Here are a number of interesting facts about the proposed hospital expansion and Bonacio Construction.

1. At the Comprehensive Plan meeting of November 17, 2104, the issue of approving the change of the city land use map to allow for the hospital expansion takes up only four minutes.  Most of that time was taken up by Sonny Bonacio, who instructs the Committee about the area proposed for change and advises them as to who owns the land under consideration.  Here is a link to the video of the meeting.  The discussion of the change in the map begins at 106:00.
2. Julie Bonacio and the Director of Operations for Bonacio Construction, Pete D’Aloia, serve on the Saratoga Hospital Care Foundation.  To their credit they have helped raise a considerable amount of money for the Hospital.

3. 

4. In a letter dated August 19, 2015, under Bonacio Construction letterhead and signed by Tony Bonacio (brother of Sonny), neighbors of the Hospital residing on Myrtle and Morgan Streets were advised that, in cooperation with the City of Saratoga Springs, a test involving a city water hydrant would be conducted.  A neighbor inquired of Tony Bonacio about the nature of the test.  Mr. Bonacio offered that as a result of the tests, he would not have any good news for the Hospital.  The land basically sits on rock.  The neighbor told me that he assumed that the tests revealed that it would be very difficult and expensive to run water and sewage in the area.

5. 

6. This is a rendering of what was the proposed office building for the Hospital expansion.  Note that at the bottom of the rendering are the logos for Bonacio Construction and Saratoga Hospital.  It is my understanding that the L.A. Group created the rendering but I have been unable to confirm this.  These facts lead to a core question regarding Sonny Bonacio’s role in promoting a material change in the city’s land use map at the Comp Plan meeting referenced at the outset.  “What did he know and when did he know it?” is still a good, probing inquiry when clear answers to unknown questions are sought.  Bear in mind that under our existing Ethics Code, he could have known that the Hospital had plans to build on the controversial site and that they were going to use his firm to build the proposed facility and, as far as I can tell, he would not have been in violation of the code.

 

Does This Look Like A renovation To You?

 

Jean D’Agostino who is a realtor with USA Realty purchased a barn at 39 Murphy Lane.  This was originally part of a larger lot but sometime in the dark past the very small plot on which the barn stood was subdivided from a larger lot that included the associated house. The lot sits on a very narrow alley.  There is a term referring to the purchase of something that by its very nature is in conflict with the zoning ordinances and it is called “self created.”  This by itself does not disqualify the lot from development.  It should, however, raise some serious red flags and is supposed to be used as a factor in allowing subsequent variances.

Last year, on March 23, 2015, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved this project by a four to three vote.  I would urge the readers of this blog to watch the video.  It is not very long (a problem in itself) and it is one of the clearest examples of the failure of our land use boards.

Here is a link to the video 

The chair, William Moore, reads the resolution that would approve the variances sought by Ms. D’Agostino.  He then polls the board for their comments.  Skip Carlson, John Hasbrouk, and Susan Steer offer no comments on the matter.  James Patterson briefly reviews the reasons he plans to vote against the variances.  He notes the scale of the variances being sought and the negative impact putting a tiny house on the alley would have on the neighborhood.

Following Mr. Paterson, Adam McNiell offers his reasons for supporting the application.  To view his remarks move the time bar to 70:30.  I found Mr. McNeill’s brief remarks difficult to follow.  He argues that it is a legally buildable lot (I assume this is based on it being grandfathered as a pre-existing, non-conforming structure).  That is a very low bar.  Theoretically, using his standard, you could build some kind of house on petty much any historically non-conforming parcel no matter how small as long as a cooperative ZBA granted the necessary variances.  He asserts that Ms. D’Agostino has demonstrated the ability to minimize the number of variances they are seeking.  Given that they are seeking seven variances and that four of them are at least 50% below the minimum requirements, one would not expect Mr. McNiell to point this out as some sort of achievement.  Getting their variance request down to seven seems to a lay person like me, an indication of a serious problem and not something to be praised.

Keith Kaplan is then recognized by the chair.  I really urge the readers of this blog to take the three or four minutes required to view his remarks.  He gives a cogent and succinct (persuasive) critique about why the variances should be opposed.  He notes the troubling history that would have produced this tiny lot.  His point is that this lot and its problems were created from a larger parcel.  He accurately characterized the variances being sought as “massive.”

Mr. Kaplan did not go into all the details of why he considered the variances as massive, but  here are some of the items that he was referring to.  For example, the city code for minimum lot size requires 6600 square feet and the lot on which this barn sat was 2500 square feet.  In other words the lot was 4100 feet smaller or 62.1% too small.  The minimum front yard setback (the front yard being the alley) is a mere 3.1 feet as compared to the required 10 feet or 69% too small.  The rear set back was 15.7 feet rather than 25 feet or 37% too small.  The code requires two parking spaces (the proposed rehab was to create three bedrooms) but they were seeking to reduce this to one. One would think that the board might have wondered over where any additional car might park on this alley.

He then went on about the negative impact on the neighborhood of this project.  He particularly pointed to the narrowness of the alley calling it “ridiculously” narrow.  He reminded the board that they had been to this alley for another project when there was snow which further narrowed it.

Following his statement one might have expected Misters Hasbrouck or Skip Carlson to offer some sort of counter argument to explain what would be their subsequent vote to approve the variances.  One might expect this only if one had not attended other meetings of the ZBA.  They said nothing.

Chairman William Moore then simply said he would not have created the lot but that “this is the infill to expect as the city grows.”  In light of the discussion and the later events, this is rather a chilling statement.  It affirms that this is one of many such projects he plans to approve.

