Category: Uncategorized

 

The neighbors of 39 Murphy Lane report that they got a call from Mayor Yepsen today. The Mayor stated that the city is backing the building inspector and will not lift the stop work order at this time. According to the neighbors the Mayor and her staff met with the applicant, Jean D’Agostino, and her lawyer and informed them that they must meet the requirements as stated in the original variance. The neighbors will be meeting with the Mayor and her staff next week.

Much thanks to the people who contacted the mayor on this.

The neighbors of 39 Murphy Lane have asked for a meeting with Mayor Yepsen and the city attorney to discuss the status of what was supposed to be a rehab of an old barn.   As noted in an earlier post, the owner, Jean D’Agostino, has challenged the city, claiming that she does not need the variance that precipitated the original stop work order in early January.  Her attorney has asserted her right to build is high as the zoning allows which would be potentially sixty feet.

There are a number of things that need to be clarified.  First and foremost would be how the attorneys for the city view her attorney’s claim.  I also expect the neighbors to seek clarity about the legal implications of the owner’s application in which she said that they planned to rehab the old barn and in which she explicitly stated that tearing the barn down would be a detriment to the neighborhood.  There is also the question regarding the legal implications of the fact that the rehabbed barn was to be built on a slab and that instead the owner excavated beneath the structure and laid a full, raised basement.

While many of the people who read this blog do not live in close proximity to this project, in a sense we are all neighbors of the people who do.  The legal implications of this project go far beyond this one neighborhood.  It is very possible that the readers of this blog may find themselves facing similar circumstances in the future.

With this in mind, I am asking the readers of this blog to take the time to write, call, or email Mayor Yepsen and to urge her to organize a meeting with her staff and the neighbors so that the people being impacted can better understand their rights.  It would also be helpful if people used their networks to get others to write.  The letter does not have to be complicated.  It can simply say something like: 

Dear Mayor Yepsen:

I urge you to meet with the neighbors of 39 Murphy Lane to explore the legal implications of what had been a proposed rehab of a barn at that address.  The resolution of the conflict surrounding this project will have implications throughout our city.

Thank you

This is the email address for the mayor: joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

 

I FOILed for a copy of the letter from the attorney representing Jean D’Agostino, the owner of 39 Murphy Lane.  Ms. D’Agostino is being represented by James A. Fauci of Ballson Spa.  I am including the full text of the letter below.  As I understand it, he basically argues that she is not prohibited from building the structure up to the sixty feet permitted in a UR-3 zone because according to Mr. Fauci the resolution granting the original variances was “unconditional” and therefore set no limits on height.  He also noted that the building inspector prior to issuing the stop work order visited the site and he alleges that the visits “included the inspection and approval of the now existing foundation, second floor, and roof.”

It will be interesting to see how the ZBA responds to this.  Having asserted that D’Agostino was required to get a height variance, the ZBA had asked the Design Review Commission to assist in trying to address recreating in some manner the original barn.   Dismissing the need for the additional variances and claiming she can build as high as the 60 feet that zoning permits certainly is a game changer.

 

 

Trish Bush is the city attorney, Vince DeLeonardis’, secretary.  The burden for dealing with FOIL requests for the last three years has fallen on her shoulders.  That, of course, is only part of her job.  She has been enormously helpful to this blogger as I am sure she has been to all the other people (including Vince!) who have taxed her energy and patience.  I would like to publically thank her for all her work on behalf of our city and wish her all the best in her next endeavor. 

 

The saga of the barn at 39 Murphy Lane that had permission to be renovated but ended up as new construction took yet a new turn.

At the start of the April 11 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, chair William Moore announced that that due to a recent event, they would discuss the 39 Murphy Lane application at the beginning of the meeting.  City Attorney Tony Izzo then got up and told the board that he had received a letter from an attorney representing the property owner, Ms. D’Agostino.  He said he had not had time to fully review the letter as it was not received until 4:30 that day.  He then asked the attorney (whose name I did not catch) to come forward and confirm that his client was withdrawing her current application for variances.

This is a little confusing but basically, a stop order had been issued on the property because aside from the fact that it was inconsistent with the original application (they tore down a building that was supposed to be renovated), it was going to exceed the height of the original building and thus required additional variances beyond the many they had already received.

