04>> Um Dr. Muhammad Islamic society

35:06president uh 925 obviously come

35:09>> I just want to thank everybody the board

35:11uh the neighbors with their comments uh

35:13to reach this kind of at least building

35:15wise compromise. Um I know it took a lot

35:19of time everybody I'm really thankful

35:21grateful to everybody's comments uh but

35:24as um as uh uh Ben has mentioned is

35:28going to be now is nearly discussion uh

35:31between us and the neighbors uh and find

35:34out a way to um uh have this project uh

35:39move forward. And again, I thank

35:41everybody who came here today, whether

35:43in favor or uh bring more comments to

35:46even improve this project. Thank you.

35:49>> Thank you very much.

35:52Again, anyone else wishing to speak in

35:54favor of this proposal, please come

35:55forward at this time.

36:00Okay.

36:02For those wishing to speak in opposition

36:04to this project, please come forward at

36:06this time. And again, we are requesting

36:08a three minute limit on your

36:11presentation.

36:12And if I have your name and address for

36:15the record, please.

36:16>> Of course. Good morning. My name is Matt

36:17Kissling and with my wife, Jody Upton.

36:19We reside at 108 Circle Road. We've been

36:22here before. We stand before

36:24[cough and clears throat] you in

36:24opposition to the expansion as proposed.

36:28We ask you to deny the application

36:30because as before significantly alters

36:32the historic character of our house and

36:35the neighborhood in its size and overall

36:37plan and has not addressed the many

36:39issues raised previously in this chamber

36:41by us and our neighbors. Our rear

36:44property line is shared with the Islamic

36:46Society of Central New York. We have

36:48several specific concerns that impact

36:51the historic nature of our property

36:54which we raised with Dr. Muhammad when

36:56we met with and put forth our previous

36:58comments. I would like to reiterate them

37:01here for the record. I also have some

37:02questions just for clarification as we

37:04begin. Um S2 right at the very beginning

37:08of this proposal is that view facing

37:10east or north?

37:13My understanding S3 is that facing south

37:17or west and S4 is that view facing

37:20north. I asked those because I want to

37:24make clear that we live

37:26east of the mosque. I'm not an

37:29architect. I don't know the language or

37:31the lingo and I'm I did my best to read

37:33through this to understand. If you go

37:35back to the very beginning of the

37:37proposal, you'll see pictures,

37:39photographs.

37:40>> You're referring to the site photo the

37:42packet photos, not the not the drawing

37:44set

37:46>> right at the very beginning.

37:53I'm sorry, sir. S2.

37:54>> S2. Is that facing east or north?

38:00>> That appears to be facing north.

38:03>> Okay.

38:04>> Um,

38:04>> it's labeled as east. But

38:07>> if you go just to

38:10I think that's north. S3 is facing

38:13south. I believe

38:16as we look at this on page n on page

38:20nine of this um Kate if you can move to

38:22page nine you'll see the back out

38:25building the shed

38:27>> and if you look at that view what you

38:28can see in that particular view um keep

38:31going

38:32>> S8 is that

38:36um I had on page nine is that page nine

38:40>> is that S8 picture S8

38:42>> it might be it's the the ship said that

38:45looks at

38:49>> no you pass. I think it's S7.

38:55>> That one right there.

38:56>> Is that the picture say

38:59>> there's another picture of the shed that

39:01has

39:02>> Rex's house. The Jardines.

39:04>> B1 B1.

39:05>> That one right there. Thank you. Sorry I

39:07didn't put that in there.

39:09But you can note that there are a lot of

39:11trees that block the view and the noise

39:17on the other side of the shed.

39:20On page 44

39:22of this [clears throat] project,

39:25you can see that the mature trees in the

39:27neighborhood exist and there are no

39:29mature trees. I understand that the

39:32architect just said, "We would like to

39:34consider adding some more trees." That's

39:36a nice thing to consider. It's not in

39:38the proposal. Unless there is a robust

39:41landscape architectural design that will

39:44protect our privacy and our historic

39:47nature, we have a problem with that.

39:49Quoting from the Is that time? Am I

39:51time? Okay.

39:53>> We do have your we do have your comments

39:57and we will be sure to

39:59I'll be sure to share them um with the

40:02board as well as with the applicants.

40:03So, thank you. Thanks.

40:07Okay, Rex

40:11>> Rex Jardine, 112 Circle Road. I've

40:14delivered my written comments. They're

40:16lengthy. 17 points. I'll be brief. Uh

40:19building materials proposed. Um there

40:21are some new materials proposed. There's

40:23a stainless steel tile wall paneling,

40:26which is wonderful, but it only covers

40:28about 3% of the building. Everything

40:30else is for the record. Ephus is stuckco

40:34on styrofoam.

40:38You should be familiar with it. It's a

40:40short-lived material. Totally

40:42inappropriate for the neighborhood. I

40:44could not propose IUS for my building,

40:47my house, my home. Building heights

40:50front and rear. While I appreciate their

40:52efforts to downplay the elevations on

40:54Commtock, everybody across from there is

40:57sleeping and or driving or trying to

41:00drive 30 miles an hour. Yes, we have to

41:02stay below. They actually say there the

41:04increased roof height is concentrated to

41:06the rear.