The Rehab That Wasn’t

Some context is needed at this point.  The application by Ms. D’Agostino was to “rehab” a barn into a three bedroom single family house.  Under item 1.a the variance resolution states “…This can be done if the barn is removed which may be an undesirable effect as noted by the applicant on page 66 of the application ‘Tearing down the barn and starting new would cause a detriment to the neighborhood and community.’”(this statement came from Ms. D’Agostino)  To the more simple minded, this is why Ms. D’Agostino was applying to “rehab” the barn.

I regularly walk my dogs by Ms. D’Agostino’s property.  Sometime during the fall, the entire barn was raised and placed on supports while a foundation and basement (not included in the originally submitted building plan) were poured under it.  Most of us assumed that the barn would then be lowered back onto the foundation.  Then, just a few weeks ago the barn disappeared and construction on a new house began.

On January 21, 2015, building inspector Steve Shaw having received a complaint about apparent violations at 39 Murphy Lane, inspected the site and issued a stop work order.  It is to Mr. Shaw’s credit that he acted so swiftly sending an email to Ms. D’Agostino with letter to follow.

Notwithstanding Chairman Moore’s praise regarding Ms. D’Agostino’s success in minimizing the need for variances and aside from the fact that the entire barn had been removed counter to her original application, the height of the new building under construction was in violation resulting in the need for at least two more variances.  So much for her success in minimizing the needed variances. As they say, “you can’t make this stuff up.”

 

I think it is worth emphasizing here that Ms. D’Agostino is a veteran real estate broker with USA Realty.  Just the idea that it was possible to rehab the original, very small barn into a three bedroom house on a narrow alley begs credibility.

Ms. D’Agostino is on the agenda for Monday night’s ZBA meeting.  It will be interesting to see just how far this project can go and whether there will be any significant penalty for what she has done.

An Interesting Sidebar

I spoke to the property owner across from the site.  He told me that during the excavation they used part of his backyard as a temporary dump for the soil.  My brief review of the application required that all soil be removed from the site and not be stored there.  When the gentleman called Ms. D’Agostino she told him to call the contractor.  He expressed understandable frustration about the damage to his lawn and the failure of the Ms. D’Agostino to address this.

The contractor also failed to place a porto-potty on site.  The workmen were forced to use the street until the neighbor complained to the police and they required that the porto-pottie be placed there.

An uncorroborated source told me that Ms. D’Agostino paid $115,000.00 for the plot.  I also was told by an uncorroborated source that she spent approximately $30,000.00 on plumbing.  I expect it was quite expensive to jack up the building and put a new foundation in.  Just the cost of removing the detritus of the old structure would have been expensive.  There would have been the required architectural and legal fees.  There is also the cost of the construction that was going on before the stop order.  Ms. D’Agostino has a lot invested in this project so things are probably going to get very unpleasant.

More Developments

The agenda for the Zoning Board of Appeals has been posted on the city website.  A special workshop prior to the regular ZBA meeting has been set for 6:30.  It is my understanding that while the meeting is open to the public to view, that such workshops do not allow the public to address the board.  Since it is not a regular meeting, it is not clear whether it will even be videoed and put up on the city’s website.

I have written to William Moore, chair of the ZBA, asking whether at the discretion of the board, the public may be allowed to address the board and if so, whether this privilege will be afforded at Monday night’s meeting.

I have also asked whether the workshop will be video taped and posted on the city’s website.

It is unclear to me why this would not be a valid item for the regular agenda of the ZBA.

Below the workshop meeting notice on the website there is a link to two documents from Engineering America, Co.  It appears that they are requesting additional variances for stairs to allow access to the property in two locations which will require more variances.  Under a category called “Modifications During Construction” they advise the ZBA (after the fact) about the construction of a foundation and basement.  They advise that they have raised the base of the house.  They also advise that during construction they discovered conditions that are required “due to deteriorating condition of studs and roof.”  “During construction, it became apparent that there were more decaying studs & rafters to be repaired than (sic) existing framing members to be saved.  The Owner decided to reframe the exterior walls and to install new trusses (not yet installed).”

If you take a look at the picture of the barn you can see that it was, as originally described, a true barn.  As such there were no sheetrock walls, etc.  It is difficult to believe that when this building was originally assessed that a person with a flashlight could not have walked around the inside of the barn and inspected the studs and other structural pieces. One would assume that such an inspection would have easily revealed the condition of the wood in the structure.

In the original plans, there was to be a slab and not a full basement.  Wasn’t there some responsibility for Ms. D’Agostino to advise the building department of this change as well as the ZBA?

It is even harder to understand why with all the radical changes made to this building; it took a stop construction order to prompt the engineers to address the issues to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Further Update

I received the following emails from William Moore, chair of ZBA.

From:    William Moore [bill927@me.com]

Sent:     Saturday, February 06, 2016 4:28 AM

To:          John Kaufmann

Subject:               Re: Workshop on 39 Murphy Lane

John,

It is my understanding, all of which should be verified with Susan Barden, that the mailings and notifications were not sent out in time. We were doing this in the workshop which are on video for the City so that we may get an update from Mr. Shaw on the reason for the stop work order, the matter will be back on for the next meeting as an agenda item. As far as the public speaking we have never had that come up before so I will check with the City as to procedure, this was initially put on in the workshop so Mr. Shaw could update the board while they reviewed the application for the next meeting. If I get an answer before Monday I will share that with you, I’m forwarding all this to Susan and the rest of the Board at your request under separate cover. Thanks John

Bill

Sent from my iPad

 

On Feb 5, 2016, at 6:18 PM, John Kaufmann <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com> wrote:

I see from the agenda of the ZBA for Monday night that you will be having a workshop on issues associated with 39 Murphy Lane.

