Sonny Bonacio contacted me a few days ago. He indicated that the asbestos abatement is done and this week they expect to start to demolish the main building. You can see by the attached photos that they have already removed the trees that were located on the Union Avenue side of the site and are well advanced in demolition and removing the one story dining hall that extended toward Union Avenue.
There was a neighborhood block party on Sunday and one of the more creative neighbors baked a Moore Hall cake. As a good omen the cake was completely dismantled (eaten) and there was no need to remove anything but the platter.
Jean D’Agostino, owner of the property that hitherto contained a small barn on Murphy Lane, has filed suit challenging the stop work order on her construction. The suit filed by attorney James A. Fauci on behalf of Ms. D’Agostino names city building inspector Stephen Shaw and the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a link to the document. south-alley-llc-notice-of-petition-etc
In addition to the lifting of the stop work order, it seeks damages which include D’Agostino’s legal bills, loss of income due to delay, and damage to the materials left idle on site.
Central to the suit is the argument that the actual approval of the variances granted to Ms. D’Agostino was unconditional. The document cites the city’s codes as follows:
5.4.4 EXTENSION OR EXPANSION OF STRUCTURE
A. A non-conforming structure may be extended or expanded the proposed extension or expansion does not violate any dimensional requirements other than the current nonconformity.
And
8.3.4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The ZBA, in granting a use or area variance, shall have the authority to impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related and incidental, to the proposed use of the property. Such conditions be consistent with the spirit and intent of this Chapter and shall be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact such variance may have on the neighborhood or community.
See also: 8.5 (D) DECISIONS
The ZBA shall have the authority to impose such reasonable conditions and restrictions as are directly related, and incidental, to the proposed project.
As the people who have been following this blog know, Ms. D’Agostino, in her application for variances asserted that not only was she not going to demolish the existing barn but that to do so would bring harm to the neighborhood. She therefore committed herself to the conversion of the existing structure.
Mr. Fauci notes that Ms. D’Agostino originally jacked up the barn at considerable expense in order to construct a full basement. He offers this as proof that it was her honest intention to save the barn. He then alleges that the condition of the wood in the structure was so deteriorated that it necessitated its demolition. Unlike his letter of appeal to the ZBA, he does not argue that reusing some of the original materials represented a conversion rather than a demolition.
It is important to note that the original stop work order only referenced the need for a variance to raise the height of the building. As noted above, Fauci argues that since the height limit for the zoning in that district was sixty feet, there was no need to seek such a variance. As also noted above, he argues that if the ZBA did not want the building on the lot to be higher thant the original building then they needed to specifically state this as a condition in their approval of variances.
I am not a lawyer but it would appear on its face that the central issue will be the significance of the failure of Ms. D’Agostino to adhere to the strictures of her application to the board upon which they made their decision. Was Ms. D’Agostino required to maintain the original structure as she had stated in convincing the board to approve her “renovation” ? Was it necessary in the ZBA’s approval of the variances to include explicit stipulations on height and, in fact, the protection of the original structure?
I would also note that it seems very strange that Ms. D’Agostino did not have an engineer thoroughly inspect the building to determine its soundness before alleging to the ZBA that she would rehab rather than demolish the structure.
Mr. Fauci also documents the confusion and awkwardness (a charitable characterization) of the building inspector and the ZBA’s handling of this matter. The fact that the ZBA ended up issuing a full explanation that went far beyond the original explanation many months after the original stop work order and that they were unwilling to have the building inspector explain the reasons for his stop work order when challenged by Mr. Fauci at a public meeting is both accurate and embarrassing.
One can only marvel at the gross mishandling of this project by the ZBA. In defense of ZBA board members Susan Steer, Keith Kaplan, and James Helicke, they did vote against approving the variances. The other members of the ZBA created the conditions for this law suit. They were, unfortunately, assisted by Mr. Shaw. In his defense, the building department is understaffed. Still it is apparent that were it not for the neighbors strong opposition, this project would have, in all likelihood, simply gone on to completion. Mr. Shaw retroactively approved the excavation of the full basement instead of the slab as submitted in the original plan which might have triggered a cleaner stop work order. This was just another example of the ZBA and building department’s tolerance for “do it and ask for forgiveness later.” This seems to be standard operating procedure for the ZBA. Fauci notes the approval of the basement in his suit. What is quite clear is that there were problems with Mr. Shaw’s correspondence to Ms. D’Agostino that Mr. Fauci is fully exploiting.
One can only hope that in the interest of the neighborhood, the judge will find Ms. D’Agostino’s abrogation of her commitments in her application to the ZBA sufficient to find for the city.
The Albany Business Review reported the opening of two more hotels in Saratoga County and a further decline in the economics of the local hotel industry.
Last week the 107 room Home 2 Suites opened in Malta. Obviously they are directing themselves to Global Foundries which is located in the same town.
According to the Review:
As of this last July, the average rate of occupancy has fallen every month for the last fourteen consecutive months.
During the same period the average occupancy rate is down a whopping 13.5 percent.