41:09[clears throat] I live to the rear. Matt

41:11and Jod live to the rear. We're facing a

41:1330 foot high, 50 foot wide sheer wall,

41:17vertical with windows at the top. pretty

41:20imposing in a in a stark white. There

41:24are ways to break that down. It's

41:25currently broken down into an

41:27articulated

41:29um elevation there.

41:32Parking versus capacity. It's clear that

41:34the parking isn't working. I think they

41:37only have about onethird of the zoning

41:40required spaces, but just to put in

41:42perspective, originally designed in

41:441980, 108 worshippers. Regularly we

41:48count 300 cars at five square feet per

41:51person which would be appropriate for

41:53assembly. The Musala 440 persons. The

41:58expanded mezzanine for women 247 persons

42:02max plus any other occupants elsewhere

42:05in the building. So capacity around 687

42:0921 spaces. Everything else probably on

42:12the street.

42:14Dumpster. Um, are you allowed to have

42:17commercial dumpsters in an R1 historic

42:19district? I don't know. There is one.

42:216:42 this morning, it got emptied and

42:23banged on the ground. Used to be on

42:25Wednesdays, typically more often at 5 in

42:27the morning. A great wakeup call. Are

42:30they allowed? And why are they pushed

42:31against my property? There is a corral.

42:34It's called a out building, but it's not

42:36really a building. It's a dumpster

42:38corral.

42:41So, I hope you consider all of my points

42:44and I think they've outgrown this site

42:46and I hope that this board does not

42:48support the submission as presented.

42:54[clears throat and cough]

42:54>> Next person wishing to speak in

42:56opposition.

42:57>> Yeah, I'm Don Peters. I live at Circle

42:59Road.

43:01I provided, excuse me, I provided

43:04written comments for your review, but I

43:06would like to address a few more this

43:08morning. Uh the data on the tables

43:10provided on sheet L1 Z overall site are

43:14inaccurate. They're almost identical to

43:16the June submitt which had a larger

43:18building footprint and different uh site

43:22layout. As previously noticed, the

43:24architectural elevation datim is not

43:27coordinated with the site drawing and

43:30survey benchmark elevations making it

43:32difficult to verify the actual height of

43:34the building. The application references

43:36the building height at 36 at the back,

43:3933 at the at front of Comtock. Uh after

43:43coordinating these architectural

43:44elevations to the survey datam, it

43:46appears the elevation at the rear of the

43:48building is closer to 38 and it's also

43:51closer to 39 ft in relation to the

43:54budding property in the east. That would

43:56be a building that's 13 ft taller and

43:58more massive along the rear as Rex has

44:01pointed out than the existing building.

44:02The increase in building size is also

44:04noticeable on Comtock section. It is out

44:08of scale with the adjacent historic

44:09residential structures. Proposed

44:12materials are different enough that

44:13these buildings

44:16that they increase rather than lessen

44:18the property's inconsistent character.

44:20Expanded pavement and building coverage

44:22would create a negative impacts to the

44:24existing tree root systems and would

44:25cause decline and loss of screening.

44:28Proposed landscape plants outside the

44:30proposed fence are not accessible for

44:32maintenance. The species is a slow

44:34growing, marginally winter hearty here

44:36and would likely not grow to intended

44:38height. Dumpsters are not addressed in

44:40R1. I think we brought that up. Uh but

44:43are addressed as related to mixeduse

44:45development adjacent to residential

44:47properties suggesting that dumpsters

44:49might not be allowed in a residential uh

44:53area. Regardless, they require closer

44:55association to the buildings uh not to

44:58the neighborhoods. Storm water runoff

45:00would increase due to the increase in

45:02impervious surfaces and building

45:05coverage. No changes to the storm system

45:07are shown to mitigate this increase.

45:11A detention basin, sediment basin,

45:13buried holding tanks, and sediment

45:15separators might be necessary for this

45:17purpose, but none are shown. So, we

45:19won't know the impacts of the site until

45:21that work is done. Although not central

45:24to your review, parking requirements

45:26cannot be met for this project. they're

45:28using an R1 uh for what really is not

45:33really an R1 use. So that's a conflict,

45:36let's say, just in general of what

45:39numbers do you really use. So um so

45:42anyway, um parking requirements cannot

45:45be met for the project. Parking is

45:47continual problem along Comtock, the

45:49adjoining streets and neighboring

45:50properties. This situation will only get

45:52worse if the building is expanded to

45:54accommodate more people.

45:57These are these and other issues must be

45:59addressed for you to make an informed

46:01decision. At this time, um I would say

46:03that you should deny the project with

46:06prejudice.

46:08>> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak

46:09in opposition to this project, please

46:11step forward at this time.

46:26>> [clears throat and cough]

46:30>> You submit this too.

46:33>> Yeah.

46:50Uh, I'm hoping to get through this in

46:52three minutes. Uh, if you go to the

46:54second page,

46:55>> your name and address for the record.

46:56>> Yeah. Mike Michael Stanton, 3.5 Berkeley

46:59Drive, Syracuse. Thank you.