It is my understanding that the public is not normally allowed to speak to the ZBA at a workshop. The people in the neighborhoods related to this property are deeply troubled about this project. They would very much like to address the ZBA with their concerns as part of the proposed workshop/meeting.

Can you advise as to whether their participation will be allowed? If it is at the discretion of the ZBA to allow the public to participate could you please share why this privilege will not be allowed?

Might I ask that you share this email with the other members of your board as well as with the staff from the planning office?

Thank you

 

 

How The Hospital Expansion Was Incorporated into the Comp Plan

At the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Brad Birge asserted that Matt Jones appeared before the Comprehensive Plan Committee regarding the proposed change of the area that the hospital was potentially interested in building on from residential to institutional.  Here is a link to the video  Move the timer to 13:15 to hear it.  Birge asserted that this was done some time between June and November of 2014. 

I have spoken to several people who were on the Comprehensive Plan Committee and none of them have any recollection of Attorney Jones doing a presentation prior to November 17.  Even at the November 17 meeting his only role was to briefly answer a question.  I understand that the neighbors of the hospital plan to FOIL the city on this matter.  They tell me that they have spent many hours trying to find when, prior to November 17, the hospital requested this controversial change.  It seems now incumbent on Mr. Birge to provide documentation.

Adding to skepticism regarding this is the presentation made by Kevin Ronayne, Hospital Vice President for Operations/Facilities at that November 17 meeting.  The public was allowed to make comments during the beginning of each Comp Plan meeting.  Mr. Romayne spoke to the Comp Plan Committee during the public comment segment.  Here is a link to the video.  Move the timer to 6:00.

Mr. Ronayne began his statement to the committee by asking “for your indulgence” and by offering that this request was “a little late in the game.”  Now that sounds to me as though this was the first effort by the hospital to amend the Comp  Plan to allow for their expansion.  He then went on to explain that “last summer” the land (which we now know was owned by D.A. Collins) came to the hospital’s attention as being available.  He then went on to note the many advantages to the hospital of building offices on this land.

It seems very odd that given the length of time that they had regarding their planning, that the hospital would make their request at the next to the last meeting of the Comp Plan Committee. After all, the committee had been meeting for at least six months.  My impression is that hospitals are very rigorous when it comes to planning so this seems very odd.  At the risk of appearing cynical, one possible explanation was that the longer their plans to expand into this area were public, the greater the chance that opposition would arise.  Better to wait until the last possible moment.

It was during that same meeting that the issue of allowing PUDs in the greenbelt came up.  This was at least the third attempt to find a way to allow Saratoga National Golf Course to build their resort.  In contrast to the previous attempts, this time, with the help of Jamin Totino who switched sides, the PUD option was adopted.  Both the arguments over the change and the resulting vote were quite heated and exhausting.  It was immediately following this that the hospital issue came up.  The issue was somewhat obscured by the fact that there was no actual proposal for any kind of buildings.  The vote was whether to designate a very large area by the hospital and the neighborhoods as “institutional.”  No one was talking about a 750,000 square foot office with 250 parking spaces.  Everything was very abstract.  This was further complicated by the fact that the actual zoning for the area remained as residential in spite of the new designation as “Institutional” (I know this hardly makes sense but this is the world of planning).  What this gambit meant was that the residential area was “vulnerable” to the hospital proposing a PUD to actually build offices there if the “institutional” designation was adopted in spite of the fact that the zoning for the area remained residential. If you review the video (link here) which runs from timer 106:00 to 110:30 (four and a half minutes) you will see that there was no discussion of the substance of what was being proposed.  There is a paradox about the Comp Plan. It is to be a general document about directions for land use and it is not to be a blue print for particular projects.  This was the perfect environment for slipping this land use change through.  Bear in mind the entire discussion lasted only four and a half minutes.  The sound quality is poor.  The main protagonist in the discussion is Sonny Bonacio who basically presents where on the map this area should be located.  There is a vote and no one votes to oppose the change.

Now my friend, Michele Madiga, believes all of this was clear and that she fully understood completely what was going on.  She also notes that the change was adopted without opposition.  As someone who knows Commissioner Madigan well, I can testify to her thoroughness and the fact that she grasps all of this. 

Her remarks were in response to Commissioner Mathiesen who apologized to the public for missing this.  Remember that the change in the actual document was a matter of a color change on a section of the city map.  I would note that I have spoken to a number of people who were on the Comp Plan Committee and who, like Commissioner Mathiesen, admit their culpability in failing to recognize the significance of this change.

I am disappointed that Commissioner Madigan is unwilling to allow this specific change in the Comp Plan to be revisited.  While many of us are culpable of missing what she clearly saw, I would have hoped that she would have been more sympathetic on this matter.  I know the neighbors would have appreciated it.

 

Saratoga Hospital has done itself little service through a narrative that assumed a trusting, gullible and unsophisticated citizenry.  That revealed, it has only served to create suspicion, generally not a good thing.  The Hospital — which is to say, the community healthcare interests it necessarily represents — would have been better served by being more forthright with this community and adopting a more collaborative strategy for advancing its long-term aspirations.

