Author: John Kaufmann

Brian Rodems lives a short distance from what had been the barn at 39 Murphy Lane.  He and the neighbors have done an extraordinary job mobilizing people to oppose what they see as a threat to their neighborhood.  Below are the documents they have sent to the Mayor’s office in an attempt to solicit assistance.  The central argument is that the majority of the Zoning Board of Appeals are more concerned with facilitating construction than in carrying out the purpose of zoning to protect the character of the neighborhoods.

Below are photos meant to show how the barn was a lovely and integral part of the community before it was torn down along with pictures of the house being built in its place.  Also below is an excellent explanation of the issues by Mr. Rodems in his email to the Mayor and the city attorneys along with a letter from an attorney representing the neighbors that lays out the legal issues.

As of this evening they have not heard from the Mayor’s office.

 

Email To Mayor And Attorneys

From: Brian Rodems [] Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016

To: Joanne.Yepsen@saratoga-springs.org; vince.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org; tony.izzo@saratoga-springs.org

Cc: christian.mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org; skip.scirocco@saratoga-springs.org; Michele.Madigan@saratoga-springs.org; john.franck@saratoga-springs.org;

Subject: Opinion from City Attorney – ZBA Procedures as outlined in City Zoning Code

Mayor Yepsen & City Attorney’s Mr. Izzo and Mr. Deleonardis:

Property owners in this community continue to be placed at a disadvantage by the very board that is entrusted with the enforcement of the Zoning Codes for our city.  We are faced with the continued threat of over development or poorly planned development that will have a deleterious impact on our quality of life and the value of our property.  It would appear that the members of the ZBA have a predilection to provide support for developers – at the expense of neighborhoods – by loosely “interpreting” the zoning code to favor developers.

A case in point is ZBA Variance #2807.1 – 39 Murphy Lane.  One only has to watch the videos from the ZBA proceedings (see City Web Site) to understand the dilemma that we face.  During the Feb. 8 meeting (beginning at minute marker 6:58), as well as the subsequent meeting on Mar 21 (watch from the beginning), you will observe:

• The ZBA discovers that the applicant has blatantly disregarded the conditions under which the original (x7) variances were granted, i.e. NO longer a renovation of a barn (and actually tore it down – see attached photos).
• The Chairman, Bill Moore, repeatedly apologizes for the mistake he made in approving the original (x7) variances (that were key to advancing this project).
• Members of the board ask the question – When are we going to finally hold an applicant accountable for NOT following board’s directives and forcing them to adhere to the city zoning codes?  In their words – they never have!
• The Vice Chair admonishes the applicant and then looks to find a “compromise”  – instead of holding the applicant accountable.
• The Board fails to follow the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code and allows the applicant to go forward with an appeal / modification to a previously granted variance.

Given this evidence, I would like to ask the City Attorney to address the following questions and to draft an opinion with regards to the procedures that the members of the ZBA must follow – as written in the City Zoning Codes:

1. Is the ZBA compelled by the City Zoning Code to follow the procedural regulations in the performance of their duties, i.e. as referenced in City Zoning Code, Section 8.5(G)?

 

For reference, see the ZBA Variance #2807.1 – 39 Murphy Lane.  In this case the Applicant is asking the Board to reconsider and modify its prior decision:

• “In order to rehear an appeal previously determined by the ZBA, the following must occur:
  • A ZBA member must move to formally rehear the appeal
  • A unanimous vote of all ZBA members present must approve the motion to rehear
  • The appeal shall be subject to the same notice provisions as an original hearing
  • The ZBA may reverse, modify or annul its original decision provided that the ZBA finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith reliance upon the reheard order, decision or determination will not be prejudiced thereby
  • A unanimous vote of all ZBA members present is required to reverse, modify, or annul its original decision”
• Please see the attached document containing a legal opinion as drafted by an outside counsel, Amy Mele, Esq., who was retained by the property owners adjacent to 39 Murphy Lane property.

2.   Is the ZBA compelled by the City Zoning Code to force compliance with a previously approved variance?

For reference, see the ZBA Variance #2807.1 – 39 Murphy Lane.  In this case the Applicant was granted (x7) zoning variances, with stipulations attached to the final ruling.  In the approved variance application the ZBA outlined explicit requirements and conditions under which the variance was granted and to which the applicant had to comply with.

Once a variance is approved, does this document become legally binding and the conditions under which the variances were approved enforceable under city code?

Once the ZBA issues a ruling on a variance request doesn’t the applicant have to comply with the conditions stated in the variance?  And, if the Applicant fails to comply with those stipulated conditions, doesn’t the city have the right to fine the Applicant for damages and/or force them to remediate.