47:01>> Uh, the Islamic Society of Central New

47:03York has simply outgrown the Commtock

47:05site. When the building was first

47:08proposed back in 1979,

47:10uh what was described at the time as 30

47:13to 80 worshippers, most of whom would

47:15walk to and from the mosque. I think

47:17that was true at the time. Uh it's no

47:19longer true. Today, this facility draws

47:21hundreds of worshippers from across

47:23central New York. We count at least 200

47:25or more cars on Friday afternoons,

47:27mostly parked illegally on the

47:29neighborhood streets because uh there is

47:31no legal parking there. Going to the

47:34next page. Uh, this proposal will not

47:36solve the problems of Islamic Society's

47:38parking. City zoning allows no more than

47:4120% driveway and parking coverage. This

47:43proposal would pave nearly twice that

47:45area, 39.3%.

47:47Even with this massive amount of

47:49asphalt, the new plan would provide a

47:51total of only 21 parking spaces, less

47:54than onethird of the 67 parking spaces

47:57zoning requires based on the building

47:58square footage. Today, if you include

48:01illegal parking spaces, the Islamic

48:02Society offers more than 40 spaces.

48:04Really, more like 50 if you count the

48:06double parking they often do. In short,

48:09this proposal would nearly double the

48:10size of the religious building while

48:12effectively reducing by half the number

48:14of parking spaces.

48:17Going to what's page four at the bottom,

48:20the vacant lot to the north of the

48:22Islamic Society is a contributing site

48:24within the local historic district. For

48:27over 100 years, the vacant lot north of

48:29the Islamic Society has been either a

48:31garden or a green space. Uh we hear from

48:34folks that there was a gardener working

48:37all the time in this area uh 80 years

48:40ago to to keep the garden going. Paving

48:43over this area would be detrimental to

48:45the park-like setting of the historic

48:46district. As you know, in our district,

48:49it's not just uh changes to the

48:51buildings, but also to the landscape

48:52that we have to come to you for

48:54approval.

48:55Going to page uh five. You have to turn

48:59it vertically. Uh if you look even up to

49:02the top of the picture, you can see the

49:03number of illegally parked cars over the

49:05the uh bike lanes there. Illegally

49:09parked cars on Commtock and other nearby

49:11streets remains an issue. Going to page

49:15six.

49:19How do I do that?

49:24Yes. The Islamic Society now owns the

49:26former First Baptist Church in

49:27Jamesville, 10 minutes drive away. The

49:30Islamic Society now owns the former

49:32First Baptist Church. This 14 acre lot

49:35includes 135 parking spaces and a 14,000

49:40foot religious structure. It offers

49:42enormous expansion opportunity. Compare

49:45that with the two lots on Comstick,

49:47which combined are less than one acre.

49:49>> Mike, I'm sorry. Your time is up. So,

49:52>> thank you.

49:53>> Thanks. [clears throat]

49:58>> Anyone else here wishing to speak in

50:00opposition to the proposal? Please come

50:02forward.

50:07>> Hello, Stephanie Bartling. I live at 117

50:10Circle Road. I oppose this proposal for

50:13the following reasons. As a large

50:16non-residential building surrounded by

50:18historic homes, the mosque is already an

50:20outlier in style, scale, and activity

50:23level. The expansion makes this worse.

50:26The height and size of the expansion is

50:28out of character with the neighborhood.

50:30The drawings show heights similar to

50:32nearby houses, but the roof line is in

50:35congruent and overpowering.

50:38Amid slanted, buried roofs that peak in

50:41a single point. The addition is a large

50:43solid block that will loom over the

50:45neighborhood like a giant movie screen.

50:48The drawings also ignore Berkeley's

50:50hilly terrain. The moss sits at the

50:52lowest point, so most homes will look

50:55onto the addition. From our Circle Road

50:57home, we would definitely see this big

51:00large block. Berkeley would even have

51:03bigger um issues. Three big beautiful

51:06old trees by the proposed front driveway

51:09exit are unlikely to survive. The

51:12proposal claims moving the expansion and

51:14its height towards the back of the lot

51:16benefits the neighborhood, but it does

51:18not. It actually worsens our views and

51:22brings mosque activity closer to homes.

51:26And then, of course, we have the issue

51:28with parking. It this would hold 700

51:32people with fewer than 30 legal spots.

51:34And illegal parking is a contentious

51:38issue now in our neighborhood. At the

51:40last meeting, mosque leadership said

51:42Friday cars would decrease from the 175.

51:46It hasn't. It's around 250. Two weeks

51:49ago, I counted 250 cars for the service.

51:52200 parked illegally. It's a public

51:55safety issue. K turns block fire

51:57hydrants, parking on both sides, so

51:59emergency vehicles cannot get through.

52:02Traffic is compacted, so both bike lanes

52:05are impacted. And now people are parked

52:08more on Circle Road in SU lots. Uh two

52:11weeks ago, anybody on Circle on a Monday

52:14got a ticket. Yet the 200 cars that are

52:17parked on Friday do not get tickets.

52:19Generally, police have been out three

52:22times since our last hearing here. The

52:24city seems unable, unwilling, or afraid

52:27to enforce any mosque violations. We

52:30wrote city officials, including the

52:32mayor, about parking and got no

52:34response. We asked for occupancy numbers

52:36and we were asked to foil. When the

52:39mosque bodos the second lot gardens

52:41without permission, the neighborhood had

52:42to request a stop order. And in three

52:46periods, including in 2004, the mosque

52:49opened its extra lot uh for illegal

52:52parking. Um and we had to report that

52:54too. So be careful what you approve. The

52:57historic neighborhood is vulnerable and

53:00its future is in your hands. One circle

53:03grown owner just recently sold to an

53:05investor, which really doesn't happen on

53:07Circle, and the neighbors next to the

53:09mosque just quietly moved away. If

53:11approved, the expansion problems will go

53:13unadressed and neighbors will be left to

53:16come for themselves. This could set off

53:18a domino effect of residents leading and

53:20the district will become historic homes

53:22with no one who cares for them.

