Month: September 2015

In August I FOILed the city about a number of issues.  One of my requests involved what appeared to be a lack of compliance with the Special Permit issued to Saratoga National that limited them to no more than three large events a year.  The response to the FOIL as regards this matter (The FOIL involved other documents which I will cover in the future) was quite remarkable.  According to the city attorney, they have no records regarding responsibility for monitoring compliance with the stipulations in the special permit issued to Saratoga National, at least as regards large events.

This prompted me to write the following email to Mayor Yepsen with copies to the council:

To:  joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

Cc:  Christian E. Mathiesen; Skip Sciroco; John Franck ; Michele madigan

Subject: Oversight

Date: September 17, 2015

According to the original special permit issued in 1998 to Saratoga National Golf Course, they agreed to limit their “special events” by which was meant, events that exceeded their regular parking to only three a year. It is apparent that based on their promotional materials on their web site and other information that they are routinely violating this commitment. In 2007 when they asked for a substantial expansion to their project they reasserted that they would keep to their original commitment of only three events.

In August I asked Kate Maynard, the city planner, who was responsible for insuring their compliance with their Special use Permit? She did not know and I followed up with an email/FOIL. I received a letter dated September 17 from Vincent DeLeonardis, the city attorney, in response to my FOIL in which he states “Please note we do not have any records regarding who is responsible for monitoring Saratoga National’s special events as defined in the Special Use Permit.”

I find this quite strange. Some weeks prior I called Geof Bourneman who was the previous head of planning. He was, in fact, the head of planning at the time of the original application. Mr. Bourneman told me that the building inspector was responsible for enforcement of compliance with such things as Special Permit agreements. At the time, I approached Mr. Steve Shaw, who is the current building inspector. He told me that he was in fact responsible but that given his available time and the many special use permits and other such documents approved by the Planning Board, it was not possible for him to regularly monitor such things. I believe his description is quite reasonable and I have no criticism of him. I asked what I could do in light of the apparent on-going violation of this stipulation in the Saratoga National Golf Course Special Permit. He told me to send him an email with an inquiry and he would try to look into it.  I did so.  I have not had a response as of today.

So on the one hand, the previous head of planning and the current building inspector believe that there is someone responsible and yet the formal response from the city is that the “city has no records regarding who is responsible…” I hope you find this as disturbing as I do.  I find it particularly problematic that based on the response from the city attorney that there is not only no formal vehicle for enforcing a very important agreement but there does not seem to be any concern about the fact that there is none.

I am not being rhetorical when I ask, what is the purpose of a special permit if there is no document assigning responsibility for enforcement let alone an actual person to do the enforcement.

I would be grateful if you or someone you assign with the task, could address this issue by indicating what actions the city plans to take to correct this problem.

---

Currently SNGC is permitted to have up to 3,000 people at an event.  The new language for a resort currently sets no limits and it appears that SNGC feels free to stretch beyond the limits currently.  I always wanted to go to a Stones concert.  Maybe I will be able to rent a chair in one of the backyards of the people who live around Lake Lonely and have my dream come true?  Hello Lake Lonely!

According to Saratoga Grid Link To Story

John Safford has accused Joanne Yepsen of stalling the vote on Saratoga National Golf Course until after the election.  She in turn accuses Safford of not understanding the land-use planning process.  She does note that the “applicant” changed the proposed language requiring the delay.

As people who follow my blog know, I am not uncritical of Joanne Yepsen but this really is a cheap shot by Mr. Safford.  This would assume that Saratoga National Golf Course was somehow colluding with Yepsen to delay the process.  I fully believe that Saratoga National and their attorney, Michael Toohey, are perfectly capable of acting in bad faith on their own.  I share Commissioner Mathiesen’s critique which is that they changed the language of their proposal on the day of the hearing because they themselves wanted to create enough chaos to avoid a vote and delay the process beyond election day.

Commissioner Mathiesen only defeated Wirth by 59 votes in 2013 and Mayor Yepsen only defeated Shauna Sutton by 342 votes so both of them are vulnerable.  Since Commissioner Madigan had announced that she would not support the version that would have been voted on on Tuesday night, it is reasonable to assume that Saratoga National did not want a “no” vote and decided to upend the process and delay it until after the election.  There is relatively little delay and if things were to go well for Saratoga National in the election they would have the votes they need in January when the new council is seated.