Sincerely,

Brian Rodems

---

I know that I already posted my report on the City Council meeting that adopted a lease for the City Center but in a number of ways I think Jenny Grey’s story is better than mine so I am posting it here.

Council approves High Rock lease to Saratoga Springs City Center

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 04/06/16

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> After a public hearing that lasted nearly two hours, the Saratoga Springs City Council voted 3-2 to lease the High Rock lot to the City Center, which plans to build a parking facility on one-third of the parcel. The two dissenting votes were Mayor Joanne Yepsen and Accounts Commissioner John Franck.

“A mixed-use approach is best for the city,” Yepsen said. “So a standalone parking garage is not the best solution.”

Franck objected to what he saw as the low lease rate of $50,000 annually.

Before opening the public hearing, Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan presented the lease issue. The City Center will lease the northerly portion of the High Rock lot, leaving 93 free surface spaces. The City Center will give the city $50,000 annually as a lease payment, plus 50 percent of the net paid-parking revenues after operating costs, debt service and reserves.

(function() { var secondaryMedia = $(“#secondary-media”).css(‘height’); var factbox = $(“#factbox”).css(‘height’); var internalContent = parseInt(secondaryMedia + factbox); if((internalContent<400) || (!internalContent)) { console.log(“Article within AD”) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(“div_Cube_Article”); googletag.pubads().refresh(); }); }else { console.log(“No AD in article”); $(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘display’, ‘none’); } })(jQuery); $( document ).ready(function() { var ADbox = parseInt($(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘height’)); if((ADbox<200)){ $(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘display’, ‘none’); } })(jQuery); Advertisement

The 25-year lease will permit the City Center to build a four-and-one-half-story parking structure with 480 spots, connecting the facility to the convention center with a covered walkway. Since the facility will be built on only a part of the High Rock parcel, the rest of the land is left for the city to develop.

The City Center will pay for the construction with bonds, and paid parking will support the project thereafter.

Madigan called City Center President Mark Baker to also speak on the lease, being sure to explain the financial aspects to the public.

“This is not the Mark Baker Proposal,” he said. “But I’m excited about it as well.”

He described the parking study commissioned by the City Center and undertaken by Michigan-based firm Carl Walker in 2014, from whose numbers the City Center Authority extrapolated figures for weekends, evenings and track season. The authority also adjusted revenues, which the city council and the authority both found too conservative in the Walker survey.

“This project creates no tax burden on the city,” Baker said. “The parking structure will be built, maintained and operated by the City Center. The city won’t be left holding the bag or get a monstrosity. The City Center Authority will maintain your asset to the community, just as we maintain the City Center.”

Before people took the microphone, Yepsen announced a new guideline for public hearings of allowing everyone just three minutes to speak during any one hearing. She wants to keep council meetings from going past 11 p.m. She didn’t quite succeed in this new 11 p.m. goal that Tuesday, but then the agenda was packed.

Many voices for and against the lease were heard during the public hearing and during the council’s following discussion.

John Baker, owner of Gaffney’s Restaurant, called the City Center one of the most important entities the city has. But because of convention competition and lack of parking, Saratoga Springs loses revenue.

“I have lost several catering jobs because of the lack of parking,” he said.

Cindy Hollowood, general manager of the Holiday Inn, said the increased parking would be beneficial to the entire community. She said downtown businesses, which depended on the parking, sponsored residents’ sports teams and donated gift certificates to local clubs’ fundraisers.

“Our city’s quality of life would go down without these businesses,” she said.

Charles Holub, president of Saratoga Farmers’ Market Association, said he was speaking for the market, which badly lacked parking. He supported the parking facility and the agora, or public space, on its first floor, which the market will use year ’round.

Michael Lenz, the supervising pharmacist and a partner in Fallon Wellness Pharmacy of Saratoga, and a former Saratoga Springs mayor, praised the city’s vital community and incredibly vibrant downtown.

“I have the utmost respect for the leadership and decision-making process of the City Center,” he said. “I think this is the right thing to do.”

However, Charlie Samuels of Marion Place said he was against what he called Mark Baker’s plan.

“The city deserves better than this design from the last century,” he said. “This garage is unworthy of a progressive city like ours.”

Julie Cuneo, chair of Citizens for High Rock, was among the residents who encouraged a multiuse solution to the parking issue, wanting businesses, retail, affordable housing and green space blent with parking.

“Our solution was palatable to the city at large,” she said. “So I hope to keep working with Mark Baker and the two development teams.”