53:27>> Thank you.

53:29Next person wishing to speak in

53:31opposition, please come up and introduce

53:33yourself for the record.

53:37Uh I'm Cliff Davidson uh 333 Berkeley

53:41Drive and my wife Megan uh is also here.

53:45Um we are very much opposed uh to the

53:48proposed expansion of the mosque um for

53:52many of the reasons uh that have just

53:55been given. Uh, and I also want to point

53:57out that we have a history here. The

54:01status quo is already not acceptable and

54:05not within the law. Um, you've heard

54:09about the uh illegal parking. And we're

54:12not talking about one or two cars. We're

54:14we're talking about uh up to uh 200 cars

54:18or maybe even more than that. That's the

54:20status quo. So an expansion of this

54:24project would make that problem even

54:26worse. Uh so that is why we we're very

54:30much uh against this expansion. Thank

54:33you.

54:35>> Thank you.

54:38>> Again, anyone else here wishing to speak

54:40in opposition to the project, please

54:42come forward at this time.

54:49>> Morning again. My name is Christine

54:51Capella Peters. I live on Circle Road.

54:54Of the many preservation concerns

54:55previously identified regarding this

54:57project, only one has been affirmatively

55:00addressed, and that is building mass.

55:02Unfortunately, because of that narrow

55:04focus, the project remains inconsistent

55:05with the secretary's standards and

55:07therefore would have a negative impact

55:08on the historic district. Three primary

55:11issues remain. First, building size.

55:14While the current design would result in

55:16an overall smaller footprint, any

55:18mitigation that might generate is

55:20diminished by the increase in building

55:21height and combined with the loss of

55:23vegetation, as you've heard, the

55:25properties to the east would suffer the

55:26greatest impact from a taller structure.

55:29The design intentionally concentrates

55:31increased building height nearest to

55:32these properties. Second, pavement.

55:35Sadly, the current design includes even

55:37more paved area than the previous

55:39submissions when those relatively lesser

55:41amounts of pavement were specifically

55:44identified as wholly inconsistent with

55:46the residential character of the

55:47historic district. Similarly, an

55:50elaborate vehicular circulation pattern

55:52would only emphasize the site's

55:54non-contributing character when the

55:55proposal should seek to diminish it.

55:57Emergency access is again used to

55:59justify this driveway, but the building

56:01does not exceed the minimum distance

56:03from a public street that requires a

56:05designated fire lane, and providing one

56:08anyway only exacerbates adverse

56:10conditions.

56:12More importantly, given physical

56:13constraints, the applicant cannot

56:15provide the nearly 300 parking spaces

56:17necessary to meet the documented current

56:19demand for funeral services or weekly f

56:22Friday congregational prayer. nor can

56:24they provide even the 67 spaces called

56:26for by the zoning ordinance. In fact, no

56:31no number of on-site spaces can begin to

56:34address zoning requirements, current

56:36need, or likely increase demand with a

56:38larger facility. Therefore, it is more

56:40than reasonable to severely limit the

56:43amount of pavement and yield a project

56:44that's more responsive to the secretary

56:46standards as there would be no

56:48substantive increase to the applicant's

56:50larger parking problem or the pressure

56:52it already places on the neighborhood.

56:54And third, the landscape. The revised

56:56design eliminates contributing property

56:58in the historic district and leaves

57:01virtually no significant open space.

57:03There's no comprehensive plan that even

57:05loosely resembles the design landscape

57:07traditions of the historic district

57:09which could contribute to mitigation. In

57:12fact, most of the historic trees,

57:13hedges, and shrubs on the site will be

57:16lost due to construction activity and

57:19subsequent pavement and building

57:20coverage. These issues and several

57:23additional concerns are discussed in

57:24more detail in my submitted written

57:26remarks, which I hope will be made

57:28available to the applicant. It is

57:30critical that negative impacts be

57:32addressed in concert for it is their

57:34cumulative effect that must be

57:36mitigated. The modif modest revisions to

57:38the building preprint alone cannot

57:40overcome the remaining adverse project

57:43components. It is not simply about

57:46parking lot or the height of the

57:47building. It is all the things I and my

57:49neighbors have just listed. However,

57:52significantly reducing the amount of

57:54pavement, eliminating internal vehicular

57:56circulation, and providing a more

57:58detailed and complex landscape plan

58:00might help alleviate these conditions.

58:03At this point, I ask that you either

58:05leave the public hearing open and ask

58:07for revisions or to deny the

58:09application. Thank you.

58:12>> Thank you.

58:16One else here wishing to speak in

58:17opposition to this proposal, please come

58:19forward.

58:22Ever Vanderolin 931 Commtock.

