Who Is Buying Your City? The List of The Saratoga PAC Donors

I went on the New York State Board of Elections and found the July report for the Saratoga PAC.

With a little more work I was able to identify who most of the donors were.

One interesting element is that Cliff Van Wagner and Tom Lewis who are on the Saratoga Springs Planning Board gave generously as well as Linda and Michael Toohey.  All are involved in the Saratoga National issue.  The Tooheys gave a combined total of over $5000.00.

This is the list of the Saratoga PAC Donors

It makes very interesting reading.

A Very Troubling Exchange With Michele Madigan

I am saddened by this exchange with Michele Madigan.  We have had our differences over the years but she was always open and direct in a refreshing way.  I invite the readers of this blog to make their own judgments regarding the emails that follow.  In my experience, when a politician refuses to seriously engage on an issue and insists that you wait for the vote, it does not bode well.  One can only hope that in this case things will be different.

I would also draw your attention to our disagreement about the role of Mark Schachner who handles the legal matters regarding land-use law.


To: Michele Madigan

From:John Kaufmann

Date: August 14, 2015

As you know, Saratoga National Golf Course petitioned the city to amend the zoning laws in order to expand their facilities in the city’s greenbelt.  The language was drafted by Michael Toohey.  Three members of the Council, of which you were one,  passed this language on to the Planning Board for their advisement.

When the Planning Board met in a workshop to review the text amendment, they dismissed most of it as inconsistent with zoning law.

You had previously expressed reservations about the language in Toohey’s amendment.   Apparently you decided to meet with Mark Schachner, the lawyer the city uses for land use issues, and asked him to come up with language that could withstand challenge to accomplish what in effect Toohey ,  the SNGC attorney, could not.  At the public expense, Mr. Schachner then crafted new language.

Over the thoughtful objections of the Planning Board chairman, the Planning Board adopted Mr. Schachner’s language.  They made three changes in the document.  They increased the number of stand-alone residences from five to six.  They filled in the spaces indicating the amount of land to be set aside for permanent easement to be 50%.  They amended the comprehensive plan to allow for a golf resort.

You have made previous statements that your support for changing the zoning was contingent on two things.

  1.  that all but the twenty-five acres on which the construction will take place, must be put into a permanent easement.  This would include the golf course.
  2. that the comprehensive plan not be changed

In light of the fact that the document approved by the Planning Board fails to comply with your two requirements, do you expect to vote for or against its adoption.

The citizens of Saratoga Springs have a reasonable right to know whether you plan to hold to your promises prior to the night of the meeting.  It is important to note that Schachner’s work was critical in coming up with language to effectively save the text amendment.  Since he did this at your request, you are now the architect of saving the text amendment and in effect, making it possible for Saratoga National Golf Course to get the change in the city zoning to achieve their goals.  I look forward to your answers.


To: John Kaufmann

From: Michele Madigan

Date: August 16, 2015

John, I think you are confused about the process here.

Firstly, your continual mischaracterizations of Mark Schachner’s work on this issue shows a lack of understanding of how our City government works. The Council asked the Planning Board for an advisory opinion; Mark Schachner is the City’s retained legal expert on such matters. It’a only natural that the Planning Board discuss these issues with our attorney versus relying on the legal work of an attorney who represents the interests of a private landowner who may prefer broad and sweeping changes to our Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances. Why you would suggest that the Planning Board and the Council should rely on Mike Toohey’s work on and not on our own legal counsel is beyond me.

Secondly, I am one of five voting members of our City Council. The City and County Planning Boards do not tell me what I can or cannot vote on, they merely provide advisory opinions. No matter has been brought forward for a vote by the Council, nor will there be on one (sic) Tuesday Aug 18. When an amendment is brought forward for my consideration I will vote accordingly, and my vote will be in line with what I have said – to you, to the public, to anyone – on this matter. I really do not know how much clearer I can be with you. You keep asking the same questions – and asking them prematurely – and I keep giving you the same answer.

Thank you,

Commissioner Michele Madigan (and by the way I spell my first name with only 1L.  I do like to see my name spelled correctly.  Thanks again.)


To: MIchele Madigan

From: John Kaufmann

Date: August 16, 2015


I am very grateful, and the readers of my blog should appreciate, your willingness to engage on not only this issue but all the issues that the Council must address.  One of the things I have always admired about you is your openness and accessibility.  You have a history of being one the most open and direct people on the Council.  It is for this reason that I am utterly confused that on the issue of this text amendment, which has now been formally sent to the Council from the Planning Board, that you are unwilling to discuss the problems with it, in particular, the issue of whether what they are recommending for an easement is sufficient to meet your requirements.  I also do not understand your unwillingness to share your thoughts about whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended for this.  For someone who has always been forthright in discussing your concerns and in educating the community about many public policy issues, I am just lost to understand your reticence to share your analysis on this stuff.