The supply of “room nights” has increased by 5 per cent.
Demand has fallen a whopping 9.2 per cent.
The amount paid per room is down 11.5 per cent.
The average amount paid was $85.27.
The average daily rate demanded of guests is up 2.4 percent to $139.94.
Further proof as to the small world we all live in, Sonny Bonacio has purchased the land in East Greenbush where the owners of our local casino had hoped to build a new gambling mecca in East Greenbush. Vigorously opposed by the locals there, it lost out to Schenectady. The 74 acres was offered for $2.5 million dollars following the casino debacle and as a sign of how fluid these numbers are, Bonacio picked it up for $1 million. What a deal!
In the meantime, the sound of construction has come to Moore Hall as the abatement for asbestos has begun there.
Fascinating story in today’s Albany Business Review. Unfortunately it is behind a pay wall but here are some of the most salient points. If you can find a way around their pay wall I highly recommend the piece. Link To Story
Bruce Levinsky has told the journal that he has sold the Rip Van Dam hotel to investors who plan to develop the site for a 140 room Hotel Indigo. The venerable old hotel was built one hundred and eighty years ago. The Journal claims it is the last pre-Civil War era hotel in the city.
The reporter interviewed Cindy Hollowood, the general manager of the Holiday Inn. She apparently received a letter from the InterContinental Hotels Group advising her that they had approved the franchise for the new Indigo. That corporation operates over 5,000 hotels and operates a dozen brands in the world.
For decades Ms. Hollowood has been a stalwart advocate for what I would characterize as unrestrained growth and a long time player in the Republican Party. For as long as I can remember, the Republican Party here in the city has run its election eve event at her Holiday Inn. Ms. Hollowood was a founding member of the board of the Saratoga PAC. The PAC has held its events at the Holiday Inn.
For those of us who have viewed with jaundice eyes the sprawl of subdivisions over the last decades there is a certain irony here. That same corporate group proposing the Rip Van Dam development is the parent of the Holiday Inn (her motel brand), The Hotel Indigao, the Holiday Inn Express, and the Crowne Plaza Hotels.
InterContinental sought her comments several weeks ago on the expansion.
There are currently some 2,000 hotel rooms in the city. There are three hotels either under construction or pursuing the rights to build within a mile and a half of Ms. Hollowood’s Motel. A 113 room Hilton is going up on South Broadway. Visions Hotels of Corning is proposing to demolish the Turf and Spa Motel at 176 South Broadway thus replacing an existing facility of 43 rooms with a new Fair Field Inn with 89 rooms. Of course there is the $34 million dollar renovation of the Adelphi Hotel which will be right next door to the proposed Indigo.
Ms. Hollowood is quoted as saying, “We are concerned with this project because it is under the same umbrella of ownership and franchisor as the Holiday Inn flag,”
According to the Review, Hollowood and Todd Garofano, president of the Saratoga Convention and Tourism Bureau expressed worry citing a declining demand for rooms during the past year while the supply just keeps growing.
According to Hollowood there were 18,000 fewer rooms rented during the first seven months of this year than there were during the same period in 2015.
According to Hollowood Hotel Indigo’s average room rate is expected to be about $50 higher than many of hotels in Saratoga Springs. $170.00 is the average year round rate (this includes the sky rocketing amounts paid during racing).
Hollowood is quoted as saying”To think they are going to break the $200 mark for average rate is in my opinion incorrect, especially when there is going to be more supply in the market.”
“I just think most people coming in from the outside really don’t have a good understanding of our market,” Hollowood told the Journal. “It requires more insight than just, ‘Oh, look at how they are performing compared to the rest of upstate New York.'”
“We are particularly disheartened with the franchise group … When somebody is making a decision around a table 10 states away, it doesn’t make any sense, particularly when they look at the way the market is trending downward,” Hollowood said.
When a stalwart like Ms. Hollowood is saying things like this it is pretty shocking. I can’t help myself from feeling a little schadenfreude. Ms. Hollowood has for many years been a cheerleader for growth that eroded much of what had been the country part of our city. I wonder if this experience might chasten her faith in the infallibility of markets.
There appear to be fewer and fewer profitable places to put the huge sums of cash that many of this country’s wealthy people are sitting on. I think the word I am reaching for and that she is experiencing is “bubble.”
Developer Bruce Levinsky has sold the Batcheller Mansion. Citing his age (74) Levinsky says he sold it because he is retiring. This seems a bit odd since he told the Albany Business Review he is working on building a hotel behind the Rip Van Dam.
The new owners of the Batcheller Mansion are Vincent and Karen Abate. They purchased the property for $1.8 million.
Mr. Abate is chief technology officer and a senior vice president at GE Global Research in Niskayuna.
The Albany Business Review published a report on the continued explosion of construction of apartments in Saratoga Springs. Link
Burns Management, an Albany based developer, expects to complete construction of the first units of a $20,000,000.00 project by January. They report that Burns Management has completed more than half of the first seventy apartments of a proposed one hundred and five unit complex in the Excelsior Park development.