Apparently, the applicant had decided that they were not going to endure the additional requirements that were going to come from the Design Review Commission (see earlier post).  The attorney seemed to be asserting that his client did not need the additional height variance or any other additional variances.   Since they had already received the earlier variances, they were asserting their right to go forward with the project.  How they were going to get around the height issue I have no idea or the fact that they tore down a building that they had promised to renovate or that they had put in a full raised basement when their application and plans said that they were going to place the building on a slab.  The attorney’s  letter should be posted on the city web site shortly.

As soon as I can get a copy of the letter, I will post on its implications.

 

 

This post is to review the principles of this blog.  In order to foster thoughtful discussion on our city’s issues it is critical that the tone of this blog be civil.  No one should have to worry that they will be the subject of coarse invective for expressing their views.  I have always been scrupulous about blocking comments that are personal attacks on other commenters.  I have been more tolerant of attacks on me but even here,  if I am too tolerant and allow ugly rants against me, others might fear that they would become subjects of similar attacks.

For those of you who have posted comments, you know that you must enter an email address to register to comment.  When I receive a comment that is excessively abusive, I always take the time to email the individual and offer to publish their comment if they will make it more civil.  It is interesting that in 100% of the time, the email address that they have registered with is invalid.

So to the person or persons who is/are submitting these abusive comments, please be advised that you are wasting your time because they will not be published on this website.

 

That Jenny Grey!  The Saratogian might be in better shape today if they had hired her ten years ago and given her the freedom to write long and thoughtful stories.

This is a story about a proposal by Commissioner Scirocco to create a theater district between the City Center parking structure and Lake Avenue.

 

Public Works commissioner proposes a High Rock theater district

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 04/10/16, 1:00 AM EDT |

The theater district plan would construct another such building on High Rock Avenue. Image provided

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> While the City Center’s parking project advances, the city council continues to think about the rest of the High Rock parcel; and now Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco has presented his dramatic vision for that key part of downtown. He proposes creating a theater district.

“The time is now to give back the city a beautiful part of its history; something for future generations,” he said while presenting to the council April 5. “The creation of a vibrant theater district will spur economic activity downtown, create jobs, raise tax revenues, and be a substantial boost to our arts community and the quality of life for our residents.”

He later explained where the idea had come from.

“I like theater, but I don’t go very often,” he said. “Mostly I’ve seen high school plays. I’ve never actually been to a Broadway show. So this plan is just something I think would be good for the city. It’s not because I have a personal theatrical agenda.”

Scirocco had met with Assistant City Engineer Deborah LaBreche to discuss possibilities for the remainder of the High Rock lot.

“We thought, ‘What don’t we have here in the city?’” he said. “And then the light bulb went on.”

Although a popular destination for the arts both back in Victorian times and now, Saratoga Springs presently lacks a year-’round live theater venue downtown. Scirocco and LaBreche considered the idea of building a city theater, to be run by a professional theater company, on the part of the High Rock parcel nearest Lake Avenue. A small park bordered by mixed-use buildings would take up the central part of the lot.

“We want this to be new, innovative and modern,” Scirocco said. “But we want to keep the historic connection, too. The city is so well-suited to this idea, being a community of the arts.”

Back in the day, entertainment and horse racing made the city a tourist destination. Only a few steps from the train station, visitors could find everything from side shows to serious world-class operas. The Leland Opera House, a grand theater that could seat 1,600, was erected on the parklike grounds behind the Grand Union Hotel. Both buildings are long gone now.

But vibrant cities invest in their theaters, Scirocco said. Nationally, theater is a $135.2 billion industry that supports 4.1 million jobs and generates $22.3 billion in government revenue. Attendees spend $24.60 per person beyond admission during a visit to the theater. And theaters are resilient even in tough economic times.

“So many historic theaters are being brought back, complete with today’s technologies, by enthusiastic developers, supportive communities, skilled architects and craftspeople,” he said.

His presentation showed such renovated theaters returned to their former splendor in Brooklyn, Massachusetts and North Carolina.

Of course Saratoga Springs does have several theatrical venues at present, some of them likewise being renovated, such as Universal Preservation Hall (UPH).

“I think over the years, the UPH has done a great job and should be commended for what’s been done,” Scirocco said.

The Music Hall on the top floor of City Hall may soon be taken for much-needed additional City Hall space, likely for the courts.