We seem to be talking by each other when it comes to Mark Schachner.  I have no problem with Mark Schachner offering an opinion to members of the Council or the Planning Board on the legality of what Mark Toohey has put forward for amending the city zoning law.  My difficulty is that after Mark Schachner accurately exposed the poverty of Toohey’s language for amending the zoning code, he rewrote it so that it would achieve what Saratoga National Golf Course was seeking in order to make it more legally defensible (I still question whether  what he produced is not spot zoning).  I do not think that the taxpayers of this city should be paying our attorney to rework Toohey’s botched language.  I think the point is fairly obvious.  I am a little surprised that you would think that I want you to take Michael Toohey’s advice about anything.

As for misspelling your name, you have every right to take me to task for it.  I owe you a glass of the wine of your choice as a mea culpa for being so sloppy.



On the evening of August 16 Michele texted me to indicate that she was satisfied with her response and that we were talking around each other so there would be no further exchange on this.

More On SPAC

On Tuesday evening the Lincoln Center Chamber Society will be performing an all Russian program.  They have announced that persons between the age of twenty-one and thirty-nine will be able to purchase tickets for only $20.00.

There is also a 50% off sale for Thursday nights Philadelphia Orchestra concert.  The offer expires August 19th.  To get the discount use the code WUHAN by phone, at the box office, or on line at SPAC.ORG

Here is a link to the program: http://www.spac.org/events/2015/08/20/philadelphia-orchestra

The pianist Wu Han will be the soloist.

The Strange And On Going Tale Of the Collamer Lot Sale


This story is about the conflict over the land deal to sell the Collamer Parking lot and purchase a parcel to build a public safety facility on the city’s eastside.  The city is currently defending itself against a lawsuit that challenges the deal and an inquiry by the New York State Attorney General. My interest in this story was piqued by the last city council meeting.  At the meeting the city council agenda included a request for additional moneys to pay attorneys who are defending the city in these matters.  My friend, Remigia Foy, excoriated the council for considering such expenditure.

Briefly, Joel Aronson who owns the Algonquin Building would purchase the Collamer lot which adjoins his building for $750,000.00 and at the same time, the city would purchase a parcel of land in the vicinity of Union Avenue and Gilbert Road for $200,000 to build its facility on.

To me, the most interesting thing about this is the strange role being played by Joel Aronson.  Many decades ago Mr. Aronson’s father ran a successful furniture store (Standard Furniture) for many years on the first floor of the Algonquin Building.  The senior Mr. Aronson speculated heavily in property throughout the city which his sons inherited.

The property being sought by the city is currently owned by the Congregation & Yeshiva Pardes Yosef D’Chasidei Belz.  It is a conservative Jewish religious group of which Mr. Aronson is apparently a member.  I think it is reasonable to assume that the property originally was owned by Mr. Aronson.  When it became the property of the religious body the property conveniently became tax exempt.  This was very fortunate since it cost nothing to leave the land undeveloped.  What seems very odd is that this group somehow became interested in a deal in which they sell their property and Joel Aronson ends up purchasing a very valuable parking lot next to his building.  As noted in Commissioner Mathiesen’s narrative a considerable amount of negotiations were carried out with an agent of Mr. Aronson.

In New York, when a piece of property owned by a religious group is sold, it requires the approval of the Attorney General of New York State.  No one is challenging what the city is paying for the parcel of land owned by the religious group and if the appraisal is sound, the price is fair.  It is probably legal but it appears that the religious group has interests that have slid into the temporal realm.

In order to understand the conflict that surrounds this sale I spoke at length with Commissioner Chris Mathiesen and with Tom McTygue and his brother Billy.  I have done my best to fairly and accurately present both of their positions as they expressed them to me.   I attempted to interview Mayor Joanne Yepsen for this article.  In response to my request she emailed me indicating that she was traveling with her son and asked that I forward my questions to her.  I emailed back saying that it needed to be an interview.  She never responded.

This photo shows the location of the Collamer Parking Lot.

Collamer Lot

This photo shows the location of where the planned EMS/Fire Station would go if the RFP were finalized.


Tom McTygue’s Narrative

Tom began by noting that the suit was brought by himself, Remigia Foy, and Raymond Watkin.  All three were past elected officials who had served on the City Council and were experienced in the procedures that dictate city acquisitions.  He asserted that the suit was brought because on multiple levels the process used to transact the deal was flawed.

Tom said that their attorney had requested that the judge put the lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the Attorney General’s inquiry.  He had not heard from the attorney what the judge had decided but assumed that it was on hold.