Dianne Pedinotti, one of the owners of the Mouzon House Restaurant on the edge of High Rock Park, came to the microphone with a catch in her voice. She said she feared having the parking structure built right next to her restaurant would bankrupt her.

“Please remember the Mouzon House’s plight in all of this,” she told the council.

Pedinotti and her husband, David, have filed a lawsuit against the city, accusing the City Council of voting to change Saratoga Springs’ solar access law to benefit the City Center’s parking structure. Their solar panels would be blocked by the facility. The matter is still pending.

With a touch of humor, Rick Fenton of Leffert Street, a member of Sustainable Saratoga and Citizens for High Rock, and a longtime opponent of the single-use parking garage, said, “We’re getting to the end of a long, rough road, but when we get there, at least there’ll be parking.”

He expressed confusion and disappointment that the city had not worked further with the development teams that had designed mixed-use proposals for the High Rock lot.

Later in the meeting, Madigan made a motion to add an item to her agenda: voting on how to reply to those development teams. The request-for-proposal process, spurred on by the public, had run contiguously with the City Center’s application to build its parking facility on that same land. Yepsen said she wanted to wait until the next council meeting to vote on this item, which she had originally placed on her own agenda for discussion only. The matter carried, however, with 4-1 voting to reject both of the proposals. Yepsen dissented.

 

The public hearing on the lease for the City Center project lasted for some two hours.

The business community turned out in force.  This included Bill Dake of Stewarts and Charles Wait of Adirondack Trust along with Joe Dalton who headed the Saratoga Springs Chamber of Commerce for decades and who chairs the City Center Board. A number of longtime downtown small business owners such as John Baker from Gaffney’s and Steve Sullivan of the Old Bryan Inn also spoke at length about the positive impact  the City Center has had on their businesses and the health of downtown but also the frustration their customers often expressed at the difficulty finding parking spaces in the downtown area. The need for more convenient parking was also discussed by numerous speakers whose groups have used the City Center for events from everything from Mixed Martial Arts to high school graduations. A representative of the Farmers’ Market  spoke in favor of the City Center’s proposal not only in terms of alleviating the parking crunch on market days but in terms of the possibility of the market utilizing the agora part of the parking structure.

Pretty much everyone that spoke either for or against the proposed lease, agreed that the City Center was critical to the health of the downtown and had been a great success.  There was also a consensus that parking was a problem for downtown.

The basic arguments of the advocates of the lease were:

1. The City Center must operate in an increasingly competitive environment especially with the Albany and Schenectady convention facilities coming on line.  In this light, they argued that there was an urgency to get the new parking facility built.
2. There is an absolute lack of parking which is hurting the downtown merchants.
3. People looking for parking spaces resulted in greater downtown traffic congestion.
4. To successfully attract conventions it was critical that parking be integrated into  the City Center to make it more convenient for the attendees.
5. The financial plan for funding the new facility was sound.
6. The city liability was protected by the stipulations in the lease agreement.
7. The High Rock Lot RFP Technical Review Committee that had reviewed the RFP responses had unanimously found the proposals received by the city for a mixed use project were both inadequate.
8. The proponents pointed out that the City Center proposal  had been discussed for three years rejecting arguments that it was being rushed through.
9. The proponents argued that the parking facility was being built without any money from the City Of Saratoga Springs government.  Moneys to offset potential losses during the first years would be paid for out of the current dedicated hotel room tax part of which goes to the City Center.
10. They pointed out the high quality maintenance of the City Center and asserted that the same quality maintenance would be afforded the parking facility which also have a number of security features including staffing unlike the other parking structures in town.

 

Members of Citizens for High Rock such as  Julie Cuneo, Rick Fenton, and Mark Lawton along with the owners of the Mouzon House, as well as Harry Moran from Sustainable Saratoga  were among those who spoke against the lease proposal .

The basic arguments of the opponents were:

1. A central point of the opponents was that limiting the development by building a stand-alone parking structure underutilized a uniquely important city owned parcel.
2. They believed that the city had failed to work effectively with the responders to the RFP.
3. They believed that the responses to the RFP were strong and should have been pursued.
4. They rejected the urgency that had been asserted by the proponents and argued that the city needed to take the time necessary to carefully pursue these alternate proposals.
5. Some argued that it was unclear whether or not there was a lack of parking in the sense that the city needed to develop a comprehensive parking plan before deciding on building another parking facility.
6. The finances for the City Center project were dubious.

• a. They claimed that the parking study done by the City Center proved that the proposed facility would lose money.
• b. In light of the fact that the lease was twenty-five years, they asserted the city would end up owning a parking facility that would lose money and be in poor shape.