Their president, Peter Rosencranz Jr., told the review that “Our target market will be empty-nesters and young professionals who are looking for a walkable downtown and a maintenance free lifestyle.”
Burns Management purchased the property for $1.58 million in December from John Witt.
They plan to incorporate a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments with a rent range from somewhere under $1,100.00 per month to $2,500.00 per month.
Excelsior Park
Burns Project Construction Site
Back around 2000, Home Depot attempted to build a huge box store at this location. A groundswell of opposition defeated them.
Developers John Witt and Jeff Pfeil then proposed an ambitious development based on the buzz words “New Urbanism.” It was supposed to create a community of homes, offices, and small retail while maximizing the green spaces and incorporating trails.
“We are creating a neighborhood, not just a development,” opined Jeff Pfeil.
The project ran into trouble. As far as I can tell, Pfeil managed to bail. Witt built a set of condos (see picture), but that was it. Before the Marriott was built the Witt condos was all that happened.
I am unclear as to how much land was involved. I have photographed the area immediately adjacent to the Witt buildings and provided an aerial view.
Witt Condos
Field Of Dreams: Landscape Around Witt Condos For New Urbanism
Given the distance this project is from Broadway, it will take some very robust tenants to walk to the downtown and they will have to be very careful since there are no sidewalks for most of the way down Route 50.
Mr. Witt told the Business Review that he has plans to build additional row houses there that will sell from between $200,000.00 and $400,000.00.
No one is talking about “New Urbanism.”
New Bonacio Project On Excelsior Avenue
Further south on Excelsior Avenue Sonny Bonacio is completing a large apartment complex.
The New York State Open Meetings Law requires that proper notice be provided to the public of the time and place of meetings of governmental bodies.
Article 7, section 104 of the Public Officers Law. (I have underscored the most pertinent section) states:
104. Public notice. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting.
Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonabl time prior thereto.
The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice.
If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
When a public body has the ability to do so, notice of the time and place of a meeting given in accordance with subdivision one or two of this section, shall also be conspicuously posted on the public body’s internet website.
All the other major city boards adhere to this requirement. They meet on a specific schedule so that members of the public can anticipate when the meetings will occur. In addition, they post their agendas as part of the notice requirement at least seventy-two hours prior to their meetings so that the public will know when they will meet and what business they will be addressing.
In contrast, the Ethics Board meets on no schedule. The randomness of their meetings makes it impossible to anticipate when they will gather. I also happened to discover last June that they did not publish their agenda until the actual day of their meeting nor did they post any other form of notice on the website.
When I inquired of Justin Hogan, the chair of the Ethics Board, why there was no notice of their meeting posted on a timely basis as required by law, he informed me that they post their notices on a bulletin board in city hall.
I subsequently wrote to the Mayor and copied, among others, Mr. Hogan citing the requirement that they post the notice and agenda on the city’s website at least seventy-two hours prior to their meetings. I included a citation of the law and asked whether there were any extenuating circumstances or if I was somehow misreading the law. This was in an email dated July 10 (see below). Neither Mayor Yepsen nor Mr. Hogan responded.
I was interested in how extensive this problem was so I FOILed the city for the agendas of the Ethics Board this year and the dates that these agendas were posted on the city web site (The agendas serving the dual need for both notice of meeting and the business to be transacted). As the documents below show, every agenda was posted on the date the meeting occurred. In other words, at a minimum, the Ethics Board failed to issue proper notice to the public at any of its meetings so far this year.
Interestingly, the FOIL also produced a redacted email from Marilyn Rivers who serves on the Ethics Board and works in the city’s Accounts office. In it she states that she “posted our last meeting on the bulletin board.”
Missing from her email is what exactly she posted, which bulletin board she posted whatever it was she posted on, and most importantly, when she posted the item.
It is quite disturbing that a board charged with insuring the ethical standards for our city should not only violate a very important law, but that its chair and the Mayor should refuse to even acknowledge that there is any issue.
Dates Ethics Agendas Were Posted
Dates Agendas Were Posted On City Website
[Agendas: Note that dates of meetings match dates of postings]
At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting the Council unanimously voted to pass on the affordable housing zoning proposal offered by Sustainable Saratoga to the county and city planning boards.
In today’s (August 20) Saratogian, reporter Travis Clark wrote that at the city council meeting, Mayor Yepsen told the council that she had received a letter from the Saratoga Builders Association supporting the proposed ordinance. Clark went on to write that the letter from the Association was dated August 1 which pre-dated Sustainable Saratoga’s proposal. Mr. Clark contacted Barry Potoker, the SBA Executive Director. He contradicted the Mayor, telling Clark that his group is not supporting the proposal at this time.
It will be interesting to see what the county and city planning boards do with the proposal. Both boards are dominated by the developer/builder network. If they endorse the proposal, I expect it to sail on to adoption. If they oppose the proposal, given the history of the council, it will be in some jeopardy.
Saratoga Springs Politics 