Tom noted that there was no disagreement about the need for an emergency response facility on the eastside.  He does disagree with many aspects, however.  First, he does not think there is a need for a full blown fire station/ambulance facility on the eastside.  He believes that all that is required is a modest building to house an ambulance and the staff to run it.  He believes that Empire Ambulance, which is the backup service for the city, could staff it in the short run and that city employees could eventually take responsibility for it.  He thinks a smaller piece of property could be purchased and if not, as a last resort, that the city should take land using eminent domain.  He emphasized that using eminent domain would be a last resort, but he says that years ago when he was Commissioner they seized a property and it was done quickly and inexpensively.  He asserted that Commissioner Mathiesen’s plan to use mostly existing staff to operate the new facility is poorly considered.  To accomplish this, the city would be reducing the firemen on the trucks from four to three.  He concedes that the chief believes this is doable but notes that the union does not and that he himself, having been a fireman, believes that it will put the firemen in jeopardy.  Tom believes that if the station is built, eventually the city will have to hire additional staff which he believes will be expensive and not necessary.

He also wondered why the city was not working more closely with the Town of Saratoga Emergency Squad which could help provide service for the eastern plateau area of the city.

Tom and his brother, Billy, believe that the appraisal for the Collamer lot was flawed.  The appraiser used the Lillian’s parking lot as the base for the appraisal.  Billy contends two things:

  1. The appraiser used as the “valuation date” the date the property was actually sold in 2012 instead of the date when the bid of $750,000.00 was made which was in 2006.  He contends that the property value would have increased during the six years.
  2. The appraiser determined the square foot value based on the property in 2012 rather than the property as it was offered for bid.  The footage of the property had changed during the six years.  When the property was actually finally sold, Mayor Johnson agreed to include a walk way that while it would be owned by Bonnacio would remain a public access area.  The original RFP described the space as 16,553 square feet.  The appraiser included the walk way in his appraisal.  Including the walkway increased the square footage to 20,037 square feet.  This was an additional 3,484 square feet.  The result was to reduce the value per square foot.  He argued that this diluted square foot value ended up underestimating the value of the Collamer lot.  Based just on the square footage alone, he believes the Collamer lot was undervalued by $172,000.00.

There was also the fact that Joseph Zappone, an attorney from Latham, had offered the city $1.1 million for the property the night the Council agreed on the contracts and later came back with an appraisal for the property of $1.6 million.

Tom believes that the process by which the deal was made was highly questionable.  He asserted that the city and Joel Aronson had been negotiating for months and had determined the prices of both properties prior to the RFP being issued.  He also noted that the RFP was written in such a restricted fashion that Aronson was the only possible respondent.

In 2007 the city produced a report on its public safety needs called the LaBelle Report.  Tom noted that the report identified a property on Dyer Switch Road owned by Belmonte builders as one of the possible locations although it was not for sale.  He questioned how hard the city pursued its search for properties and said the city should have been prepared to use eminent domain if necessary to get the land they wanted.  Had they done this there would have been no need to sell the Collamer parking lot.

He could not explain why the City Council repeatedly voted unanimously for the concept and the eventual contracts.  He did note that Mayor Joanne Yepsen voted against hiring the Nixon Peabody law firm to defend the city in the lawsuit.  He questioned the enormous amount of money the city was paying the law firm.

Billy McTygue had laid his concerns out in correspondence to the city council.  The Email To The Council

The Statement To The Council

Chris Mathiesen’s Narrative

Before he was elected, Mathiesen met with Bob Williams, the fire chief, to learn about the issues facing a new Public Safety Commissioner.  Williams described the problems the FIRE/EMS Department faced regarding response times throughout the City and cited the need for a third station on the east side.  He gave Mathiesen a copy of a 2007 study that analyzed possible sites that would allow better response times for the eastern plateau area as well as coordinated operation with the other two stations.  Written by consultants one of the key issues was the lack of prompt response time on the eastern side of the city.  The target was to reach victims in less than ten minutes.

Starting in 1992 firefighters were trained in emergency medical services.  In February of 2012, the Saratoga Emergency Medical Service ceased operations.  The Fire/EMS Department took over the ambulance transport responsibilities with Empire Ambulance serving as back-up. This was a logical transition, he argued, with the added benefit of bringing in $800,000.00 in revenue for its services.  It also made more acute the importance of addressing the need for effective response times to the East side of the city.

The study identified an area East of the Northway in the general vicinity of Gilbert Road and Union Avenue as the prime location for a recommended fire and emergency facility.  According to Mathiesen, five to six percent of calls come from the far eastside of the city.  The study noted that the location should be part of a comprehensive plan for the city.  For example, placing the facility at the extreme edge of the city’s eastern end would limit its reach.  The area along the Union Avenue corridor would give it the greatest flexibility of reaching the most people beyond where the downtown station was.

The Public Safety office then began to search for available land.  They contacted a number of landowners in the area including the Malatinos who own a horse farm there but there was little interest.  They did find a good location by Meadowbrook and Union Avenue.  The problem was that it was predominantly wetlands.  They contacted DEC.  DEC said that in order for them to do infill in the wetland, they would have to provide three times the land somewhere else.  There were also major engineering problems with making the sight viable.  It was scrapped.