 

I have spoken at length with a number of knowledgeable physicians with long histories in the profession.  Some are local doctors, while others have served as institutional medical practitioners and administrators in other municipalities.  The story they tell me is that the emerging trend in the industry, one which we are witnessing here in Saratoga’s environs, is for hospitals to buy the practices of doctors and for these doctors to in turn become employees of the hospitals.  This serves a number of functions designed to benefit both sides of such transactions.

 

For the doctors, it reduces the increasingly onerous burdens of the administration — the “paperwork” — that inheres in contemporary medical practices.  For example, the requirements of multiple insurance carriers that carry the costs of care in any given practice necessitate increasingly complex and increasingly expensive software to handle billing and record keeping.  Just as important is the need of each practice to effectively deal with the insurance companies that are, to say the least, aggressive in reducing or even denying the reimbursement for services.  Hospitals that employ an army of doctors are in a far better position to negotiate with the many funding sources that their patients necessarily introduce into modern medical practices.  As if participating in a compulsory Darwinian scheme, doctors are thus increasingly forced into working for hospitals.

 

There is also the increasing cost of the ever more sophisticated technology to actually provide care.  The greater efficiency of shared equipment (and its costs) reduces overhead through aggregated fiscal burdens.

 

For the hospitals, medical testing is a super powerful engine for generating income, and thus for operational carrying costs, making it essential to the survival of hospitals.  Having hundreds of doctors on their payrolls exposes an economic reality that both requires and incentivizes medical testing by a given hospital.  I am told by the medical professionals I’ve interviewed that medical tests supply the life blood (i.e., money) for today’s hospitals.  Consistent with this model, Saratoga Hospital has been engaged in an ambitious and successful campaign of buying practices in all areas of medicine, from orthopedics to cardiology.  The success of this campaign is reflected in the plainly amazing growth of our Hospital; be it a bricks-and-mortar project or acquisition of the aforementioned areas of specialization, the trend is as obvious and irresistible as gravitational pull.

 

This is meant as no criticism of the Hospital but it forces a reckoning: this strategy is driven by economics rather than care considerations per se.  Clearly, it seems, for it to provide care, our Hospital must have adequate financial resources and, given today’s “health care” system (I use the term health care with bitter irony), the Hospital is compelled to adopt an operational and strategic template which effectively (and perhaps necessarily) dictates both the climate and the menu we have before us.

 

Forwarding to the present debate, Saratoga Hospital representatives argue that building a new set of offices close to the main facility — the mother ship, if you will —  will likely save some information technology costs.   Whether in the long term it will do that, and how much it will save, is necessarily an open question given that every design may be influenced by competing ideas and consequent choices.  The sheer scale of operating costs suggests it is a fair question to ask for more information bearing on the proposition advanced: namely,  that the savings and community benefits will be sufficiently great to justify material alteration of old Saratoga neighborhoods.

 

The above notwithstanding,  I’m here to suggest this:  what it will not do is improve the coordination of care.  The patently absurd fantasy promoted by the Hospital — that these doctors will be meeting together to better coordinate the care of shared patients — is utterly transparent, and certainly not self-evident as a logical proposition.  Most of us have been touched by the problems of acute and complex illness whether in our own lives or in the lives of the members of our families and friends.  We have seen firsthand how little communication there is between doctors in different specialties.  Oncologists meeting with cardiac doctors over balancing the needs of a patient with cancer and heart disease?  There are a few places that provide this kind of tightly-coordinated medical care, in institutions like the Mayo Clinic, but they are in the experience of most people an exception rather than the norm.

 

There is a nascent specialty in medicine in which certain medical professionals are called “hospitalists.”  They practice medicine in a variety of specialties and they work entirely in the setting of the hospital.  They are the ones that you see most of the time when you are admitted to the hospital for care.  You may be operated on by a surgeon that you select who has privileges at the hospital but the general care you will receive will be done by these hospitalists.  Commonly, these people work three twelve hour shifts a week.  This creates problems with continuity of care because a patient will see whichever doctor is on call that day. The physician and support staff in turn would presumably not regularly meet with off-day staff, but more routinely read charts at their disposal to guide them.  For many years, predating computers and hospitalists, physicians have quipped, “one doesn’t go to a hospital to get well”.  Even if the verity of that irony is inescapable, the people in this community may demand a credible assurance that we are planning and designing something better than we had before, and not simply dressing up an old problem in new clothes.

 

So I recognize and accept an honest argument about why Saratoga Hospital needs to provide the best environment they can to attract individual doctors and practices.  I can also understand why they found the land owned by D.A. Collins near their facility so attractive.  What I do not accept is that their convenience (rather than the real care of patients) seemingly trumped the needs of their neighbors or the city.  There are other places they can find to address office space expansion.   Close proximity to the Hospital is not essential in this age of telecommunications and in a city where traffic, while irritating, is not an enormous obstacle.

 

The Hospital has confused the enormous power they have with the assumed righteousness of their cause.  If they had been up front to begin with — which is to say, had the Hospital engaged its own community — about their need to find a good place to put their offices in this area and to develop a plan, this conflict (or the intensity of it) might have been avoided altogether.  They have only themselves to blame for the enormous waste of resources they put into a plan that is dead, at least for the immediate future.

 

The failure of Saratoga Hospital to embrace Commissioner Mathiesen’s call for reassessing the Comprehensive Plan to come up with a sound strategy only serves to show how little they have learned behind closed doors.  Of course, it is possible the hospital will use its considerable economic and political muscle to force something on another group.  Admittedly, this is skepticism borne of experience in this matter, and thus I am not hopeful.

