Syracuse Common Council holds hearing on possible revocation of special-use permit for East Cobbler Street store

The Syracuse Common Council held a public hearing on revoking a special-use permit for the property at 1202–1206 East Cobbler Street after city officials reported unlicensed cannabis and tobacco sales and an Onondaga County Health Department violation for illegal flavored vapor products.

The hearing matters because the zoning administrator asked the council to revoke the property’s special-use permit, saying the alleged sales had “a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood,” and because the outcome could affect whether the store may continue operating in that location.

Craig Billinson, an attorney representing Big SU Food Market and the property owners, asked the council to continue or table the hearing so he could review code-enforcement materials and confer with city attorneys. “I’m requesting that the common counsel also table this public hearing or continue it, to give me an opportunity to complete my review and to confer with attorney Carpenter,” Billinson said.

Rob Carpenter, an attorney in the City of Syracuse Department of Law, told the council the matter involves two separate administrative processes: a request from zoning administrator Jake Dushaw that the council revoke the property’s special-use permit, and a separate code-enforcement administrative hearing on the division’s decision to deny a certificate of use. Carpenter said the division of code enforcement’s denial will be the subject of a separate hearing before a neutral hearing officer and that he had granted Billinson an adjournment for that certificate-of-use proceeding so the business could prepare.

Carpenter summarized the city’s allegations: “There was unlicensed cannabis sales occurring at the property. There was unlicensed tobacco sales occurring, and there was recently a violation issued by the Onondaga County Health Department for illegal flavored vapes,” he said, adding that those matters are violations of local licensing schemes and that the zoning administrator’s report explains the reasons for seeking revocation.

The council did not vote at the public hearing. After public remarks, the presiding officer declared the hearing closed and said the legislation will be considered during the council’s regular order of business. No formal revocation vote or other action on the permit was recorded at the hearing.

Next steps: the division of code enforcement will pursue its administrative certificate-of-use proceeding (with a separate hearing officer) and the council will consider the zoning-administrator’s revocation request during its forthcoming legislative agenda. The council did not set a date for any vote during the public hearing.