[7:07] Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for
[7:09] December 18, 2025 is now in session. The
[7:13] first order of business is to approve
[7:15] the minutes from the September 25th,
[7:17] 2025 meeting. Is there a motion to
[7:20] approve the minutes?
[7:21] >> Motion.
[7:22] >> Is there a second to the motion?
[7:24] >> I second.
[7:26] >> Any modifications or discussion? Hearing
[7:30] none. All in favor?
[7:32] >> I Any opposition? No. Abstensions? No.
[7:37] The minutes are officially adopted.
[7:40] The board will now conduct the public
[7:42] hearing on today's agenda. First, the
[7:44] applicant or the applicant's
[7:46] representative will state the reasons
[7:48] for the requested variance and present
[7:50] any material or documentation which is
[7:53] to be considered regarding the proposal.
[7:56] Next, persons wishing to speak in favor
[7:58] of the proposal will be given the
[8:00] opportunity to address the board. Then,
[8:02] persons who wish to speak in opposition
[8:04] will will be allowed to address the
[8:06] board. Finally, the applicant or
[8:08] representative will be given the option
[8:11] to make any closing arguments or
[8:13] comments to the board. Following the
[8:15] public hearings this afternoon, the
[8:18] board may make a decision on each
[8:19] application heard. The board may also
[8:22] decide to hold its decision until the
[8:24] next public hearing. If the hearing is
[8:26] closed, no additional information will
[8:28] be allowed into the record except for
[8:30] information that the board has
[8:32] requested.
[8:34] That information will be available for
[8:36] public viewing at the zoning office in
[8:38] one park place, 300 South State Street.
[8:42] Staff will now introduce the first
[8:44] application.
[8:56] Uh, first up, we have one new business
[8:58] item. Uh, it's a use variance V-25-10.
[9:02] The applicant is seeking relief to estab
[9:05] establish an additional dwelling unit at
[9:08] a pre-existing apartment complex
[9:11] uh, located at 99 McDougall Place. Owner
[9:14] applicant is Catamount Properties LLC.
[9:16] This is an R1 zone district.
[9:20] >> Okay. Is the applicant here? And anyone
[9:23] that comes up to the microphone, please
[9:24] state your name and your address.
[9:27] >> Hello, my name is Lauren Montport. I'm
[9:29] an attorney for the applicant. My uh
[9:32] business address is 120 East Washington
[9:34] Street, Sweet 312, Syracuse, New York
[9:38] 13202.
[9:40] Um, with regards to our application, um,
[9:43] we did submit our application materials,
[9:46] uh, which I hope that you have in front
[9:48] of you. Um, as part of our application
[9:52] to add an additional basement apartment
[9:55] to one of three buildings on the site,
[9:59] uh, we have provided um, color
[10:01] photographs of the uh, apartment site,
[10:06] the streetscape as well as the completed
[10:09] apartment. Um, we've also provided um,
[10:12] site plans and floor plans as well as
[10:16] exterior building elevations. I think
[10:18] that the unique part of this application
[10:21] was that it was my understanding is that
[10:23] it had already been presented and
[10:26] approved um and my client completed
[10:29] construction of the apartment. However,
[10:31] the permits had since expired um and she
[10:35] was then informed that the apartment was
[10:38] not in compliance. So we are seeking um
[10:42] final approval now and essentially uh
[10:44] sanctioning of this apartment that had
[10:46] been completed in reliance on the prior
[10:49] approvals.
[10:53] Any questions from the
[10:55] >> uh do you know why the obviously you got
[10:58] the approval back in 20 2010 what took
[11:01] so long for renovations and
[11:04] >> Yes. Um and I my client is here too.
[11:06] They can probably speak um with more
[11:09] knowledge on the delays. I believe that
[11:11] it was just construction delays um COVID
[11:14] obviously. Uh and then um my client owns
[11:18] a number of properties in the uh
[11:20] Syracuse area and those had took kind of
[11:24] more uh precedence over this project.
[11:29] » Okay.
[11:31] >> Uh the question to staff is the intent
[11:33] here was previously approved for 15
[11:35] units. This is just for the additional
[11:38] 14th unit that's been constructed. They
[11:40] would have to come back if they were
[11:42] looking for the 15th apartment.
[11:45] Um
[11:48] yes. So and just to back up like can you
[11:52] clarify because u based on our records
[11:54] it seems permit was applied for but
[11:55] never picked up but you mentioned
[11:57] construction was completed without a
[12:00] permit without a building permit.
[12:02] >> I believe a building permit was granted.
[12:05] I um
[12:06] >> well our records show it was never
[12:08] picked up therefore never obtained.
[12:14] if you'd give me a minute. I actually
[12:16] think I have a building permit in my
[12:18] file.
[12:23] And I will say the original application
[12:25] was for one unit at 99 and one unit at
[12:29] 98 and only one unit was completed,
[12:34] which is why we're coming to you today
[12:36] asking for just that one completed unit
[12:38] to be approved.