58:26Um since uh the mosque was built in

58:291979, the site was never appropriate for

58:33this type of building and it still is

58:35not appropriate for this type of

58:37building. And the institutional

58:39encroachment onto our historic

58:43neighborhood has already cost us quite a

58:46few things. And two of them are we lost

58:49the house on 917 which is adjacent to

58:52the north side. We lost that in 2004

58:56when the family moved out because of all

59:00the commotion about buying the lot. As

59:02soon as they bought the lot, the family

59:04moved out because they did not want to

59:06raise their newborn

59:09daughter next to a city parking lot.

59:13Now, this month,

59:16since they since these plans were um

59:20presented to everyone finally, um the

59:23house next to me on the south side, 929

59:29Comtock,

59:30uh the after spending a lot of money

59:33fixing uh things just recently, they

59:36abruptly and quietly left. The house is

59:39empty and it is rumored it's being sold

59:42to someone in the mosque.

59:44>> You a doctor from the mosque? Doctor?

59:48>> Yes, I can buy. But is it you? Are you

59:50buying the house next to me?

59:51>> Thank you. Sorry. Yeah.

59:53>> Okay. Well, anyway.

59:55>> Anyway, um I ask that you vote no on

59:59this. And I am submitting um there needs

1:00:03to be extreme oversight because there is

1:00:05a long history of words not matching

1:00:08actions. And I have proof right here. I

1:00:10have photographs. Uh Stephanie mentioned

1:00:13that they they kept parking in the lot.

1:00:16I have over the years I have photographs

1:00:19um and I wasn't even really paying

1:00:21attention. I just happened to catch

1:00:23these, but from um you'll see on here

1:00:26from 2016, 2018 and as close as 2024,

1:00:31they open the gates and everyone's

1:00:33parking in in the lots. It's against

1:00:36code. We have to call code enforcement.

1:00:39So, there is a history. They even um

1:00:42gaslighted the board when they said that

1:00:46they needed to clean up the the lot for

1:00:50um playground equipment. They never

1:00:52planned on that. Then on um I've got the

1:00:54date here, June 27th, 2006, they started

1:00:58bulldozing the lot. They needed to

1:01:00flatten it out for the cars because it

1:01:02was too lumpy. We were able to stop

1:01:04that, but we did lose some trees. So,

1:01:07there is a history of words matching the

1:01:10actions and I have documented the parts

1:01:13I know. I do have a life so I don't

1:01:15catch everything but I just happen to

1:01:18have some of this and some of the stuff

1:01:20is that was really old is on some old

1:01:23computer and I don't have time to find

1:01:25it but I want to submit this whole

1:01:26thing. So

1:01:30[clears throat] thank you very much.

1:01:33We have anyone else in the audience here

1:01:35wishing to speak in opposition to this

1:01:36proposal? Please come forward at this

1:01:38time.

1:01:46I have your name and address for record,

1:01:48please.

1:01:49>> Gary Engelhart, 117 Circle Road.

1:01:53>> Okay, pull this up. Kate, if you could

1:01:54go to the back the bottom. Uh there are

1:01:57maps at the back. Yeah.

1:02:00Thank you.

1:02:02>> What is this document that we're

1:02:03loading?

1:02:04>> This is uh these are my public comments,

1:02:06but I'm just going to show you. If you

1:02:07could blow, if you could just uh uh zoom

1:02:10zoom that in, Kate, when you get a

1:02:12chance

1:02:14>> down

1:02:16at the bottom here. Oh. Oh. Oh. Well,

1:02:18maybe not.

1:02:20Okay, perfect. A little little less

1:02:23maybe. That's perfect. Good. Okay. So,

1:02:25thank you very much. Uh Gary Engelhart,

1:02:27117 Circle Road. I'm here uh to ask the

1:02:29board to deny the proposed mosque

1:02:31expansion because of the adverse effects

1:02:32on Berkeley Park neighborhood. Uh I

1:02:35detail this in my written comments which

1:02:36I've submitted. Uh but I want to

1:02:38emphasize the key issue here. Uh

1:02:40Berkeley Park's historic designation

1:02:41protects more than its houses. It

1:02:43includes uh it recognizes the the

1:02:45neighborhood's 1911 road system. Uh its

1:02:48narrow residential streets landscape,

1:02:50spatial organization, and importantly

1:02:51the fact that the neighborhood the

1:02:54streets and the houses in the

1:02:55neighborhood have differentiated

1:02:57elevations because it's built on a

1:02:59that's that's explicitly in in the uh

1:03:02historical listing. So uh uh uh my key

1:03:05point is is that the mosque will have a

1:03:07disproportionate visual impact within

1:03:09within the the the the district. Uh in

1:03:12to this end I've submitted uh four

1:03:14exhibits that compare the visibility of

1:03:16the mosque and its appro and it's a uh

1:03:19its approximate current height and the

1:03:21proposed height. Uh and these maps use

1:03:23the actual topography uh with along with

1:03:26building footprints and LAR data to to

1:03:29model vegetation and building heights

1:03:31and distinguish both first and second

1:03:33story observation heights. So let me

1:03:35just take you through it. So shown in

1:03:36purple is the is the on the lefth hand

1:03:38map is uh the the Berkeley Park district

1:03:41with uh streets outlined in green uh and

1:03:44and building structures outlined in

1:03:46black for reference. Uh the mosque is is

1:03:48shaded black so you can see where it is.