Having said that, I am regret to note that I am sure Mayor Yepsen is indeed relieved that there is a delay.  She has been anything but “transparent” in this process.  Commissioners Franck has been more than clear that he supports SNGC and Mathiesen and Scirocco have been equally clear that they oppose it.  Madigan was clear that she would oppose the proposal that came from the Planning Board and she stated clearly that she opposed the revision submitted by Toohey.  Mayor Yepsen, on the other hand, has been conspicuously quiet at the table on this issue.  Her statement to my blog was carefully crafted to sound thoughtful without responding to any of the substantive issues.  No one, but maybe her inner circle, knows what she thinks of the project but many believe that she plans to support it.  Were she to vote for the project she would alienate enough of her base for it to be a factor in an election defeat.

I think that Safford would have been on solid ground to have criticized her for ducking the issue.  The accusation that she somehow manipulated Saratoga National to delay the vote is pretty absurd.  He either misspoke or he is guilty of another conspiracy theory of which we have too many.

There will be a meeting of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee on Saturday, September 19^th at 9AM in the Harry Dutcher Room of the Public Library.

According to Charlie Brown, the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee chairman, there will be a discussion of the Saratoga National Golf Course’s proposal to build a resort in the city’s greenbelt.  Mr. Brown indicated that members of the committee will be able to offer resolutions on the issue for consideration of the committee if they so choose.

Mr. Brown told me that all registered Democrats are welcome to attend the meeting.  He also indicated that registered Democrats may address the committee at the discretion of the chairman.

At last night’s meeting following the hearing and on the Public Safety’s part of the agenda, there was a discussion about the resort proposal.  Chris Mathiesen expressed frustration about the last minute action by Saratoga National proposing a new zoning amendment.  Skip Scirocco expressed his concern about why the change was submitted on the day of the meeting.  He wondered out loud about “shenaningans.”  John Franck responded defensively offering a red herring about why it would been bad to call off the hearing.  None of the Council was arguing that the hearing should have been called off.  It was clear that Franck was trying to divert the conversation from being critical about Saratoga National submitting their change at the very last moment.

There was then a discussion about what to do about the new proposal.  It was clear that both Mathiesen and Scirocco thought that quite enough time had been devoted to Saratoga National’s many forays and that the Council needed to vote in a way that made that clear.  In the ensuing discussion John Franck and Joanne Yepsen supported sending the new language to the Planning Board.  Michele Madigan stated that she saw merit in the revision and would support sending it on.  No actual action was taken.

Jane Weihe spoke to Commissioner Madigan the next day about the new proposal.  Madigan said that she was quite fatigued when the topic came up that night (given the hour one would have had to be on drugs not to be tired) and said that on further reflection she thought the proposal was fatally flawed and would not support it.  Here is her follow up email:

From: Michele Madigan

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:01 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: SNGC

Hi John,

I understand there is some confusion or unsettlement about a statement I made last night at the
City Council Meeting.  I stated on Monday morning that the definition that was before the
Council, that came back from the Planning Boards, was not something I could support.  An
amended definition came in on Tuesday morning, which I have not reviewed until today,
Wednesday morning.  This new definition is missing elements I would need to support this to
move on for a merit for review, hence the way it is written now, I would not support this latest
definition.

Thank you,
Michele

This is not to say that she would not consider other proposals in the future.

Joseph Levy sent a comment on my hearing post.  As in past comments, it was so good that I am making it into a regular post so that everyone gets it.  Here it is:

I was also at the Council hearing. When I arrived about 6:45PM, the chambers were full, so I joined the crowd of about 30 or 40 people in the hall where a projector and screen were set-up for the benefit of those unable to find seats inside. Judging from their tee-shirts, half of my companions were from the Carpenters Union. For the most part, they seemed bored with the proceedings, reading papers and joking around.

Most of the pro Golf Club expansion speakers seemed to be working from the same list of talking points, much the way Roger Ailes preps the Fox News presenters every morning with catch phrases to sprinkle into their shows throughout the day. In this case, the points included:

1. Failure to approve the variance (overlay, zoning change, whatever you want to call it) would mean a loss of revenue to other nearby destination resorts, such as the Sagamore at Lake George.