The issue of the Saratoga Hospital expansion was discussed at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting on Commissioner Michele Madigan’s agenda and on Commissioner Chris Mathiesen’s agenda.

When Commissioner Madigan’s turn came to give an update on the hospital expansion, Joanne Yepsen immediately recused herself and left.

John Franck chose to make a statement. He gave a history of his relationship to the players who were in conflict with the hospital.  He has, for many years, provided accounting services to the Birch Run Homeowners Association and to the Special District set up for Birch Run.  Similarly he has represented the Morgan Street Home owners association and the special district there.  He estimated that over the years he has had income from the work for them of approximately $42,000.00.

He noted that he had recused himself 31 times over the course of his period in office.

He said that he began to think about the recusal issue months ago and that although he participated in the hearings, he did not take calls from the parties of the conflict.   He said that he contacted the Mayor shortly before the meeting where he recused himself to advise her at which time she told him that she was considering recusing herself as well.

I am still unclear about why he waited as long as he did to recuse himself but having said that, I think that his decision was entirely understandable and appropriate.  He then left the meeting.

Commissioner Madigan then expressed frustration that the Council was unable to consider the PUD.  She told the Council that she believed that if it had been allowed to go forward that the Council could have come up with a compromise that would have satisfied both the hospital and the neighbors.  She then asked that Vince DeLeonardis, the city’s attorney, to review with the Council the neighbors’ petition.

Mr. DeLeonardis described it as a “protest petition.”  Basically, if property owners, whose parcels abut 20% of a property that is being considered for rezoning, oppose the change then it requires a super majority of the City Council to enact it.  In this case he explained that five properties along Morgan Street and one property along Myrtle had filed the petition.  They constituted 100% of the abutters. He further noted that the petition had a technical problem which had to do with the way the signatures had been “witnessed,” but that in the end the neighbors would prevail with their petition.  He noted that a vote on the PUD would be pointless because a super majority would require four votes and that due to the recusals there were only three possible votes.

Commissioner Mathiesen expressed the hope that the hospital would withdraw its proposal.  He said that he had been in conversation with the hospital and that he understood they were already looking elsewhere.

There was no vote scheduled currently.

Commissioner Scirocco agreed with Commissioner Madigan that he believed it was unfortunate that the proposal was dead because he too believed that a compromise was possible.  He offered that it was a worthwhile project that enjoyed his support.

I would note here that the neighbors who were attending the meeting expressed extreme skepticism about the viability of a serious compromise given the scale of the project and the limited land.

Commissioner Mathiesen repeated his concerns.  He particularly noted that it would double the traffic in the neighborhood.  He noted that the Hospital could modify their PUD proposal and come back to the Council.

Commissioner Madigan then noted that PUDs are a powerful tool for development in that they give the Council wide discretion and authority over a project.  In a troubling aside she noted, “this is one of the reasons people pitched the idea of the PUD for the greenbelt.  The city would have all the control of what could be in a PUD in the greenbelt and what could not be.”  I found this both odd and troubling.  Commissioner Madigan had been part of a unanimous decision to preclude PUDs from the greenbelt.

The value of a PUD assumes that a more intensive use of a piece of property than is normally allowed by the existing zoning is appropriate.  There was a clear logic as to why the council disapproved PUDs for the greenbelt: they did not want any intensive development to occur in the greenbelt.  The key issue here is similar to that of the greenbelt debate.  The neighbors are arguing that the more intense development being proposed by the hospital would be detrimental to the adjoining neighborhoods.

Commissioners Madigan and Scirocco believe that it is possible to come up with a PUD for a large medical offices building and parking that would be acceptable to the neighbors.  Clearly, the neighbors do not, in light of where the land is, see any way to build such a large facility without undermining the quality of life in their area.

Later, as part of Commissioner Mathiesen’s agenda, he proposed that the Council revisit the designation in the Comprehensive Plan that had changed to allow for institutional construction for the hospital.

Again, as the discussion turned to the hospital expansion, Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Franck who had returned to the meeting by this time, recused themselves and left the meeting room.

After they had left, Commissioner Madigan said that she understood why Commissioner Franck had left but was “not sure” why the Mayor had recused herself.  She did not elaborate.

Commissioner Mathiesen’s argument was fairly simple.  He said he did not find fault with anyone but that the process by which the land was changed to institutional for the hospital had missed him.  He said that it was unfortunate that a change whose impact was so significant to the neighbors had somehow been done without their opportunity for input.  His proposal was to have  a full airing of the issue and following that to consider whether to reverse the status of the controversial property in the Comprehensive Plan.  He expressed concern that the process had failed to insure that the affected neighborhoods had been appraised of the possible change and involved with the consideration of the change.

Commissioner Madigan took exception with this.  She noted that the Comprehensive Plan review had been an open process that went on for eighteen months.  She noted that when the Comprehensive Plan  Committee approved the change to the map there was no disagreement.  She said that she did not see how people missed this because she was aware of it through her reading of the documents.  She had Brad Birge confirm that it was in the body of the document and not one of the fifty-three suggested amendments.  She noted that the decision was made on November 17th.

Commissioner Mathiesen countered that given what we have learned from the community, it makes sense to reconsider the issue with the newly raised concerns of the neighbors as part of the process.  In Brad Birge’s remarks he noted that two of the three parcels that had been changed to allow institutional development were owned by D.A. Collins.  The hospital has an option on these properties contingent on approval for the project.  It is a very small world.  D.A. Collins was a key organizer in creating the Saratoga PAC and Robert Manz, CEO of D.A. Collins is the chair of the PAC.  The CEO of Saratoga Hospital, Angelo Calbone is also a member of the Super PAC.