[12:52] You'll note also on page 31 of the staff
[12:54] report that there was a a 12 month uh
[13:01] requirement that construction be
[13:03] completed within 12 months and I believe
[13:04] the applicant got an extension in 200.
[13:10] What year was it, Nate?
[13:15] » They were granted their last extension
[13:16] in 2013, but nothing's been sought since
[13:19] that time.
[13:19] >> Um, and I I do have this 20
[13:24] 2013 building permit that's for 98
[13:28] McDougall. That was the one that was
[13:29] completed.
[13:37] So th I mean this is just a placard,
[13:39] right? It doesn't
[13:41] Nate was this
[13:45] is just the issuance of a placard. So
[13:47] like it looks like you got it for 98,
[13:49] but this is this is for uh a different
[13:52] building.
[13:54] >> 98 McDougall,
[13:56] >> correct?
[13:57] Um, so
[14:00] my understanding is that there's three
[14:03] buildings that make up the apartment
[14:05] complex
[14:08] and 98 McDougall is the building that we
[14:13] are seeking approval for the completed
[14:17] basement apartment.
[14:20] The application was originally submitted
[14:22] under 9998
[14:24] McDougall because we were going to do
[14:27] one apartment in 99 and one apartment in
[14:31] 98.
[14:33] >> Well, you're according to my record
[14:35] here, it says we are talking today about
[14:38] number 99 and you're saying 99 was done.
[14:42] >> The lot is 99.
[14:44] >> There's three buildings like 789.
[14:47] >> Yes.
[14:47] >> Yeah. Right. So, so the address
[14:51] >> is 99 McDougall
[14:53] >> for today, the one you're asking for the
[14:56] approval of, correct?
[14:58] >> Um, so maybe the it's easier to say the
[15:02] mailing address, but the building on
[15:05] that address is 98.
[15:10] So, the lot itself
[15:13] is known, as I understand it, as 99
[15:15] McDougall. 99 McDougall has three
[15:18] buildings on it. 97, 98, and 99.
[15:22] >> Okay.
[15:23] >> And so today, this request is for
[15:27] building 98
[15:30] at 99 McDougall Street.
[15:35] Does that make sense?
[15:36] >> I know what you're saying, but according
[15:37] to our the the documents that we
[15:40] received from the uh headquarters, it's
[15:43] 99 is the is the building in question.
[15:46] Okay. Um, so that might have been um a
[15:50] >> their request is for 98 in what they've
[15:52] submitted uh to staff, but obviously as
[15:56] she's mentioned, the property address is
[15:58] 99. So, it's it's clear in what they've
[16:02] submitted.
[16:03] >> I see where the the issue needs to be
[16:05] confirmed by staff.
[16:09] because when I drove down there looking
[16:11] I putting it in the GPS 99 you know
[16:15] >> I guess it didn't come up even it was
[16:17] >> you've arrived and there's three
[16:19] buildings you know so I figured one was
[16:21] 97 89 but 99 I didn't even see a 99
[16:24] number you know
[16:25] >> yeah no I um and we so we acknowledge
[16:30] that the apartment at 99 the building 99
[16:34] McDougall was never started never
[16:37] commenced we're Not here to talk about
[16:39] any apartment in the building of 99
[16:42] McDougall.
[16:44] >> Just the building of 98 McDougall.
[16:47] >> 98. All right.
[16:48] >> Yeah.
[17:00] I would hope that when if if there would
[17:02] be an emergency and you'd call 911, they
[17:04] could actually find a building. if
[17:05] they're not clearly labeled, you know,
[17:08] 98.99 and
[17:10] >> because that one building wasn't labeled
[17:12] at all on from driving in the street. I didn't see any address on it.
[17:16] >> I I understand your concern if that's
[17:18] something you'd like addressed as part
[17:20] of this application. I'm sure we'd be
[17:22] happy to do that.
[17:24] >> Um, are you aware of the other
[17:25] conditions if we were to seek approval
[17:28] today on the application in terms of the
[17:30] screening and the striping for the
[17:32] parking lot?
[17:33] >> Yes. So, I had an opportunity to talk to
[17:36] my client about that. Um, the weather
[17:37] this December has been unusually
[17:40] Syracuseian.
[17:42] Um, but yes, they are aware of the
[17:44] screening requirement and we'll comply
[17:46] with that. Absolutely.
[17:48] >> Was the intent upon the initial
[17:49] application back in 2010 to do that as
[17:51] well and that was part of it just took
[17:54] time and things happened, COVID, etc.
[17:57] that you didn't get to those additional
[17:58] conditions. That's right. Um, so I'm
[18:01] being told that they did stripe the
[18:02] parking lot, but yes, as to the
[18:04] screening of the dumpster itself. Yes.
[18:07] >> And as of right now, trash is adequately
[18:10] controlled and everything else and there
[18:12] hasn't been issues, but you understand
[18:14] the request to install screening and
[18:16] everything that about being compliance
[18:20] >> in our understanding of it. Yes.