1:03:50And uh what you can see here is uh the

1:03:53areas shaded in yellow are areas that uh

1:03:56are nonstructure land areas like yards

1:03:59that would have a view of that have a

1:04:01view of the current mosque at at its at

1:04:03its peak. Uh and the houses shaded in

1:04:06red are the ones that can see that can

1:04:09see the mosque. This is this is in uh at

1:04:12at a twoft level of obs a 2 meter level

1:04:14of observation which is roughly a first

1:04:16floor observation uh with vegetation. Uh

1:04:20so this is the what you typically see

1:04:22for views uh in in the months from uh

1:04:25May through uh through October. If you

1:04:28go to the right hand side map you can

1:04:29see what the what the proposed view how

1:04:31the viewshed would change with the

1:04:33proposed structure which is much as

1:04:35other people have said is much more

1:04:36massive. It goes up to 36 between 36 to

1:04:3939 feet depending on on on the

1:04:42specification. And you can see that uh

1:04:45um there's a modest increase in in in

1:04:47both the land area as well as the number

1:04:49of houses that can that can that can

1:04:51view the can view the mosque. However,

1:04:54this changes uh dramatically if you go

1:04:55to the next figure Kate uh

1:05:00which is uh the next figure is uh if if

1:05:04this is uh when there's no vegetation.

1:05:06So this is uh you can think about this

1:05:08as the months of November through May.

1:05:10Now there's substantially more

1:05:12visibility. If you look at the on the

1:05:13left at the current at the current map

1:05:16uh you can see that the uh there are

1:05:19more red houses that are shaded. Those

1:05:20are those are focused on Circle Road,

1:05:23Berkeley and and Comtock and more yellow

1:05:26areas that are are shaded as well. Um

1:05:30there are in this view 34% of the land

1:05:32area uh 34% of the houses in in the

1:05:36Berkeley park under the proposed uh

1:05:38under the proposal would would have a

1:05:40view of the mosque and 21% of the land

1:05:42area.

1:05:43>> If you go hang on just I'm five more

1:05:45seconds

1:05:45>> times up.

1:05:46>> If you go to the

1:05:48>> Yeah. If you if you go to the the last

1:05:51the last figure where you'll see this uh

1:05:54at a five meter view which is roughly

1:05:56the second story of a house over 50% of

1:05:59the houses in the neighborhood would

1:06:02have a view of the new mosque during the

1:06:04winter months when there's no

1:06:06vegetation. It will dramatically change

1:06:08the character of the neighborhood. Thank

1:06:10you.

1:06:11>> Thank you.

1:06:12>> Thank you.

1:06:17>> Okay. Anyone else here wishing to speak

1:06:19in opposition?

1:06:22If not,

1:06:25opportunity for

1:06:30[clears throat] excuse me, opportunity

1:06:32for the presenter to come up and uh

1:06:35respond or add any additional

1:06:37information that you'd like to do at

1:06:38this point.

1:06:41>> Sure.

1:06:43You're the representative.

1:06:45Um,

1:06:47[clears throat]

1:06:48I'm not quite sure where to start, but I

1:06:51don't have too much time to start with.

1:06:52Anyhow, so Michael, I know this mosque

1:06:56and other people was built 1982

1:06:59[clears throat]

1:07:01and perpetual growth.

1:07:04Telling me to go to Jamesville, that's

1:07:06not acceptable. That building is not a

1:07:10mosque. That is education center. We

1:07:12took the noise from the neighborhood. We

1:07:15sent all the way there. The weekend is

1:07:17quiet because complaints was uh a few

1:07:20years back. The grass area I've been

1:07:23three years in the president. Never

1:07:25parked there. We parked only one time

1:07:27when we have to seal our parking lot. So

1:07:31we parked there for day and a half. Give

1:07:33us a break please. But also with all

1:07:37downsizing of the proposed building give

1:07:40us some credit. We try to compromise.

1:07:42This is the minimum that we can do. This

1:07:45is open way for our women, our sister,

1:07:49our ladies to come and be respected when

1:07:51they view their their loved ones. Have

1:07:55some compassion toward us. But also the

1:07:58parking understand and I was that your

1:08:02is fair and I told you that you want on

1:08:04paper, we'll put on paper for uh uh

1:08:08historic oriented landscape. We'll put

1:08:10in the paper and I promise you we'll do

1:08:14it. Yes, we need a few parking extras so

1:08:17when they come with their with their

1:08:19loved ones, the the the close family can

1:08:22view the the the body. We're not asking

1:08:25for 200. And you've been sending 300

1:08:28cards. If I if I put cars on KSTA

1:08:32completely from first stop sign north

1:08:36all the way to Calvin east Calvin sign

1:08:38you cannot put 300 cars there you can't

1:08:42and the police the police the city comes

1:08:45every week and people get ticketed I

1:08:48don't don't repeat so there are few

1:08:50things that we're going to take and work

1:08:53on and we're going to as I said it

1:08:55should be after there should be

1:08:56neighboring discussion to find a a

1:08:59common ground. So we're happy and the

1:09:02neighbors also happy. After all, you are

1:09:04my neighbors. We cannot keep doing that

1:09:07for a long time. Your kids, our kids,

1:09:11they we should not have this future sort

1:09:13of uh this kind of history affect the

1:09:16future. We're not asking too much. Thank

1:09:19you.

1:09:22>> Thank you. At this point, we'll close

1:09:25the public comment.