Mayor Johnson proposed the land that the city now uses for waterfront access but based on the 2007 study, it was not properly located.

It was around this time that Mathiesen noticed a sign on the land adjacent to the church near the Gilbert Road intersection offering property for sale.  Mathiesen asked his deputy, Eileen Fineran to follow up on this.  When she called the number it was Joel Aronson who responded.  He told her he was representing the Congregation & Yeshiva Pardes Yosef D’Chasidei Belz who actually owned the property.

Of the 14 plus acres, approximately eight was dry land and much of that was above the 500 year flood plain.  The parcel was listed for $725,000.00.  The Aronsons own the Algonquin building which is across the street from the City Center.  They were already working with Sonny Bonaccio on rehabbing the building.  They asked Mathiesen if he would be willing to consider some kind of deal in which the city would sell them the parking lot beside the Algonquin and in turn would buy the parcel on the East side.  Mathiesen contacted the city attorneys to find out if this were possible and worth pursuing.  Joe Scalla who was then the City Attorney under Mayor Johnson and Tony Izzo the Assistant City Attorney said it was possible and to come back when they had more information.

Mathiesen met with Larry Novick who was employed by Bonnacio but was authorized to work on the deal for the Arononsons.  They agreed to both get appraisals on the properties and then meet again.

Mathiesen then asked John Franck for an appraiser and Franck recommended Armstrong Appraisers with offices in Clifton Park.  David Fonatana was assigned by Armstrong to do the appraisal.  He came up with $775,000.00 for the city parking lot and $200,000.00 for the land parcel.

When they met again, Novick did not have an appraisal for the parking lot but the appraised value for the parcel he claimed was $725,000.00.  Mathiesen told them that in light of the Armstrong appraisal, the answer was no.

Some weeks later Aronson contacted Mathiesen and offered to sell the property for $400,000.00.  Again, Mathiesen declined.

Some weeks later, Aronson again contacted Mathiesen, this time offering to sell for $300,000.00.  Again Mathiesen declined.

A month went by and Mathiesen told me he thought the whole thing was dead when he was contacted by Aronson who said they would accept $200,000.00.

It was then discussed in executive session by the City Council.  Following the executive session Johnson opposed the plan because he thought the staffing would be too expensive and because he did not like the deal.

The attorneys believed that due to the unique circumstances of the location and in light of the appraisals, the transaction did not require a bid.  Nevertheless, Commissioners Franck and Madigan said they would feel more comfortable if it went out as an RFP specifying both the area for the parcel and the Collamer parking lot.  It was still possible that someone in that area might come up with the land that was needed.

In the end, the only response to the RFP was from Aronson.

Roughly around this time Bill McTygue wrote Mathiesen a letter arguing that it was a mistake to sell the Collamer Lot.  He believed that the lot could be used for better purposes.  He also proposed land off Meadowbrook Road as another option.

Mathiesen believed that the Meadowbrook location was not suitable in light of the 2007 analysis.

A little history is in order here.  Back in 2005-6, Billy and his brother Tom had proposed a mixed use development for the area behind City hall and included the Collamer Lot.  They envisioned, among other things, a movie theater as part of a mixed use development.  Tom issued an RFP and there were two responses.  As it turned out, the decision to go forward failed on a three to two vote of the Council.

Just after that, the economy went sour with the 2008 crash and any interest in development for that area went into dormancy.

Back to the story, some critics suggested that the city should have used its power of eminent domain to get the land.  Mathiesen told me that there were a number of problems with this approach.  The first was that since with eminent domain they could theoretically choose any property, this brought with it the thorny problem of which land they would seize.  The second was that seizure involves lengthy and very expensive legal actions.

Aronson would be developing the Collamer lot property for mixed commercial and residential use.  This would provide the kind of infilling that was part of the overall strategy for downtown.  There was also the argument that the gap of the parking lot weakened the pedestrian flow between downtown and the City Center.  There was also the argument that as a privately owned building it would provide significant tax income for the city.

On December 17th, 2013, in a four to one vote with Mayor Johnson the lone dissenter, the council voted to approve the general deal and directed the City Attorneys to work on the necessary contracts.  Johnson’s primary opposition was based on what he feared would be additional ongoing costs associated with staffing and maintaining the facility.

According to Mathiesen, both City Attorneys, Matt Dorsey and Tony Izzo, saw no problem with the agreement.  The City Assessor supported the agreed upon property values as fair.

Izzo began to work with Michael Toohey, attorney for Aronson, on the contracts.  A number of issues came up.  There was concern about how to minimize the loss of parking that would result from the construction.  At the time, it was assumed that the City Center parking structure would be done soon and there was interest in trying to coordinate the timing of the two projects.  It was decided to delay the construction on the Collamer lot for fifteen months during which time the city would insure and maintain the parking lot.  There was also concern about excessive delays and it was decided to require Aronson to formally begin seeking approvals from the land use boards within eighteen months.