The other existing Saratoga theaters are Saratoga Performing Arts Center, the Spa Little Theater, the Museum of Dance Riggi Theater and Café Lena.

Scirocco cited data saying that competing theaters benefit one another. The 40 Broadway theaters in Manhattan’s theater district continue to flourish.

“I think the UPH and a new theater could both be successful and work well together,” he said.

Some benefits of a High Rock theater district would include extending Broadway show business from New York City north to Saratoga Springs; providing a year-’round economic powerhouse; offering high-quality space in which local and out-of-town troupes can perform; generating revenue for the proposed parking on High Rock Avenue via theater patrons; increasing business for hotels, shops, restaurants and the local theater community; and building a classically and elegantly design theater building to showcase the city’s history and create a sense of community pride.

Looking at the mixed-use Winston-Salem theater district in North Carolina, Scirocco summed up the pieces that would already be in place for a similar High Rock theater district: the City Center with its convention-goers, paid parking in the planned facility, and plenty of nearby hotels and restaurants.

“The theater district could be proposed as a mixed-use plan for condominiums, retail and artist rental lofts associated with the new theater,” he said. “Green roofs could be included, and the theater courtyard could include green space for a park.”

Mixed use is a phrase much associated with the designs that came in from the High Rock requests for proposals. Generally, the community-minded design includes retail on the ground floor, with office space above that and housing at the highest level.

Bill Dake, the owner of Stewart’s Shops, commented on the current state of mixed-use development during a public hearing at the latest city council meeting.

“Mixed use doesn’t work,” he said. “Look at all the unleased space in Ellsworth Commons in Malta and here in Saratoga on Weibel Avenue.”

The face of retail is changing, he said. Consumers buy more merchandise online. Retailers therefore need less storefront, so those shop spaces go unleased. Developers then have to raise the rents on the apartments above, putting them out of reach for many people. The developers say they can’t afford to build affordable or low-income housing. So a whole mixed-use building can sit empty.

Scirocco tried, therefore, to think of different angles for mixed use, like the artists’ lofts.

“When we’d laid out the plan, we couldn’t find any negatives, only positives,” he said. “I think the city is hungry for a theater district. I am really excited about this.”

The next step would be to do a request for proposal to find a consultant who would then do a market analysis. Think of this as intermission.

 

At their last meeting the Zoning Board of Appeals asked the  Design Review Commission  to provide an advisory opinion on what could be done with  39 Murphy Lane.  

The Design Review Commission reviewed the building at its April 6 meeting.  The Commission members had visited the site. 

They took their charge as finding some way that the building could be rebuilt to closely approximate the original barn.  It was not their responsibility to consider the troubled history of the project.

Their initial  concern was that  the  concrete slab the barn had originally sat on had been replaced by a full, raised basement, making the building higher than the original structure.  This was discussed at length.  Since the original structure was gone, there was controversy over what the original height of the entire building had been.

The DRC unanimously agreed that at a minimum, most of the foundation that is above the grade of  Murphy Lane should be cut away to lower the height of the building.  They discussed at some length the proper materials that could be used to try to approximate the original exterior surface of the structure.  They noted that it would be important to restore at least the appearance of the original barn doors.  They also discussed the type of roofing material that would be appropriate.

The engineer from American Engineering who had been hired by the owner Ms. D’Agostino to work on 39 Murphy Lane pointed out that the original design that had been accepted by the city included a car port that would radically affect the appearance of the building.  The engineer also noted that by law the building would need significant windows to meet code which would also affect its appearance.

The DRC was going to make some general recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals about what would need to be done.  As pointed out by a member of the audience, this still left much of the design of the appearance of the structure unresolved.  It was noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals had requested the DRC’s advice because they did not feel qualified to get into the precise appearance of the structure.  This left  the question of who would oversee the re-design of 39 Murphy Lane up in the air. 

 Brad Birge, head of the city planning department, suggested that the DRC volunteer to provide  oversight of the design to the ZBA.

This passed unanimously.

On the way out I overheard the owner of the property, Ms. D’Agostino, say to her engineer that she was going to put a for sale sign in front of the property.  I took that more as a bitter commentary than as a real decision.

 

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

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

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

 

Email To Mayor And Attorneys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brian Rodems

---