1:09:28Do we have any questions on the

1:09:30proposal,

1:09:32>> clarifications?

1:09:35You have

1:09:36>> I just wanted to say I think my

1:09:38understanding is that you'd like to hold

1:09:40the you'd like to ask the board to hold

1:09:42it open um

1:09:44for uh the public hearing open at this

1:09:47point. So to make no to take no action

1:09:49at this point um pending review of the

1:09:52the comment and further discussion. Is

1:09:54that correct? Okay. I just wanted to

1:09:56clarify that for the board.

1:09:58>> Okay. Um there's a question in the

1:10:00audience. Are we allowed to

1:10:09>> Yes. Yeah. Well, uh the board is able to

1:10:11open the com uh the public comment back

1:10:13up again. We've we've not closed the

1:10:15public hearing. It's just the the public

1:10:17comment for today. Thank you.

1:10:21>> Okay. So as I understand it, we'll keep

1:10:23this open at the request of the

1:10:25applicant for additional comments. Do we

1:10:28have a conduit to get these comments to

1:10:32the applicant within

1:10:35>> all all written comment will be provided

1:10:37to the applicants. Um

1:10:39>> I heard that was one of the biggest

1:10:41issues that from your from your side you

1:10:45saying that you'd like to hear all this.

1:10:46So

1:10:51I just want to make sure we've we've got

1:10:53that covered and we can provide that in

1:10:55short time so we can in another three

1:10:58weeks when we're back here we have a we

1:10:59have a a solution on hand or a final

1:11:02design on hand.

1:11:07>> However, it is a good opportunity if the

1:11:08board does have have comments or

1:11:10questions at this point.

1:11:16I guess I want to start by saying thank

1:11:18you for reducing the scale of the

1:11:20building addition. Um I think that's

1:11:22something we specifically specifically

1:11:24asked for last time and you met that.

1:11:32>> Any other board comments,

1:11:34clarifications, questions?

1:11:36>> I do have a couple of questions.

1:11:38[clears throat]

1:11:38>> Go ahead.

1:11:39Um just primarily as they pertain to

1:11:43materials

1:11:44um would it be possible to get a sample

1:11:46number one of the stainless steel that

1:11:48you guys proposing? It says it's pearl

1:11:51something like that. I can't tell from

1:11:53that.

1:11:55>> I also

1:11:57you know that these will be aluminum

1:11:59clad wood windows.

1:12:01>> Yes.

1:12:01>> With a clear anodiz. So is that

1:12:04replacing all of the existing windows as

1:12:06well? I was trying to

1:12:08>> um No,

1:12:09>> the application looks like the existing

1:12:10windows are white. Unless it's just

1:12:13>> Yeah, they're the existing windows

1:12:15currently are to remain.

1:12:18>> So, those are white,

1:12:20>> I believe. So,

1:12:21>> but the new ones will be anodized.

1:12:24>> Uh yeah, they'll be clear anodized.

1:12:26Yeah,

1:12:28>> I was I was I appreciated the intent

1:12:32with the the encapsulating everything in

1:12:34EIS. Number one, I'm so sorry that the

1:12:37building was never built with insulation

1:12:39>> in our climate that that somebody even

1:12:41did that. But so I appreciate at least

1:12:43the

1:12:44>> 80s

1:12:44>> thermal uh improvement for for occupant

1:12:47comfort, but also to try and provide a

1:12:50more unified appearance to the overall

1:12:53um property, but I would I would expect

1:12:56that

1:12:58something like would be done with the

1:13:01windows to create that enhance that more

1:13:03unified app. So,

1:13:05>> okay. Yeah, we can we can

1:13:07more of a color thing.

1:13:10>> Yeah. Yeah, there's not many left. We

1:13:12can do that.

1:13:13>> Um

1:13:15I also I noticed in your rendering you

1:13:17have a pattern in all the windows. Can

1:13:21you just is that just hypothetical? Can

1:13:25you speak to how you anticipate that

1:13:27would be affected? that is a result of

1:13:30trying to not have residential furniture

1:13:33inside the house when AI tries to render

1:13:35these things. Um, but it is

1:13:37representative of the interior screens

1:13:41that we want to put up that for the

1:13:43religious space that would resemble

1:13:45Islamic uh faith.

1:13:47>> And do you have an idea how that might

1:13:50be

1:13:52affected?

1:13:54>> They would be on the interior.

1:13:56>> So they These are like this is a

1:13:59>> film. It's a laser cut screen.

1:14:02>> I believe they we're looking at uh wood

1:14:05uh muttons carved interior applied.

1:14:10Um, I I would also like to see I mean I

1:14:14I understand some of the reservations

1:14:16about that were expressed about this,

1:14:17but I I appreciate that you also

1:14:20acknowledge that that there might be

1:14:23some concerns about that and sort of go

1:14:25a hard stucco. Um, would that be in a

1:14:28heavier texture than and would you still

1:14:31plan to retain all the insiz patterning

1:14:35on the property? The insiz pattern uh is

1:14:39intentional to express the from the

1:14:42outside the difference when between the

1:14:44religiousary space and uh the entry and

1:14:47then the rest of the building.

1:14:49>> Okay. But you would still maintain that

1:14:50even change in slight change in

1:14:52material.

1:14:53>> We would like to I'm just looking for

1:14:55clarification.