It was also noted that the third parcel was a piece of land donated to the hospital.  According to Matt Jones, the hospital plans to sell this parcel.

Madigan argued against re-opening the issue.  She noted that if they did re-open this change in the Comprehensive Plan that it would open up other issues.  She particularly noted that she would expect the issue of PUDs in the Greenbelt would probably come back.   I was troubled by Commissioner Madigan’s reference to the PUD question in the Greenbelt.  Unlike the hospital expansion, that issue was thoroughly and very publically discussed.  It enjoyed a very high profile as compared to the hospital expansion and it was unanimously rejected by the Council.

Skip Scirocco also spoke against re-opening the issue.  He said it would be a Pandora’s box.

As there was no motion on the floor, the discussion simply ended and Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Franck returned.

 

I met this evening (Monday February 1) with the Ethics Board.  They allowed me to submit my statement prior to the executive session at which they would discuss my allegations.  The following was my statement.

==========================================================================

Statement To The Saratoga Springs Ethics Board

February 1, 2016

In my conversation with Justin Hogan, the chair of the Ethics Board, I was unable to clarify the issue of whether the appearance of a lack of impartiality could require a member of a land use board to recuse themselves.  It appeared that the only way to address the issue was to bring a concrete example to the Ethics Board for their consideration.

In the case of both Tom Lewis and William Moore, Bonacio Construction is building the former’s home and recently completed work building the latter’s home.

I believe that both these men should have and should in the future recuse themselves from matters involving Bonacio Construction because these transactions create the appearance that their respective impartiality could be compromised.

My review of the ethics code is that the only possible basis of such a recusal would be under section 13-3 B, item 1.d.

On Page 4

13-3

Section B

Item 1

“(d) The foregoing City officers and employees are listed due to the unique nature of their offices and positions which, in turn, raise ethical conflicts unique to those offices and positions. This list is not to be deemed all-inclusive. Every City officer and employee shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct consistent with the spirit of this Chapter as well as the actual provisions and strive to act so as not to raise suspicion among the public that he or she is likely to be engaged in activities that are in violation of his or her trust.”

It would seem that the standard would require showing that the person is “likely to be engaged in activities that are in violation of his or her trust.”  This would be a very difficult standard to establish so I come here with very low expectations that the committee will pursue the inquiry I have submitted.

My greater purpose is to demonstrate that the current standards for impartiality are inadequate. 

This city should strive for the highest possible ethical standards. 

Bonacio Construction regularly comes before the two boards these men sit on.  The decisions these boards make can have enormous financial impacts on Bonacio Construction.

The issue as regards Mr. Moore and Mr. Lewis begins with the opaque nature of their business relationship with Bonacio Construction. 

The public is unable to ascertain whether the original price that was agreed upon to build these two men’s houses involved the true cost of the construction.  After all, houses are not simple commodities such as items at a hardware store where a comparison would be a simple matter.  This of course assumes that these gentlemen were to make public what they have paid for their respective homes which they are not required to do.

Even assuming that it did originally reflect the true cost, if you have ever had a house built you know that the original price is usual subject to change due to the unanticipated problems attendant in construction.  Some haggling over what should or should not be considered a change order and when additional fees are appropriate are common sources of conflict.

In the case of Bonacio Construction, these negotiations would take place with Bonacio Construction being acutely aware that they will be going before the boards these two men sit on.  Were there to arise a conflict over the cost of the work, Bonacio Construction would have to worry that the cost of a bitter dispute over what may be a modest amount of money would be unwise given the much greater sums are at stake when Bonacio Construction appears before the land use boards.

The relationship between the customer and the builder in these cases is inherently problematic.

I offer as proof just how serious an appearance of the risk of impropriety these two cases involve, that the Times Union, the largest newspaper in the region, ran a front page story on this.

If the existing ethics code does not cover these two cases, It is my hope that the board will share my concern that they serve to undermine the public trust in our land use boards and as such our city’s code of ethics needs to be strengthened.

============================================================================

The executive session proceedings are by definition held outside of the public purview.  While I cannot share the substance of the discussion, I can say that I felt that the board treated me with courtesy.  The nature of their comments was thoughtful and probing.  I felt that I was provided a serious hearing.

I have low expectations regarding any significant action regarding William Moore and Tom Lewis due to the weakness of the existing Saratoga Springs Code of Ethics.  I do think that the board appeared open to reviewing the code in light of our discussion.

They will be issuing an advisory opinion and I will share it to the readers when I receive it.

 

 

Sonny Bonacio seems to have become the celebrity developer.  Unfortunately, for Sonny, the coverage is not always favorable.

Mr. Bonacio, in a joint project with Roohan Realty, built a super expensive set of condos at 268 Broadway immediately adjacent to Congress Park.  Rumor has it that one of the tenants is a sheik from the Middle East.

Apparently, when the structure was built, it encroached on to city owned land including  Congress Park.  There apparently were two different encroachments that will now require post facto easements or changes in what occupies the land.

Dennis Yusko broke the two stories on this and I include them with this post.  I am just adding a few items to help fill in the stories further.

One of the problems has to do with a large transformer that was required to provide electricity to the Bonacio structure.  At a City Council meeting some time in 2006, Commissioner Thomas McTygue asked for an easement for the transformer.  In the brief discussion it was presented as a request from National Grid to place it “underground.”  Mr. McTygue remembers it as a request by National Grid to replace a power pole.  It passed the Council unanimously.  As it happens, National Grid placed it on top of a slab on property that was part of our park which is under the New York State Parks and so required approval from the New York State Legislature.