The entire agreement included the caveat that were Aronson to fail to get the required approvals from the land use boards, the deal would be off and the money would be returned to the parties.

As it turned out the time required to resolve the wording for the contracts dragged on and they were not finished until May, 2014.  In July the contracts were finally ready for action.

At the same time, Mayor Yepsen began to raise objections to the project.  She questioned whether the Collamer lot would be more suited to a mixed use project that would include the High Rock parking lot.  She also questioned the nature of the proposed agreement expressing that it did not seem to be a good deal for the city.

The vote on the contracts was then put off until the August 5 meeting.  In the meantime, Sarah Burger contacted the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation questioning the location.  On the day of the meeting she called David Fontana.  Later that day she would claim that Fontana had agreed with her that the proposed price for the Collamer lot was too low.

Mathiesen called Fontana.  Fontana said that he had been traveling when she called him.  He said he was confused by her call and that it had been clear that she wanted him to say that the land was being undervalued but he had assured her that it was not.  She also pressed him that the value may have changed and he indicated to her that the assessment indicated that the value was good for twelve to eighteen months.  He told Mathiesen that he was quite clear with her that he stood by his assessment.

The night of the meeting to finalize the contracts an attorney named Joseph Zappone with a law practice in Latham, New York , appeared at the public comment period of the meeting.  Ms. Burger distributed a proposal he had written in which he offered 1.1 million dollars for the lot.  This was the first time that Mathiesen had heard anything about Mr. Zappone and his proposal.  There were no communications from any other member of the Council regarding this.

Mathiesen said that he had prepared the State Environmental Quality Review application the night before.  The Mayor expressed her concern about the process but in the end a unanimous City Council approved the SEQR and the contracts.

Mathiesen then went on a vacation to Maine.  He said while he was there he learned that the Mayor had not signed the contracts.  He said repeated calls and emails to the Mayor were not returned.

On the Friday after the meeting Zappone delivered another appraisal to the city with a value now of one million six hundred thousand dollars.  The Mayor then announced that she wanted a third appraisal.

Mark Schachner was brought in by the Mayor who said he had problems with the SEQR application.  The SEQR had been for simply the sale of the Collamer lot.  Mark Schachner wanted to delay the closings until the plans for the Collamer lot and the Union Ave. parcel had been finalized, then to do a coordinated SEQRA review with the City Council and all the other involved land use boards.  Mathiesen felt that the land sale and purchase should be able to proceed as stand-alone actions.   Plans for development of both parcels were too far in the future and were not at all immediate.  Mathiesen reaffirmed with Izzo that it only had to deal with the sale.  Mathiesen also contacted the New York State Department of State who also agreed that it only had to deal with the sale of the Collamer lot.  In reviewing the SEQR with Nixon, Peabody which was the firm that later defended the city in the suit, they also agreed that the SEQR only had to address the sale.

Shortly before the August 8 meeting Mathiesen said that Mayor Yepsen called him and told him that Matt Dorsey (Johnson’s attorney) told her he never gave Mathiesen any legal advice about the deal.  She warned him that if this ever got to court and he asserted that he had been advised by Dorsey that he would be vulnerable to perjury.  When Eileen Finneran called Dorsey, he told her that Sarah Burger had called him and tried to get him to say that he had not advised Mathiesen and he had refused.

The Mayor also told him that the City Assessor, Tony Popalizzio had told her that the assessment was too low.  Mathiesen pointed out that Commissioner Franck, who the assessor works for, had confirmed that his office believed the offer was fair.  Popalizzion had told Mathiesen that the Mayor had tried to get him to agree that the offer was too low but that he refused.

At the next meeting the Mayor said she would not sign the contract.  She moved that the city seek a third assessment.  She could not get a second for her motion.  She signed the contract.

I asked Mathiesen about the issue of how the proposed facility would be staffed.  He indicated that Fire Chief Williams was recommending that the city staff three stations instead of two without significantly increasing the number of firefighters by re-distributing the resources.  Mathiesen conceded that members of the union did go to Mayor Johnson to complain about these plans.  The union advocated that the city continue to have 4-man engine crews.  Mathiesen asserted that the overwhelming majority of engine crews in NYS municipalities are 3-man or less, not four.

Mathiesen noted that the parcel size is much more than would be required for a fire/EMS station.  He told me that his department hoped to use other parts of the property to meet other Public Safety Dept. needs.   He indicated that his department was considering putting a smaller, expandable facility on the east side first to house an ambulance due to possible budget constraints but giving the City important capacity to meet future needs.