After more than two  hours the public hearing was closed. After a short break, a presentation by Commissioner Scirocco on the idea of creating a downtown theatre district, and a unanimous vote for Nicholas’ Law, the Mayor moved Commissioner Madigan’s lease proposal up on the agenda.

Michele Madigan moved and Chris Mathiesen seconded that the Council instruct the Mayor to sign the lease with the City Center.

Commissioners Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco supported the resolution and made the points noted above in the discussion that followed.

Commissioner Franck opposed the project on two grounds.  His first was that he questioned whether the city was getting its “fair market” value for the lease.  To address this, Vince DeLeonardis was asked to come to the microphone.  The discussion was a bit confusing because the “fair market” value had two dimensions.  One was a legal issue and the other was a monetary issue.

Commissioner Franck asserted that a payment of $50,000.00 a year was woefully low given the value of the parcel which had been appraised at 2.6 million dollars.  Commissioner Franck, who is a certified accountant and appraiser, then offered an analysis based on the projected twenty-five year lease arguing that the numbers showed the payments were inadequate.  Mr. DeLeonardis then responded that Mr. Franck was not taking into account the value of the improvements that the City Center would be making to the property.  He noted that the projected cost of the parking facility was $9,000,000.00 and that at the end of the lease the city would own the facility as well as the land.  Commissioner Franck dismissed the idea that the building would be worth anything after twenty-five years.

Mr. Franck went on to admit that the parking structure did have a public value, though,  and that, not being an attorney, he could not really offer an informed decision on how legally the value would be defined.  He argued strenuously that running the numbers (assuming that the facility would be of little value in twenty-five years) the city would fail to realize the value of the land were it to agree to the lease. Other Council members joined in a lengthy discussion about the value of a portion of the lot versus the lot as a whole.

Franck also argued that it was inappropriate to decide the lease before resolving the status of the outstanding proposals for the RFP.

The Mayor basically held that the city would be better served by pursuing the mixed use option as reflected in the RFP responses.  She further questioned the need for a parking facility at all before the city could develop a comprehensive parking plan.

It was approximately 10:00 pm, some three hours after the start of the public hearing, when the Council voted on the lease.  It passed three to two with Commissioner Franck and the Mayor voting no, Commissioners Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco voting to approve the lease.

Mayor Yepsen had, as an item on her agenda, a discussion of what to do about the outstanding RFP responses.  It was after 11:00 pm when this item came up.  The discussion was rambling and strange.  It perhaps reflected the late hour and the fatigue of the Council members.  Mayor Yepsen described the history of the responses to the RFP and then stated (3:18 in part 2 of 2 of the Mayor’s agenda in the video of the meeting) that city should “put out new revised proposals.”  Commissioner Scirocco then, in exasperation, asked why the city having just agreed to lease a major part of the parcel, would solicit proposals.  Commissioner Madigan then asked to introduce a resolution to reject the RFP responses to bring closure.  Commissioner Franck argued that since the RFP’s had come out of the Mayor’s office that she should be the one to introduce such a resolution.  The Mayor then asserted that she would not take action on the RFP proposals at the current meeting.  Commissioners Mathiesen, Scirocco, and Madigan argued that there appeared to be no reason to take up more time on the proposals since they were based on developing the entire lot which was no longer available.  The Mayor refused to entertain a motion under her agenda.

Commissioner Madigan’s agenda arrived after eleven thirty.  She told the Council she would like to have a vote on rejecting the outstanding RFP proposals.  In order to add this item to her agenda she needed a motion.  Commissioners Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco voted to allow the motion to be made and Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Franck opposed it.  Madigan then moved  to reject the RFP proposals and Mathiesen seconded it.  Not surprisingly, there was virtually no discussion and it passed.  Interestingly John Franck joined Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco in rejecting the proposals.  Mayor Yepsen was the lone vote against.

 

 

After a public hearing that went on for almost two hours, the City Council voted 3-2 to approve a lease with the City Center to build a parking structure on city owned land.  This was the second of two hearings on the proposed lease and drew strong support from the business community. Yepsen and Franck voted against the lease.  Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco voted for the lease. More to follow tomorrow.

 

Dennis Yusko has left the Times Union after twenty-five years.  Friday was his last day and he is now the communications director for the Albany County Legislature.

Dennis was just a great reporter.  As the Times Union cut back on its resources his beat got bigger and bigger.  In spite of that he did a phenomenal job covering Saratoga Springs.  He was fearless in his  reporting and he was also thorough and professional.  He is also one helluva nice person.  Wec an only hope that whoever replaces him will be of the same caliber.

I know I speak for many here in Saratoga Springs in wishing him all the best in his new job.

Here is a link to his facebook page.