 

The other piece of land involves a patio and walkway adjacent to the Bonacio building that encroaches on city land.  There was no request by Bonacio and Roohan for an easement and none was issued.

It is important to note that in the Planning Board minutes back on September 13, 2006 they record that  “Sonny Bonacio said there would be no penetration to the park but there would be glass there.” 

At another point in the same meeting “Amy Durland asked where the park actually was on the site plan.  Sonny Bonacio showed the board the property line.  Amy Durland asked if the proposal currently went into the park.  Mike Ingersoll [Bonacio’s architect with the L.A. Group] clarified that the project is only on their property.”

More recently, after the issue of the apparent infringement arose, Kieth Ferrar, Bonacio’s attorney claimed that a hand written deed they had was the basis of their claim to the land now in dispute.  It is noted in the minutes of the meeting that “Keith provided a deed from 1892 (which is very difficult to read)…”

I would say that hard to read is something of an understatement.

 

More recently in April of 2015, when the City’s Realty Board began to try to untangle this mess, in a rare moment of candor, Keith Ferarra, attorney for Bonacio  is quoted in the minutes as follows: “Keith Ferrara was asked how the easement came to be and he responded saying ‘Just did it, ask for forgiveness, Let’s see how it turns out.’”  Later, Mr. Ferrara said he could not remember saying this.

Here are Dennis Yusko’s articles.

---

---

Exclusive: Bonacio seeks easement at Congress Park in Saratoga Springs

By Dennis Yusko on April 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Bonacio Construction has requested an easement from the city on a piece of Congress Park that the company may have encroached upon while building its Park Place condominium project, according to city records.

The company recently applied for access rights to an approximately 300-foot by 25-foot piece of city-owned parkland behind 268 Broadway, where it built a concrete patio and walkways, city officials said. The Saratoga Springs Real Estate Board is reviewing the easement request, which Bonacio Construction recently submitted after completing work on the six-story, 215,000-square-foot complex, according to Mayor Joanne Yepsen.

“They may need an easement to approve walkways and landscaping they did on park property,” Yepsen said when asked about it.

Congress Park is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, and the City Council and state Legislature could make the final decisions on Bonacio’s land-use request, the mayor said. The Park Place building itself does not infringe on public land, according to city officials.

Bonacio Construction received city approvals to build the residential and commercial project along Congress Park and Broadway in 2006. Now, nine years later, questions about an easement — a legal right to use someone else’s land — have surfaced.

“After reviewing the plans, there is considerable property involved, and more investigation is needed to determine what the impact is,” Real Estate Board members said of the easement request, according to minutes from its March 5 meeting.

At the board’s next monthly meeting on April 2, Keith Ferrara, chief operations officer for Bonacio Construction, suggested that a 123-year-old property deed handed down from a previous landowner included an easement to build on the piece of Congress Park.

However, according to minutes of the meeting, when he was asked how the easement on Congress Park came to be, Ferrara had responded, “Just did it, ask forgiveness — let’s see how it turns out.”

Reached by phone last week, Ferrara said he didn’t remember saying it that way and said he thought the company’s work on a “unusable” portion of the park was permitted through the 1892 deed.

Bonacio Construction is not offering money or land in return for the easement, Ferrara said. “This is just taking a 100-something-year-old easement and cleaning it up,” he said.

The Real Estate Board, a little-known advisory committee, is chaired by City Attorney Vince DeLeonardis. Other voting members are Kameron Klippel, the city’s receiver of taxes, Brad Birge, administrator of planning and economic development, Tony Popolizio, the assistant assessor, and city police Officer Kevin Veitch.

DeLeonardis said the old property deed was handwritten and difficult to read, and the Real Estate Board must investigate if the document authorized the company to use parkland, or if additional approvals were necessary. The board is also looking into an anonymous claim that a city official or officials verbally approved an easement at the construction site years ago, DeLeonardis said.

“Right now we are in the preliminary stages of finding facts,” DeLeonardis said. “It’s important to note parkland is impressed with the public trust for the benefit of the people and state, and the use of land for anything other than park purposes requires approval of the state Legislature.”

Asked why the project never received state approvals, he said, “That’s a good question, and we’re looking into that now.”

The city approved Park Place in 2006. The Planning Board voted to allow the Design Review Commission to serve as lead agency in an environmental review process. The commission decided the project would not have a negative environmental impact on the surrounding area, but required the company to hire an archaeologist to monitor excavation of the site, according to city records. The project changed slightly as it evolved, DeLeonardis said. “Right now, we really have more questions than answers,” he said.

The Real Estate Board is expected to continue to discuss the easement application at its next meeting on May 7.

Bonacio’s project extended into Congress Park, Saratoga officials say

Areas of condo site violate boundaries of park, city land

By Dennis Yusko

Published 7:49 pm, Thursday, January 21, 2016

Saratoga Springs

Bonacio Construction encroached on state parkland and city property with a six-story condominium project it built along Broadway and Congress Park, and the city may need action from the state Legislature to correct part of the problem, city officials said.

A recently completed land survey determined the construction company built on taxpayer-owned land behind the 215,000-square-foot Park Place building, and a National Grid transformer that serves the building sits on a small section of bordering Congress Park, which is owned by the state, Public Works Commissioner Anthony Scirocco announced at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

Further review of the project, which the city approved in 2006, revealed the City Council voted in 2007 to provide National Grid an easement to build the utility transformer behind the condominiums, City Attorney Vince DeLeonardis said. The city granted the easement for $1, according to a copy of the agreement, on land that it doesn’t own, according to Scirocco.