Remigia Foy, at the last Council meeting, could not understand why the city was appropriating more money for the attorneys when the lawsuit was currently on hold pending the Attorney General’s inquiry results.  The attorneys are representing the city both in the lawsuit and in the Attorney General’s inquiry.  The attorneys have billed $69,631.66 .  The motion was for covering the costs so far plus additional moneys of $10,368.34 for any additional work that will need to be done.

According to Nixon Peabody, the plaintiffs’ (Foy/McTygue/Watkin) had written a letter to the judge requesting that there be a stay in the process until the Attorney General’s inquiry was completed.  They indicated that they had responded with a letter saying that the case should go forward and be resolved.  They noted that to actually stay the process, the plaintiffs would have had to file a motion which they had,  and the judge would have had to formally issue a decision and notified the parties of his action which he had not.  They said that the case was active and ongoing.


One of the things that I find most curious in these events is the appearance of Joseph Zappone offering over a million dollars for the property at the public comment period of the Council meeting.  In December of 2013, in a well publicized event, the City Council agreed to accept the original deal.  The amounts were publicized and generated a great deal of buzz.  It seems very strange that Mr. Zappone makes his appearance in August, some seven months later, on the night the Council meets to formalize the contracts.  The first question is where this man was for seven months.  Even stranger, at least by the statements made by the members of the Council, he did not contact any of them prior to the meeting.  If a person were serious about making this purchase, one would expect the person to attempt to have a civil and thoughtful discussion with the major players in order to explore what could be done in a less charged atmosphere where the speaker is limited to two minutes as is the case with the public comment period of a City Council meeting.  Using the public comment period to make a pitch to buy a million dollars worth of property does not seem to be the best way to go forward.

Lincoln Center Chamber Society at Little Theater at SPAC

I am not the most sophisticated person when it comes to classical music.  It says a lot that I was deeply moved by the first two concerts in the Lincoln Center Chamber Society at SPAC. Pianist Wu Han is the artistic director of the Society.  She is wonderfully enthusiastic.

Prior to each concert there is a panel with Ms. Wu and some of the musicians who will be playing in the concert.  These discussions are wonderfully lively and quite understandable to us rubes (and to those who actually know something about chamber music.)  The musicians are a mixture of young and gifted artists along with experienced musicians including members of the Philadelphia Orchestra.  Ms. Han has chosen some delightful works that are quite accessible to the less discerning ear.

The concerts are held on Sundays and Tuesdays.  I do not think that they are sold out.

Planning Board Considers Request By City Center For A Subdivision

Mattt Jones represented the City Center at the planning board meeting. The purpose of his presentation was to get their approval to subdivide the Highrock lot.

I am not a city planner or attorney and while I think I understood the presentation, I invite any readers out there to correct me should I get any of this wrong.

According to Jones, a structure like the garage under our zoning must be positioned on the most active street that abuts the property. It must be placed fairly close to the street. I was lost by the numbers and do not know what the specific distance must be. Because the garage will be placed on the north side of the lot, it will not abut Lake Avenue which is the most active street and runs along the Southern most line.

In order to meet the zoning requirement the city center requested that the lot be subdivided into two parcels. The first parcel will abut Lake Avenue. The second parcel where the garage will be located will abut the first parcel. This makes mute the problem of the garage not being located on Lake Avenue since the parcel it will be on does not abut Lake Avenue.

The city would lease to the City Center each parcel individually. The length of the two leases will be different in order to allow the city greater latitude as to how to use the front lot in the future.

There followed a discussion about the fact that the City Center is pursuing their applications through the land use boards at the same time that an RFP has been issued that includes the same land.

Chairman Torpey had sent a query to the city council seeking some sort of assurance that it was ok to proceed with the City Center garage application in this light. He said he had no response. It was noted by a number of people at the planning board meeting that the City Council, when they issued the RFP had agreed that the City Center should continue with their land use applications.

An attorney representing the owners of the Mouzon House Restaurant challenged the Planning Board’s decision to entertain the subdivision application. He noted that it was being done for the sole purpose of getting around a zoning provision. He argued that the proper way to proceed was to seek a zoning variance. He asserted that this was a classic example of spot zoning. He also argued that the comprehensive plan called for a full study of the parking needs of the city and the development of a parking plan to address the needs of the city. He asserted that to go forward on this project prior to the completion of that plan was not in keeping with the comprehensive plan so that to grant a subdivision at this point would violate the comprehensive plan and be further proof of spot zoning.

At this point, Jennifer Leidig got up and addressed the Planning Board. She attacked the Planning Board for taking up this issue in August when people were on holiday or otherwise absorbed by other summer activities. To say that she implied that this was being done to force the project through would be something of an understatement. Ms. Leidig does not do nuance or subtlety. This occurred at approximate 10:15 at night after over three hours and with plenty left on the agenda. Board member Janet Casey was not pleased. She agreed with Leidig that it was August and then reminded Ms. Leidig that the members of the planning board were volunteering their time doing some very difficult work. She noted that some of the items before them were time sensitive due to the legal requirements and she made it crystal clear that at this late hour she did not welcome being lectured to.