2. Opponents should learn to compromise and not reject this project out of hand.

3. Increased tax revenue would lower property taxes.

4. There would be more high-paying jobs for the community.

5. There would be an increase in business downtown.

In addition to Harry Moran of Sustainable Saratoga, John gave an entertaining description of his attempt to find and navigate the Nature Trail. He also pointed out many specific violations of the terms of the variance which was granted when the Saratoga National Golf Club (SNGC) was originally established.

A woman, whose name I didn’t catch, made some excellent factual points, as well. She mentioned that establishing the Golf Club in the Greenbelt in the first place was the compromise and that this expansion is simply a land grab after the fact. In addition, she mentioned that the average worker there makes only $8,000 per year (I imagine that many are part-timers or seasonal) and that the economic impact of sporting venues in Saratoga is way down the list of top economic generators. A few years back, a study found that the biggest local drivers of the economy were actually Saratoga Hospital and Skidmore College. (I remember that study, but could not immediately locate a copy.)

Another gentleman pointed out that despite the growth of million dollar houses and multi-million dollar projects over the past 20 years, there has never been a reduction of property taxes. Increased revenue just goes to fund increased costs.

Let me add that by definition, a “destination resort” implies that you never have to leave the grounds for food or entertainment. Expect on-premises restaurants and shops to keep many guests from visiting downtown Saratoga. In fact, with easy access from Exit 14, they may never even realize that a downtown exists.

I should also point out that a decade ago, the Anderson Group tried to build the 260-unit Spring Run Village on property immediately adjoining the SNGC’s. If the SNGC gets it’s way, you may expect the Anderson Group to revive their plans, too.

For the most part, supporters of the SNGC had no hard facts to present, economic or otherwise. Despite their large turn-out, their appeal was largely based on the premise that all growth is good, with not much else to say. It was up to a hand-full of opponents to present actual facts and figures.

Just when you thought the campaign by Saratoga National could not get any more Byzantine, it did.

The subject of the hearing  tonight was supposed to be the changes to the city zoning law and the Comprehensive Plan recommended by the Planning Board. 

The City Council met on Monday for its regular “agenda meeting.”  At Monday’s meeting Michele Madigan made a point of telling her colleagues that she could not support the Planning Board’s amendments.  What I found interesting was the universal reaction among people I know.  They were highly skeptical about her actually blocking Saratoga National’s plans.

So the next day (the day of the actual hearing), low and behold, Michael Toohey sent a revised version of the zoning changes to the Council.  The hearing was now absurd since people were being asked to testify about a document that for all intents and purposes was obsolete.  Nevertheless, the hearing was allowed to proceed over a dead document.  It is quite stunning the power of Saratoga National to arbitrarily rewrite the language of a city ordinance over and over.

Here is the full text of the “new” changes submitted by Toohey (the bold type indicates the changes to the Planning Board’s recommended wording)

---

.Amendment to Chapter 240 of the City Code of the City of Saratoga Springs, New York entitled Zoning Ordinance by the addition to “Appendix A – Definition of Terms” the following definition:

“Golf Resort”. A full regulation size 18 golf course and associated structures which may include amenities such as clubhouse, locker rooms, spa, health and fitness center, golf and fitness related retail, restaurant and banquet facilities, business center and temporary lodging.

And an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by the addition to “Section 6. Supplemental Regulation” a new subsection 6.3.6 Golf Resort as follows:

“6.3.6    Golf Resorts

The following shall apply to any Golf Resort located within the Rural Residential District (Conservation Overlay District) in addition to any requirements related to a Special Use Permit or Site Plan Approval:

Intent: Facilities for golfing have existed in the City of Saratoga Springs for many decades. The well-planned and orderly construction of one or more golf resorts in the City is consistent with our identity and reputation as a world class resort area. It is important, however, to establish requirements for golf resorts that will not interfere with City priorities including but not limited to open space, greenbelt conservation, and scenic beauty. A properly designed golf resort development with sufficient open space and natural resources protection and opportunities for public recreation could provide positive contributions to the City as well as to the long term preservation of the surrounding greenbelt.

Minimum Lot Size: A Golf Resort shall not be located on any parcel(s) of land containing less than 300 contiguous acres.

Clustering: All structures and related site development shall be situated within a limited and defined portion of the lot(s) which allows not less than 50% of the lot(s) to remain as permanently protected open space. A minimum of 35% of the developed area shall remain permeable.

Setback: All facilities other than the golf course, golf school, pump house, restrooms, storm shelter facilities and maintenance facilities shall be located at least 3,000 feet from the primary road entrance.