“There’s no way the City Council can grant an easement,” Scirocco said Tuesday. “The only way the easement can be granted is through the state Legislature because it’s state historic property.”

What land was used to complete Park Place became an issue last year, when the city engineer’s office noted potential land encroachments behind the building while reviewing final as-built drawings for the project. Bonacio Construction then requested an easement from the city on an approximately 300-by 25-foot piece of city-owned land behind 268 Broadway, where it built a patio and walkways as part of Park Place, according to city officials.

Scirocco had a land survey of the area completed to delineate exact boundaries. Performed by Environmental Design Partnership, the study found small segments of Park Place intruded on parts of city and state land, DeLeonardis said. He gave two examples: the National Grid transformer and a fenced-in picnic and barbecue area that was built on city property between the Palio and Holiday Inn buildings.

The Park Place building itself does not infringe on public land, DeLeonardis said. He said there had been some confusion over the park’s boundaries because the Broadway portion of a wrought-iron fence that surrounds the park and is thought to denote property lines was removed years ago, possibly during a major fire. City officials reviewed a number of old maps, documents and deeds to determine boundary lines with the help of Bonacio employees, DeLeonardis said.

The Saratoga Springs Real Estate Board was reviewing Bonacio requests for easements on city land that was used. But Congress Park is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, and using it for anything other than park purposes requires approval of the state Legislature. The city is potentially looking at having to get authority from the state to allow the National Grid transformer to remain on Congress Park, or undertaking efforts to relocate the station, DeLeonardis said.

National Grid spokesman Patrick Stella said the company was open to moving the structure. A spokesperson for Bonacio Construction could not be reached.

dyusko@timesunion.com • 518-454-5353 • @DAYusko

 

 

 

From: Michele Madigan []
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 2:19 PM
To: John Kaufmann
Subject: Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment

John,

Regarding the Hospital PUD Amendment:  I did indicate at the last Council Meeting that I was moving toward bringing the Hospital PUD Amendment forward to the three remaining Commissioners for a Discussion and Vote.  However, at this time, I find that we do not have accurate updated language for the PUD Amendment and until we receive accurate language from the City Attorney, City Planning Department, and the Applicant I cannot bring this forward to the Council for a Vote. My office has been working diligently to address this for the past two weeks, but there are still some inaccuracies in the legislation that require input form the City Planning Dept. so the legislation is not yet complete.

Additionally, it has come to my attention that a petition has been filed by residences in opposition of the Hospital PUD Amendment, but I have not officially received the formal petition and therefore have not had a chance to review the petition.

I plan to add a Discussion item to my agenda on Monday morning at the City Council Pre-Agenda Meeting and hope to gather more information so I may fully inform the public as to the status of the Saratoga Hospital PUD Amendment.

Thank you,

Michele Madigan
Commissioner of Finance

The City Council process is to distribute a tentative agenda on Fridays.  On Mondays the Council meets to discuss this tentative agenda in order to finalize it for Tuesday’s meeting.

This is a link to that tentative agenda. Commissioner Madigan had originally said the hospital expansion would be discussed and voted on at this Tuesdays Council meeting.  That item does not appear on her agenda. http://www.saratoga-springs.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/02012016-1243

 

[I received this release this afternoon]

For Immediate Release

January 29, 2016

Re: The proposed rezoning for Saratoga Hospital Expansion

Contact:

Mr. Andy Brick 489-9423, Counsel representing the residents of neighborhood

Mr. Jack Despart 239-273-7931, Morgan St. Neighbor

On Friday afternoon, January 29, 2016, attorney Andy Brick, acting on behalf of the residents of Morgan St., Myrtle St., Seward St, Woodlawn Ct., and much of Birch Run filed a protest petition at Saratoga City Hall requiring the City Council to pass the Hospital-requested proposed rezoning legislation with a super majority, or 4 out of 5 votes. Normally legislation would be passed with a Council majority of 3 out of 5 votes.  Saratoga Hospital would like to expand it’s PUD into the residential area of the Northern part of Morgan St.  The neighborhood would like to keep this area zoned residential.

The Protest Petition City Ordinance Section (10.2.8.1) is a mechanism residents can use when they do not want to see rezoning happen in their neighborhood. If a petition is filed, 4 affirmative votes are needed to pass the rezone.

“The residents not only provided enough signatures, but they also provided signatures from just about the entire residential neighborhood,” stated Andy Brick, attorney representing the residents. He continued, “We have not only met the criteria in order to force a super majority vote by City Council, but we surpassed it.”

Because two members of the City Council have officially recused themselves, citing conflicts of interest, the City Council only has 3 possible votes and therefore is unable to obtain the 4 votes necessary to pass the rezoning legislation needed in order for the Hospital to expand into the residential neighborhood.

“This is a case of David beating Goliath,” said Jack Despart, Morgan St. resident. He continued, “When we first heard of this expansion, everyone told us we couldn’t win, the Hospital has too many resources and connections, and we didn’t have a chance.  But, we came together as a neighborhood and a community and it worked.  I’m so proud of our neighbors, each and every one of them.”

Despart further explained, “We all want the best for the Hospital and the community but we honestly feel the Hospital failed to recognize the rights of its neighbors and that makes many of us very disappointed. There are several other alternatives already situated within commercial zoning and within a close proximity to the Hospital, which were never properly explored.”