Link To Facebook

 

 

 

Below is an excerpt from an article by Paul Post on hotel expansions and over abundance of rooms.

By Paul Post, The Saratogian

Posted: 03/30/16, 4:07 PM EDT | Updated: 1 day ago

New hotels outpace demand: Room rate down in first quarter

First quarter hotel room occupancy is down 12 percent in the greater Saratoga area, officials said Wednesday.

The downturn is blamed on fewer business guests from GlobalFoundries and General Electric Co., a mild winter that deterred skiers, and more new hotel rooms that affects the overall occupancy rate.

Room occupancy was 48 percent this winter compared to a first-quarter record 60 percent last year, said Cindy Hollowood, Holiday Inn general manager.

“As a region we are struggling with too many hotel rooms,” she said.

Two new facilities – one each in Clifton Park and at Exit 12 in Malta – are scheduled to open this year. Also, work is nearing completion on a new hotel at Saratoga Casino & Raceway and a large six-story Courtyard Marriott in Lake George.

In addition, another two hotels are proposed for Malta, the Adelphi Hotel in downtown Saratoga Springs is expected to reopen next year, and plans call for a new hotel at the former Weathervane Restaurant site on Route 9.

Likewise, plans are in the works for three new lodging establishments at Exit 18 in Queensbury, and a large new casino hotel in Schenectady.

Saratoga County alone is expected to have 750 more rooms by the end of 2017, said Todd Shimkus, Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce president.

The industry’s goal is to sell out every night. So the area’s hospitality and tourism trade would have to generate an additional 273,750 room sales per year to meet this benchmark, he said.

“The supply is going up,” Shimkus said. “We’ve got to make sure demand goes with it. Last year, a very good year, demand rose 9 percent, but supply increased 13 percent at the same time.”

 

Three of us met with Sonny Bonacio in his office at 18 Division Street to review his new plans for replacing Moore Hall.  At the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting some months ago he announced plans to demolish Moore Hall and build twenty-eight condos.  His latest plan is to build twenty-six. 

The price range is still around $700,000.00 per condo.  He indicated that he would incorporate the parking on site with most of it underground. 

The design looks quite good.  The project will match the height of the adjacent buildings.  The architecture will also be designed in a way that is consistent with the surrounding Victorian era homes.  The set back from Union Avenue will be consistent with the adjacent properties.

My only reservation is that to do this will require an extraordinary area variance.  In this case, though I do not believe the variances will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.  The removal of Moore Hall will certainly be an improvement and this new Bonacio plan will be consistent with the density and character of this area of town. An additional major improvement will be the project’s provision for sufficient on site parking.

We had some discussion about the impact on North Lane which is quite narrow but currently two-way.  North Lane empties on to Regent Street.  Mr. Bonacio acknowledged that in view of the increased traffic it would probably be advisable to have the street be one way with the entrance of Regent and exit on Clark.  He indicated his willingness to work with the city to upgrade the intersection to improve its safety.

I was kind of amused in meeting with Sonny Bonacio by the contrast between the very beautiful and obviously expensive design of his offices and himself in jeans and funky athletic shirt.

I am attaching his full application here.

Below are the designs.

 

 

 

Here is a link to the web site for details.

I finally received the decision from the Ethics Board regarding the conflict of interest issue over Sonny Bonacio building the homes of Zoning Board of Appeals members Tom Lewis and William Moore and then appearing before them.  I had contended that Lewis and Moore should have recused themselves.  In truth, I knew that the ethical standards of the city code were so limited that the code would have let them vote.  The purpose of the complaint was really to document how inadequate the city’s code is.

So the Ethics Board found that Moore and Lewis had not violated the city’s ethics code.  They did state that the men should have disclosed their relationship with Bonacio.  They wrote that when a board member has purchased a costly service or item from an applicant that disclosure is appropriate.

In their decision they cited a legal case that was similar.  They referenced Heustis vs Town of Ticonderoga Planning Board:

“The court recognized that such interest ‘does not mandate disqualification of the public official involved in every situation (my emphasis).’”

First, I find it interesting that the Ethics Board bothered to cite this since, as noted earlier, by our minimal standards neither Moore nor Lewis had committed a violation.  More importantly, I am struck by the fact that this opinion simply states that it does not apply “in every situation.”   If the Ethics Board wanted to use this argument it would have been helpful to find out what situations would have mandated a recusal.

When people like Sonny Bonacio go before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals, millions of dollars are at stake.  We have no idea what kind of deal Sonny Bonacio had with Mr. Lewis and Mr. Moore if any.  While the Ethics Board had the authority to subpoena records and individuals in order to explore what actually occurred they chose not to.