1:14:57Um

1:14:59[clears throat]

1:15:00I think that's it for the moment.

1:15:06Are you speaking to there's comments

1:15:08about the scale of material and the loss

1:15:11of the scale that currently exists on

1:15:13the building is that component is that

1:15:16as well in the language

1:15:22>> standpoint

1:15:31this might be a code thing but who's

1:15:33who's verifying

1:15:35because we keep hearing different from

1:15:37what the rendering has to what uh other

1:15:41people are are finding standpoint

1:15:46that

1:15:48>> that sounds like from a spatial

1:15:49standpoint what we're considering as

1:15:52consistent right

1:15:53>> yeah we're using the landscape

1:15:55architect's grade lines um and then

1:15:57we're importing those into our Revit

1:15:59model and then we're measuring directly

1:16:01from the model

1:16:04Only other thing is uh talked about

1:16:07lighting at the beginning but didn't

1:16:09have

1:16:12laid out if something that we can

1:16:14diminish.

1:16:16>> Yeah.

1:16:17>> Yeah. We definitely want to

1:16:20>> Yeah. eliminate the current elevated

1:16:22lighting that is washing the neighbors

1:16:24yards um especially in the winter time.

1:16:27And we wanted to go with a much warmer

1:16:29ballard mounted light fixture that would

1:16:31essentially shine down onto the

1:16:32sidewalk. Um, yeah, facing the interior

1:16:37of the property is what we want to do.

1:16:38We don't want anything washing out, but

1:16:40there there's always light always

1:16:43reflects, but the intent is to negate as

1:16:46much of that as possible.

1:16:50>> On the excuse me, [clears throat] on the

1:16:52lighting comment, I know originally you

1:16:55had um wall mounted. So now it's

1:16:58primarily ballard mounted. So it's a

1:17:00lower light.

1:17:01>> Yes.

1:17:01>> Less intense, less flooding.

1:17:02>> Yes.

1:17:05Does Okay.

1:17:07>> Well, some of it appears to be

1:17:10[clears throat] lighting on the building

1:17:11>> as well. So there's some shown on the

1:17:14renderings. Um Yeah.

1:17:18>> Yeah.

1:17:19>> Okay.

1:17:20>> Yeah. something washing the the wall of

1:17:22the building to try. But I mean that

1:17:25that's something that's we can take out

1:17:27too.

1:17:32Any other comments?

1:17:34Okay. I have the request to hold this uh

1:17:37hold this open until next meeting for

1:17:40additional uh we'll get you these

1:17:42additional comments to you to your team

1:17:44so you can internalize and and respond

1:17:47and next steps just vote to hold it open

1:17:51or that clarification.

1:17:57>> Okay.

1:17:58>> Can I just say one thing though? Um, it

1:18:01seems like there's a, you know, butdding

1:18:04of heads. So, sounds like you guys want

1:18:06to be able to meet together and mediate

1:18:08through that. And I'm sure there's

1:18:09probably some that don't want to be

1:18:11built at all, but I don't know if the

1:18:14council member, you guys, Eric, can be

1:18:15the mediator. You at least guys can get

1:18:17together and talk. Um, from that

1:18:20standpoint, it sounds like you want to

1:18:23discuss, but I think there's an issue

1:18:27with uh, and I think reaching out to

1:18:29your council maybe that he can be the

1:18:31mediator and you guys can work it out,

1:18:33but that's up to you guys.

1:18:39>> Yeah, I just wanted to make that

1:18:41comment. sounds like that's what you get

1:18:44>> and you can email me at my firm and I'll

1:18:47make sure you get included on the invite

1:18:50so we can try to work this through

1:18:52>> because I I mean we obviously sense it

1:18:55that there's there's this this

1:18:57disconnect and this potentially deep

1:19:00[clears throat] understand

1:19:01misunderstanding of what uh the

1:19:03requirements are for the Islamic

1:19:05religion. Uh connection to the cemetery

1:19:08is key. Um it's not that can be moved

1:19:13and with the negation of Jainsville

1:19:16Cemetery, this is the last remaining

1:19:18option. Um so in in respect of the

1:19:22Islamic religion,

1:19:25they need this expansion to uh

1:19:27facilitate their funerals. Um

1:19:32yeah.

1:19:39Okay. Thank you very much.

1:19:46>> So it will be held until and so the next

1:19:47meeting is believe the 29th

1:19:52of October.

1:19:54Thursday the 29th.

1:19:59>> Yes.

1:20:00>> Thursday the 29th. Okay.

1:20:01>> Thursday the 29th is it will be held

1:20:03open until then. So thank you everyone

1:20:05for for attending. Yeah. Thursday the

1:20:0829th will be the next Landmark

1:20:10Preservation Board meeting.

1:20:13>> Thank you.

1:20:14>> Thank you.

1:20:16>> And I have

1:20:17>> anything else left on today's agenda?

1:20:19>> Nothing else on the agenda?

1:20:23>> Nothing else.

1:20:24>> No.

1:20:25>> Okay. Can I have a motion to adjurnn?

1:20:29>> Second.

1:20:29>> Second.

1:20:30>> All right. All in favor?

1:20:32>> Oppos? Abstain. Motion carries.

1:20:35>> Oh, she left already.

1:20:37Great job everybody.

1:20:39>> Thank you very much.

```*