Members of the Pedinotti family that own the Mouzon House Restaurant spoke to the Planning Board arguing that to go forward on the City Center application would serve to discourage developers who might be considering responding to the RFP for a mixed use project on the same site.

Sarah Burger (who was silent during the discussion on Saratoga National and who sat behind Mr. Newkirk, one of the owners of Saratoga National patting his back) spoke in opposition to the subdivision. She agreed with the Pedinotti attorney and with the statements of the Pedinotti family.

Matt Jones told the Planning Board that the decision to subdivide the lot came out of discussions with Steve Shaw, the city building inspector and that the approach had the building inspector’s support.

Mark Schachner told the board that they were required to entertain the application but that they were not required to make a decision that night.

The board again split. Mark Torpey told the members that he believed that the decision to subdivide should be combined with the site plan review and therefore put off. Janet Casey agreed with him.

It was apparent that the Johnson appointees wanted to approve it that night.

Mark Schachner then advised the committee that if they were going to pass it that night than they had to include in the resolution the criteria as set out in the zoning law as part of the resolution.

Kate Maynard was sent to get the appropriate supporting documents. By the time she returned it was after 11:30. Chairman Torpey recommended that they adjourn and have the staff work on the wording for the next meeting.

Planning Board Sends Advice To City Council: Predictably Bad

[The Planning Board Also Addressed The City Center’s Parking Plan.  I will post what happened with this tomorrow night]

On Wednesday night the Planning Board met and on the agenda was the request of the City Council for advice on a text amendment for the definition of golf clubhouse in the city’s greenbelt.

An entirely new text amendment appeared at the Planning  Board meeting from what the Board discussed at last week’s workshop.  Chairman Mark Torpey presented this new language as having come from Commissioner Michelle Madigan.  Mark Schackner, the attorney who specializes in land use issues for the city, interrupted Torpey saying that it was not from Madigan but that he had drafted it at the request of a council member who wanted language that would withstand a legal challenge.  Of note was that Schachner did not name the council member and the members of the council were courteous enough not to ask.   A good question to have asked is why the city was paying its attorney to work out language which was clearly on behalf of Saratoga National Golf Course.  This is but one of a long string of twisted logic and procedures that have plagued this process as the friends of Saratoga National have stretched every conceivable angle to assist them.

The amendment, a copy of which is linked here, has three parts to it.

  1. The first part is an amendment to the zoning code for the Rural Residential District (greenbelt) which would allow Golf Resorts with special use permits and site plan review.
  2. A new item in section 6 of the zoning regulations.  This section defines certain terms like Mobile Homes and Adult Book Stores.  In this case it takes most of what was in the text amendment that Schachner said were too specific and puts them in a new definition for something called a Golf Resort.  It includes things like “lodging facilities” and among those facilities are a structure with no more than 100 guest rooms and “freestanding structures with up to ten guest rooms and no associated kitchen facilities.”  If all this sounds familiar it is because it was all in the original text amendment.  It also included a requirement to “…dedicate no less than ___% of the ________land for open space purposes.”  The numbers were left blank for the planning board to fill in.
  3. An amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan that would specifically provide for a golf resort in the city’s RR1  district (greenbelt).

Chairman Torpey then opened the floor to the public for comment.  Attorney Michael Toohey then spent well over thirty minutes pitching the importance of his client’s plans. Interestingly he referred to his client as “the applicant” and proceeded to go through the proposal line by line and make comments like “we can agree to this” as though he were reviewing  a private contract between this client and the city.

I would like to whine to the readers of this blog that having to listen to Michael Toohey is the worst thing about doing this blog.  My issue here is not that I disagree with him, which I do, but that he is one of the worst speakers one has to endure at these meetings.  In a voice that is flat and that lacks any kind of interesting inflection, he laboriously and with little coherence rambled on about how great his client is and how everything they want to do adheres to the principles of the comprehensive plan.  No one ever asked him why, if what they want to do is consistent with the comprehensive plan that the same plan needs to be amended to allow the golf resort.  The poverty of his presentation was made particularly evident when the other two lawyers addressed the council later in the meeting regarding the City Center’s application for subdividing the parking lot along Highrock  Avenue.  In contrast to Toohey they were both clear and succinct in terms of the content of their arguments; spoke with clear voices that emphasized their key points, and were brief and to the point!   How Mr. Toohey is able to get all the top briefs on big land development jobs is a mystery to me because it is not based on his ability to make clear arguments.  Given that his original text amendment was discarded, it does not seem that his legal work is that impressive either.  Thank you for reading this rant.