The city’s current weak ethics standards pose a serious problem.  The idea that having Tom Lewis and William Moore simply declare that Sonny Bonacio built their homes and then proceed to vote on Mr. Bonacio’s applications is so manifestly inadequate that one would love to hear Ethics Chair Justin Hogan defend this on its merits. 

“Mr. Hogan, if the fact that Sonny Bonacio built Lewis’ and Moore’s house was so troubling that they needed to disclose it, why was it ok for them to then vote on the issue?”

Or put another way, “Trust me, I have an interest in selling you this used car but you can rely on my word when I tell you that the car is as good as the day it left the assembly line.”

Saratoga currently uses the lowest ethical standard required by New York State Municipal Law.  In fact, cities are allowed to enact their own more rigorous standards.

The City’s Ethics Board standards are a holdover from when Saratoga Springs was a provincial little town where a local club that profited from real estate ran things unchallenged.  The conflicts of interest were rife.

The City of Saratoga Springs needs to move on from that era and strengthen its ethics standards.

---

Ethics Board Decisions

 

Way back on September 18, 2015, I began my correspondence with Mayor Yepsen on the apparent violations of the city’s agreements with Saratoga National Golf Course.  As brief background, there were two issues.  First, the agreement with the city stipulated that SNGC was to have no more than three “special events” each year. The definition of a special event was one in which the event exceeded their regular parking facilities.  Second, SNGC was required to construct two nature trails for the use of the public.  In the case of the trails, I wrote to the Mayor that the trail to Lake Lonely appeared to be properly maintained while the West Nature Trail by any reasonable definition did not exist.

Eventually I received a letter dated October 9, 2015, from her deputy, Joseph Ogden.  In it he made the following statements: “…Mayor Yepsen has, in response to your concerns, instructed the city’s zoning and building inspector, Stephen Shaw, to immediately (my emphasis added) send a letter to SNGC reminding them of the conditions outlined in the special use permit as well as to ask that they inform the city as to how they comply to these conditions (my emphasis  added).”

He also stated that “With regard to the nature trail, Saratoga PLAN holds a conservation easement which requires Saratoga National to maintain the trails in question and reads: ‘hiking trail and related facilities shall be maintained by grantor in a manner that is satisfactory to their continued  use by the public as a hiking trail.’  In response to your concerns, Mayor Yepsen has directed our city planner, Kate Maynard, to set up a time to visit the trail with PLAN and evaluate its condition so we can assess whether or not we believe it meets the conditions of the easement.” (My emphasis added).

A more naïve person might have expected that in short order the City would have received correspondence from Saratoga National Golf Course and that Kate Maynard would have inspected the trails that Saratoga National Golf Course was supposed to have constructed.

In the ensuing five months (six months from the first inquiry) I have repeatedly sent correspondence to Mayor Yepsen asking for copies of whatever SNGC provided regarding their procedures for complying with the “special event limit” and with a report on Kate Maynard’s inspection of the West Trail.

Most recently, I also inquired about how Saratoga National Golf Course is complying with its commitment to monitor the water quality in Lake Lonely.  I will be blogging about this in the future but it appears that Lake Lonely is being badly polluted and it is reasonable to believe that SNGC may be a major contributor to this problem.

To date, I have been unable to wrest from the Mayor’s office any of this information.

Below are the most recent exchanges between the Mayor and myself regarding my ongoing attempts to secure this information.

In my opinion the Mayor confuses writing gracious notes in response to inquiries like mine with transparency.  After repeatedly indicating for five months that she will provide me with the information (following regular email prods), she directs me to seek the information from Saratoga National Golf Course and from PLAN.

Let’s remember that back in October, the Mayor’s deputy said the Mayor’s office was committed to securing this information themselves.   I can assure the readers of this blog that the idea that I will get any relevant information from SNGC by contacting them is tantamount to my asking President Obama if I can join him in a round of golf.  As for the fictitious West Nature Trail, is it not the city’s responsibility to determine if Saratoga National is violating their agreement?  What happened to City Planner Kate Maynard’s inspection?

If my allegations are true, Saratoga National Golf Course has routinely flaunted their agreement with the city and may be seriously polluting a very important water resource.  I have a certain sympathy for the Mayor in that Saratoga National Golf Course is an extremely powerful player in our city.  In fact, the Mayor has had at least one fundraiser at their facility.

After five months, I can only conclude that she simply is not going to provide the information.

To fully appreciate the true Kafka like quality of this quest, it is really worth taking the time to read the emails below.  The last inquiry to Mayor Yepsen was on March 10, 2016.