Height Restriction: No structure may be more than 50 feet or three stories in height.

Lodging Facilities: There may be not more than 100 guest rooms in a single structure providing temporary lodging. Additional temporary lodging may be provided in not more than six (6) smaller, freestanding structures containing common areas and up to eight (8) guest rooms but with no associated kitchen facilities. Temporary lodging facilities shall not be used as seasonal or year-round residences.

Residential Use Restriction: Other than temporary lodging facilities approved pursuant to these provisions, no single family or multi-family residential development or use shall occur on any Golf Resort property.

 Preservation of Open Space: The developer of any Golf Resort shall dedicate not less than 50% of the unconstrained land for open space purposes. The open space protected pursuant to this section must have “conservation value” which shall be determined by a conservation analysis as described in City Code Section 241-12B(2). The amount of land available for non-golf and recreational purposes in a Golf Resort shall be limited to the land available for development after the conservation analysis or forty (40) acres, whichever amount is less. Other than a maintenance area, golf school, golf course and recreational physical improvements, all buildings constructed within the Golf Resort shall be within the Clustered Area described in subparagraph “C” above. This open space protected pursuant to this section must provide a new recreational opportunity available to the public in an area where there has not been such an opportunity, public access to an important natural park area, or the permanent protection of an important environmental resource. Such land shall be contiguous and of such size and shape as to be usable for either passive or active recreation or for preservation of a substantial amount of land with conservation value. As a condition of Special Use and/or Site Plan Approval, the Planning Board may establish such conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of this open space land as it deems necessary to ensure the preservation of such land for its intended purpose. Open space land shall be protected by a perpetual conservation easement and may be offered for dedication to the City, County or State governments, transferred to a nonprofit organization acceptable to the City Council, held in private ownership or help in such other form of ownership as the City Council finds appropriate to properly manage the open space land and protect its recreation and/or conservation value. If the organization designated to own and/or maintain the open space land or any successor organization fails to maintain the property in a reasonable condition in accordance with the plan for its intended use, the City may assume responsibility for such maintenance and assess the cost against the property owner. The developer of any Golf Resort shall be responsible for maintaining the open space until it is legally accepted by the City or other designated entity.”

Inconsistency: In the event of any inconsistency between or among any of the provisions of these Supplemental Regulations or any other provision of the City Zoning Law, the provision(s) most protective of open space conservation values shall apply.

Comprehensive Plan

This Amendment to the Zoning Code is consistent with the Adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Saratoga Springs and, as a result, there is no need for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

---

Toohey promised the council that no matter what, Saratoga National would limit their development to no more than forty acres.  Michele Madigan’s assurances that this project would be limited to twenty-five acres seems to have been breached.  He implied that the rest would be in some kind of easement but his explanation was fuzzy to say the least.  I have made a number of efforts to plough through this document but I find it very confusing as to what can be built where.  I suspect this is not simply a matter of poor writing.  Saratoga National has now got the bit in their teeth.  Notice how unclear the document is as to what kind of commercial activity they can now do out there.  In some ways, this document appears worse than the previous one.  You can build a lot of stuff on forty acres.

None of this in fact made any difference to those who testified because no one addressed the wording of the old document. What people did was basically state that they were either for a resort or against it.  As always, Harry Moran of Sustainable Saratoga provided a substantive statement on the issue.

Saratoga PAC turned out in force.  They lined up early at the microphone and they dominated the first half of the testimony.  Pretty much everyone who spoke for it had donated money to the PAC and represented the traditional network of money and power in the city.  They made the expected points over and over.  “Saratoga must move forward or die.”  “We are losing business to other destination golf resorts.”  “The city will enjoy a boon of new tax revenue.”  “The opponents of the project only say ‘No'” etc., etc.

As the evening wore on the opponents of the change basically spoke about how the impact of having such intensive activities would commercialize what is supposed to be a quiet, rural, greenbelt.  They questioned just how generous the easements would be.  They spoke passionately about the frustration of having to fight over and over again to protect the greenbelt.

John Franck noted that in light of the new wording that it was unlikely that there would be a council vote before the next election.   What a surprise!

