[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.

Syracuse Board of Zoning Appeals, Thursday, December 18th, 2025

Transcript