From:    John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent:     Friday, September 18, 2015 7:26 AM

To:          joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

Cc:          ‘Christian E. Mathiesen’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; John Franck (johnfranck@your-

cpas.com); ‘michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org’

Subject:               Oversight

According to the original special permit issued 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 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 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.

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.

---

 

---

From:    John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent:     Sunday, October 04, 2015 8:41 PM

To:          joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

Cc:          ‘christian.mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org’; John Franck (johnfranck@your-cpas.com); ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org’

Subject:               Saratoga National Golf Course

This is a follow-up to my email to you of September 18 regarding the apparent violations of the Special Permit granted to Saratoga National Golf Course. To date, I have not heard back from you.

As I noted in my original email, it appears that SNGC has been grossly negligent in erecting a “Nature Trail” to run along the west side of the course as required by its Special Use Permit. In most cases there is literally no trail of any kind. There is virtually no effective signage along the trail as what there is is buried in places that people seeking to use the trail cannot see them.

Just as seriously is the apparent violation of the agreement to limit large events to only three peryear. Your recent attendance at the Saratoga PLAN fundraiser should have given you the flavor for the kind of large event that the Special Permit was meant to address. There have been many other large events at SNGC. During just one week this summer SNGC hosted the St. Jude’s fundraiser along with two sold out “Travers Party” events that filled their “Blue Stone Patio” venue. SNGC told a local periodical that they hosted one hundred and twenty five weddings last year. I would refer you to the I Love NY web site http://www.iloveny.com/listings/Saratoga-National-Golf-Club or the SNGC’s own web site for an indication of their very aggressive marketing. It seems very possible that they are enjoying the spoils of large profits by violating their agreement with the city.

Property owners throughout this city routinely abide by the city’s many land use requirements as good citizens. You can understand how troubled people would be if they were to learn that a major business in this city has been allowed to violate our land use requirements with impunity.

On August 31, 2015, I formally asked the city Building Inspector to investigate this matter. I included with my request that he advise me of his findings and any actions he might take. It is now many weeks later and I have heard nothing. As you know, his office is under your authority.

As a courtesy and in keeping with your campaign commitment to make transparency the hallmark of your administration, I would be grateful if you could formally respond by indicating what actions regarding this matter you plan to take.

---

 

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1:13 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Cc:          <christian.mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org>; John Franck; Skip Sciroco;<michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org>

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course

John, thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. My staff have been looking into all the questions and concerns and we will be back in touch soon. The City may need to tighten up or update the 1998 language and be sure everyone follows the rules. More to come… Thank you.

Joanne

---

 

---

 

 

From: “John Kaufmann” <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com>

To: “joanne yepsen” <joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org>

Cc: “christian mathiesen” <christian.mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org>, “John Franck”<johnfranck@your-cpas.com>, “Skip Sciroco” <Skip_scirocco@saratoga-springs.org>,”michele madigan” <michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org>

Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 9:28:21 PM

Subject: Saratoga National Golf Course Violations

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, your response referenced important issues but did not actually address them. I know that you pride yourself on your office’s transparency and its open door policy. I would like to avail myself of these by meeting with you at your earliest convenience to better understand what your office has done so far and what it plans to do regarding Saratoga National Golf Course’s apparent violations. I am intrigued by your reference that “The City may need to tighten up or update the 1998 language.” It would also be helpful to know you and your staff’s thinking about how to assess the “Western Trail” compliance and the kind of measures you are considering that would allow you to determine how many “special events” are held out at Saratoga National Golf Course.

---

 

---

 

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Thursday, October 08, 2015 5:44 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Cc:          christian mathiesen; John Franck; Skip Sciroco; michele madigan; Joseph Odgen; Vincent DeLeonardis

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course Violations

John, this has nothing to do with transparency, just time in the day. The staff has done a thorough job looking back at this over the past week and we will have a report back to you tomorrow that we are happy to share with more information. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention.

Joanne

---

---

 

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 5:27 PM

To: joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

Cc: ‘John Franck’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘Christian Mathiesen’

Subject: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

It is well documented that golf courses’ use of pesticides and fertilizers can pose a threat to water quality. The following is an excerpt from the Planning Board minutes of November 18, 1998, regarding the monitoring of water quality to be done by Saratoga National Golf Course. (Lynn Sipperly represented the golf course in their application process):

I am seeking to find out where the water quality monitoring records and results are. If the city has these records then I will FOIL for them. If the records are maintained by Saratoga National Golf Course, I respectfully request that you seek copies of these.   It may be that they properly monitored the water quality. It may be that the monitoring showed no threat to the watershed. I am sure you would agree with me that insuring that the water quality of Lake Lonely is protected is of great importance and that the monitoring should be open and transparent with records available to the public.