Following his statement, the “friends of Saratoga National” on the Planning Board then made the appropriate sycophantic statements about how great Saratoga National is and why what they want to do is so great for the city.  Eventually Mark Schachner actually interceded to caution them that this is not supposed to be about a particular project or parcel and that they needed to desist in this line of discussion.  The clear import of his remarks was that they were exposing that this was in effect designed for one land owner which would make the changes subject to a suit over spot zoning.

What followed were the friends of Saratoga National in the audience who spoke on how great Saratoga National is.  They were apparently unmoved by Mr. Schachner’s advice.

Toohey then asked that the number of “standing buildings be increased from five to six” and Tom Lewis and Cliff Van Wagner promptly proposed that the document be amended to reflect this.

Mark Torpey then gave a very clear and thoughtful explanation as to why he could not support the changes.  He noted that the existing zoning limited land use to residential housing and inns which were limited to 25 rooms.  He noted that the existing zoning limited height to be 35 feet.  He further noted that the zoning allowed only 2 units per acre and that the acres to be considered for this rate were the ones left after all wetlands and other areas not suitable for building were excluded and that 50% of the land that was left was excluded.   He offered that it seemed quite clear that the proposal was utterly inconsistent with this.

He was supported by Janet Casey, the only other member of the Planning Board not appointed by Scott Johnson.

Cliff Van Wagner at this point felt the need, in light of Schachner’s warning, to make a long and dubious argument about how it was possible that someone might later purchase enough contiguous land from different owners to build a golfing resort in which case they would be bound by these new rules.  (I cannot believe that I sat through all this stuff for this blog).

We then had to listen to three of the four Johnson appointments repeat at length that all of this was consistent with the comprehensive plan.  No one had the bad taste to point out to them that Schachner wanted them to amend the comp plan to make what they want possible.

We also had to listen to Tom Lewis warn us about the sprawl that we could face if Saratoga National were to build McMansions out there.  He offered up the number fifty.  Torpey then noted that the rules (see above about the regulations for RR1 that minimize such development) would not allow such a large project and that such a declaration was a “red herring.”  Tom Lewis then said, “20, whatever!”

They then took up the question about what to put in for the percentage of the land that would have to be set aside for open space.  Toohey told them to put in 50%.  We were again subjected to a rambling discourse on how generous this was.  Torpey noted that it was impossible to make any determination of this given the existing data.  One thing was crystal clear, the promises offered about making everything but the twenty-five acres that the development was to be built on into an easement to perpetually be available to the public were gone.

It was, however, apparent that Saratoga National had the votes.  The vote was taken.

In the affirmative:

Tom Lewis (on the staff of Senator Marchione, past chairman of the Republican Party, and past land manager for Stewarts)

Cliff Van Wagner (past unsuccessful, Republican candidate for Commissioner Finance and past chairman of the planning board under Scott Johnson)

Dan Gaba, Realtor

Howard Pinsely of Espy Industries


Mark Torpey, employed by New York State Energy and Development Authority

Janet Casy, professor at Skidmore College

Planning Board Meeting On Text Amendment For Saratoga National Golf Course

Tomorrow night (Wednesday) at 7:00 pm the planning board will be meeting to finalize their “advise” to the city council on the text amendment of the city zoning ordinance for the conservation district (greenbelt).  The revised text eliminates all specificity for set back, size of the “hotel/clubhouse,” height, etc.  This raises the question as to whether such a facility can actually go into the conservation district.  The issues are many and the clarity is non-existent.  It will be interesting to see what the planning board which is completely dominated by the friends of developers will do.

There will be an opportunity for public comment.

Sarah Burger’s Speaking Out Piece In The Saratogian: A Reality Check

In her speaking out piece of August 9, Ms. Burger asserted that “…the commissioner (Mathiesen) has only ever promoted the single use parking garage without considering any alternatives.”

Contrast her statement with this quote from the June 18 Gazette Newspaper by Steve Williams. His story is on the council meeting that agreed to issue the RFP:

“Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen said he supports issuing the RFP, even though he also supports the City Center’s plans.  ‘The idea is that if there are other approaches to this that can accommodate all the uses that are necessary here, including the City Center’s needs, better to hear them as soon as possible than not,’ Mathiesen said.”

It is true that the council has decided to let the city center proceed with its application for a parking lot.  It is not just Commissioner Mathiesen who believes both should go forward.  It was discussed at the council meeting and no one suggested otherwise.  Williams’ story goes on to say:

“Accounts Commissioner John Franck said he had doubts any developer will respond to the RFP, which would leave the City Center proposal as the only one for the land, which now has surface parking.  ‘I don’t see where they’ll respond, but I don’t think there’s anything to lose,’ Franck said.”

Any objective review of the meeting (there is a video available at the city’s web site), indicates that everyone on the council supported both the RFP and the importance of allowing the City Center’s proposal to proceed.