[18:28] I'm a little perplexed as to why this
[18:30] was approved in 2010. Um because I don't
[18:32] see any evidence that without this unit
[18:34] they can't realize a reasonable return
[18:36] on investment.
[18:39] >> Technically, they should have a proforma
[18:41] attached showing the $90,000 and
[18:43] expenses and a full detail of how
[18:48] they're not making a reasonable return.
[18:50] Was that provided in 2010?
[18:53] >> Well, it doesn't it not provided here.
[18:56] Got
[18:56] >> um I don't believe it was provided in
[18:58] 2010 because the apartment hadn't been
[19:00] completed at that time. So, what were um
[19:04] the basis of our argument is essentially
[19:06] that the money has been expended um to
[19:09] complete the apartment and uh in 2010
[19:13] when the application was made, I don't
[19:14] think that those you know the money
[19:16] hadn't been expended at that time. So,
[19:18] are you saying that without the rent
[19:19] from this unit, this apartment complex
[19:21] will operate in the negative?
[19:24] >> I am saying that without the rent from
[19:26] this unit, it would be unduly burdensome
[19:29] on my client um to
[19:32] operate the the unit. I I think in my um
[19:37] papers I set out the time frame that it
[19:40] would take to recover to recoup on the
[19:43] investment. Obviously, we would recoup
[19:45] on the investment um at a better rate if
[19:48] we could actually rent the apartment
[19:50] that was built out. Um
[19:55] even even as it is with the amount spent
[19:59] on the apartment, this is the 14th unit.
[20:02] Um it will still take eight years to
[20:06] recoup on that investment. Obviously, if
[20:09] the apartment is never rented out, it
[20:12] will take more than eight years to
[20:14] recover that cost.
[20:19] » Any more questions?
[20:25] » I would just like to state for the
[20:26] record that generally when we're looking
[20:28] at this question of reasonable return,
[20:30] it's not are you getting a return on
[20:34] some investment that you made without
[20:38] prior authorization. It's
[20:41] does this change to the property uh is
[20:44] it necessary in order for the property
[20:45] to sustain itself?
[20:47] >> Absolutely. And we understand that. I
[20:49] mean, I'm standing here hat in hand.
[20:51] Yeah.
[20:52] >> Um there had been a prior prior approval
[20:55] obviously took very long time to get the
[20:57] apartment done and we're not trying to
[20:59] sugarcoat that.
[21:00] >> Understood.
[21:01] >> Yeah.
[21:03] Okay.
[21:03] >> Any any more questions or comments?
[21:07] No
[21:08] hearing. None. We will uh close this
[21:11] portion of the Thank you. We will uh
[21:14] close this portion of the hearing and
[21:16] have a discussion to see how we want to
[21:20] proceed.
[21:24] » Can Can we back up because I I just want
[21:26] to clear something up with the uh owner
[21:29] and
[21:46] Can can you just verify? So
[21:49] >> the 13th unit you got there was a
[21:51] variance in ' 86. So the 13th unit was
[21:54] approved at that point. Uh and it was
[21:57] determined it was constructed without
[21:58] permits in ' 61. Then in 2010, second
[22:02] use variance was approved for two
[22:03] additional units, which would bring it
[22:06] to 15. Are there a 14th and 15th unit
[22:09] physically in these buildings today?
[22:12] >> 14 is right. I don't think
[22:14] >> yes, the the 14th unit is completed.
[22:18] >> Uhhuh.
[22:19] >> And that is what this application is
[22:20] for.
[22:21] >> What about the 15th?
[22:22] >> That is not completed. We're not
[22:24] applying for it. It was never begun.
[22:27] >> Okay.
[22:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. So the so the building
[22:30] permit you got and the variance was for
[22:32] two, but you're saying you only went
[22:34] forward with one. Is that do I have that
[22:36] unders understood correctly?
[22:37] >> Correct.
[22:38] >> Okay, everybody's got that.
[22:40] >> Yeah, that's my understanding. Uh are
[22:42] you going to seek the 15th unit to be
[22:46] completed at any given point in time?
[22:49] >> We're trying to take the path of least
[22:51] resistance. So, uh I guess it depends on
[22:54] how today goes, but um our meetings with
[22:58] the city have indicated that was going
[22:59] to be a very uphill battle.
[23:01] >> Oh, gotcha.
[23:03] >> That's why we're here just on the one
[23:04] completed.
[23:05] >> Gotcha.
[23:13] » Should we I think um it would be prudent
[23:17] to uh adjourn momentarily to have a
[23:19] discussion with legal counsel. That's
[23:21] wise.
[23:23] >> I do call motion. Michael,
[23:25] >> may I have a motion to adjourn for a few
[23:27] moments so we may discuss
[23:30] >> with our legal person? Motion.
[23:33] >> Second.
[23:34] >> Okay. So moved.