I look forward to your response.

---

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 1:51 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Cc: ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘John Franck’

Subject: FW: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

As you will note, one month ago I sent an inquiry to you regarding the water quality monitoring related to Saratoga National Golf Course. To date I have not received a response. Could you please acknowledge this email?  Could you please indicate whether you plan to provide me with the information and if so when?

Thank you

---

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: February 4, 2016 9:01 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Cc: ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘John Franck’

Subject: FW: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

It was nice visiting with you at the UDO event today. This is just to confirm that you will follow up on this request and get someone to follow up with Saratoga National Golf Course to determine where the records for their monitoring of water quality are maintained. If they are kept by the golf course I would be grateful if you could request from them a copy of these records and make them available to me.

The recent incidents in Flint Michigan are just another reminder of how precious our water is.

Thanks again.

---

---

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Friday, February 05, 2016 3:17 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

You got it. I’ve sent two emails requesting and will let you know what I find out. Thanks for participating yesterday.

---

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 3:20 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject: RE: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

And thank you for responding so promptly.

---

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: Feb 11, 2016, at 4:30 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject: RE: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

Any word?

---

---

---

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:47 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

I found out a little from original approvals the city gave SNGC. Looks like the Core of Engineers and EPA were monitoring for first five years and I’ve called Saratoga National as well to see what other records they might have…

Joanne

---

---

From: John Kaufmann [mailto:john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent: Feb 20, 2016, at 4:30 PM

To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Subject: RE: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

Have they gotten back to you?

---

---

 

 

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:04 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course And Water Quality

No not yet. Tom Newkirk is in AZ for a week. I hope to get some files from him when he returns.,,

---

 

 

From: “John Kaufmann” <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com>

To: “Joanne Yepsen” <joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org>

Cc: “Christian Mathiesen” <christian.mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org>, “John Franck”

<johnfranck11@gmail.com>, “Skip Sciroco” <skip.scirocco@saratoga-springs.org>, “Michele Madigan” <michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 11:25:50 AM

Subject: Saratoga National Golf Course Compliance Follow Up

This is a follow up to a number of issues that I had contacted you on as regards Saratoga National Golf Course.

1. What SNGC has been doing in the way of water monitoring as it effects Lake Lonely
2. What PLAN has to say about the apparent lack of a West Trail
3. What procedures SNGC has for complying with the requirement that they limit their special events to three per year

---

---

 

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Tuesday, March 08, 2016 4:08 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Cc:          Christian Mathiesen; John Franck; Skip Sciroco; Michele Madigan; Dan Cogan

Subject:               Re: Saratoga National Golf Course Compliance Follow Up

John, Saratoga National can answer #1. PLAN can answer #2.  I haven’t received any additional information since the last time I emailed you or we spoke about this topic. Code enforcement should be able to report if they have enforced event requirements at that location.

I’ve also asked our City Attorney to review #3. Thanks.

Joanne

---

 

From:    John Kaufmann [john.kaufmann21@gmail.com]

Sent:     Thursday, March 10, 2016 6:37 AM

To:          ‘Joanne Yepsen’

Cc:          ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘John Franck’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Dan Cogan’

Subject:               RE: Saratoga National Golf Course Compliance Follow Up

As regards:

#1, if you review your correspondence, you indicated that you would discuss this issue with Saratoga National Golf Course. In your most recent email you offered that Mr. Newkirk was out of town and would be back in a week. I assumed from this that you would be in contact with him on this issue when he returned. With all the coverage on water quality issues in Flint, Michigan and in Hoosick Falls,

New York, I know this is an issue that will concern you. Clearly as a private citizen I am in no position to compel Saratoga National Golf Course to answer my questions. Based on a variety of sources there is every reason to believe that Lake Lonely has very serious water quality problems. Knowing you, I can only assume that insuring that this important body of water is not in jeopardy would be high on your list of priorities.

#2, In correspondence from your office, you indicated that Kate Maynard would be meeting with PLAN to determine whether Saratoga National Golf Course had complied with the site plan review regarding the trails. Have you changed your mind and decided that she should not have a meeting to determine whether the West Trail met the city’s requirements?

#3, In your correspondence you indicated that your office would contact Saratoga National Golf Course to find out how they are implementing the limit on special events. I assume this would involve how they are determining when the parking is exceeded. I assume that when they agreed to the limit, they had some methodology for implementing it. I am happy that the city attorney will be reviewing this matter but it seems basic that to do so will involve getting the required information from Saratoga National Golf Course.