I received this release from the folks at Saratogians Against Vegas Style Expansion (Welcome back):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 15, 2015

Election Season Heats Up: SAVE Saratoga Steps Back into The Ring

Saratoga Springs, NY – As election season heats up in Saratoga Springs and the contentious divide surrounding development in the Greenbelt draws new candidates and never before seen PAC’s to the arena, SAVE Saratoga speaks out with their enduring mission and commitment to the citizens they represented in 2014 to keep casino gaming and on-going development threats out of the city.  “SAVE will play a role in the upcoming election because we made a promise to the thousands of citizens who trusted us to organize and keep a casino and destination resort out of our city.  We’re presenting for public record tonight, for the first time, the handwritten signatures of those more than 5,000 people.  They are still here.  And we are still here”, said Colin Klepetar, co-founder of the advocacy organization during Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting.

SAVE Saratoga will be presenting each local candidate for the November election a survey which they will use to create a voters favorability scale.  The questions will reflect the group’s ongoing mission to protect the city from increased gambling and development that is at odds with local control and which threatens our downtown district.  The results of the survey will be shared widely with the public.

“These signatures should be a powerful reminder to our City Council members, Mayor and candidates.  In total, our grassroots organization gathered 5,879 signatures in just over five months, going door-to-door, talking to folks at the farmer’s markets and local events,  and at organizing meetings.  5,879, is significant because since 2003 (that’s as far back as we could find records for on the Saratoga County Board of Elections website) no other County Supervisor, Mayor or Commissioner has received that many votes of support.  Even when they have been unopposed.  SAVE Saratoga has a massive following and because Saratoga Springs will always be an attractive outpost for gambling and outside interests, we must stay vigilant and we must continue to educate and organize the public,” said Klepetar.

SAVE Saratoga’s Enduring Mission:

SAVE Saratoga is committed to maintaining and protecting the outcomes of our successful campaign in 2014 to keep full-scale table gaming and a destination resort casino out of Saratoga Springs. SAVE will continue to work on behalf of the over 5,000 citizens who spoke up to affect this protection. Moving forward, SAVE Saratoga will work to educate the community on ongoing issues related to full-scale table gaming and destination resort casinos, as well as development that is at odds with local control and which threatens our downtown district; create transparency between candidates for local elections and the citizens of Saratoga County; and, collaborate with local organizations, elected officials and citizens to ensure the protection of the City’s Downtown Core as the driver of our local economy and the unique and historically successful balance of the City in the Country.

Join Us on Facebook: SAVESaratoga

Follow on Twitter: @SAVESaratoga

According to the November 16, 2013, edition of the Saratogian, Joanne Yepsen beat Shauna Sutton by only 342 votes in what the headline characterized as a close race.  This was when Scott Johnson was very unpopular and Ms. Sutton had been his deputy.  The unofficial tally was 4,123 for Yepsen and 3,781 for Shauna Sutton.  Link To Article

There is a distinct irony that John Safford is running on a platform based on the repeated slogan of transparency.  As most people may remember, this was exactly the same theme that Mayor Yepsen ran on.  

John Safford has made it quite clear where he stands on the proposed changes in the zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan that the Council is considering (see August 31 post “John Safford Responds To Questions About Amendment To Zoning Law and Comprehensive Plan.”)   He stated, “I would have approved the hotel at National long before the convoluted process that has unfolded subsequently.”  You may not agree with him but he doesn’t pull any punches.  If Mayor Yepsen were to come out clearly and boldly against the changes she would obviously address the transparency issue by matching Safford in her willingness to be upfront with the public about where she stands.  More importantly, she would be able make the defense of the greenbelt the defining issue in the election and distinguish herself from Safford.  Saratogians believe strongly in the value of our greenbelt and the need to protect it.  The Mayor has spoken eloquently in defense of the greenbelt in the past.   Were Mayor Yepsen to define this election on the issue of protecting the greenbelt , I think she would win the election decisively.  If she waffles, she gives Safford a weapon against her.  He can argue that on this central and controversial issue, the voters have a right to know where the candidates stand.  He can point out his own willingness to be straight with the voters and contrast himself with Mayor Yepsen.

This city is so fortunate to have the resource of Sustainable Saratoga.  Their analysis and their presentations are always clear, rhetoric free, and eminently civil.  I wish that I could write and talk as clearly as these folks.

They have posted on their web site an appeal to people to speak at the coming public hearing and they have offered a carefully crafted analysis of the problems with the proposed revisions to the city’s zoning law and comprehensive plan.  I urge people to read their analysis.   Sustainable Saratoga Link