Saratoga Springs Politics

[This is a post written by Sandra Cohen on behalf of Saratoga Neighbors For Zoning Enforcement.  It is a report on what happened at the last meeting of the ZBA regarding “Downton Walk.”  It is important for background to note that in order for the ZBA to reverse their original approval for this project, it must be shown that the project or its environment has changed.  The members of the group did an excellent job systematically documenting the changes and Ms. Cohen has done an excellent job reporting on this.  The project comes up for what is expected to be a final decision on Monday night]

 

Just as the May 23^rd session was, the June 20 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals became a marathon. With ten items on the agenda, several of which included their own hiccups, the agenda item saved for last was the one I’ve been following: Builder John Witt’s Downton Walk Proposal for 27 Jumel Place.

 

With Vice Chairman Keith Kaplan, sitting in for Chairman Bill Moore, the Board worked on comparing this year’s Application with the previous version(s) that had been approved in 2013/14. It was stressed in the last meeting that Significant Changes from the previous application are the only things that could allow the Board not to approve this project, so this was the focus of questioning throughout the evening.

 

It is important that it be clear that there are significant differences between the two applications submitted.

 

The ensuing financial discussion brought strong objections from Witt’s attorney Elizabeth Coreno, insisting the approval did not hinge on financials in 2013. But Board Member Susan Steer countered that the first point on the earlier decision — whether or not the benefits can be achieved by any other means feasible – was financially-based, to which Coreno acquiesced. Steer concluded that the difference between the financial information in 2013 and 2016, in and of itself, represented a significant change between the two applications.

 

In 2013, the applicant reported that his 7 homes would sell at an average price of $640,000, bringing the total of all of them to $4,480,000. After land acquisition and development costs of $905,640, $3,574,360 remained.

 

In 2016, the applicant states the average price of the 7 units will be $930,000.  Building and selling only 5 units at that average price, after subtracting the $1,303,380 land acquisition and development costs, the remaining $3,346,620 is feasible, because it is nearly the same amount as in 2013 with 7 units.

 

Additionally, selling the 7 units using today’s average price of $930,000, in essence will reward the applicant with $1.6 million more than in 2013 – to make up for the difference of only $397,740 in land and development costs.

 

Furthermore, the prices now being used by Mr. Witt and his attorney do not take into consideration the even higher prices that he supplied to the Board in February 2016 – prices between $700,000 to $1,500,000, instead of the $587,000 to $1,255,000 being used now. The prices Mr. Witt provided to the Board in February 2016 were reduced by 16% after Mr. Witt acquired an attorney in May 2016, even though Mr. Witt continues to allow the higher numbers of $700,000 to $1,500,000 to be used in newspaper articles promoting his Downton Walk development. There has been a constant calibration in price ranges, which represents an additional significant change.

 

Feasibility has significantly changed and must be considered now in evaluating “Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an [these] area variance[s].”

 

Yes, the numbers supplied by Mr. Witt prove he can feasibly build five homes now, not seven, which would thereby significantly reduce the substantial nature of the variances that he is requesting.

 

When discussion turned to drawings, which have been part of the Applications, Board Member Cherie Grey questioned the size and proportions of the structures – saying she felt that the 2016 Downton Walk homes look much larger than those drawn for Magnolia Lane in 2013. Although Witt protested that the size hasn’t changed, Grey persisted, citing that original application drawings show fewer second stories on garages and were not as tall as those in 2016, which present as three stories with their 30’+ heights.

 

Coreno continued to insist their square footage has remained static, which was met with dubious responses from more than one Board member, relative to footprints versus number of stories, which absolutely affects overall size and how much more crowded it makes the lot appear. Only the footprint (first floor) measurement is “set in stone,” because that is what is used to calculate lot coverage and permeability. Hence, those are the only numbers the Board and public see prior to approval. So, in essence, both parties are correct: the footprint sizes have not changed; but the overall massing (interior square footage), more stories, and higher rooflines clearly indicate a significant change — when one compares the drawings from 2016 with those from 2013/14.

 

The Board’s final area of concern was an intensive discussion of the swimming pools, which illustrate another difference between the applications of 2013/14 and 2016. Board Secretary Adam McNeill supported 2016 as, in his words, a mirror image of 2013/14, saying, “I’ve never seen or heard of before a more precedential picture,” alluding to the Doctrine of Precedence (the legal ruling which requires a Board to approve an unchanged re-application of one that had previously been approved and then allowed by its applicant to expire.)

 

However, Board Member James Helicke pointed out that the drawings in the 2014 Variance Application indicated only three pools, versus four in the 2016 drawings – thus spoiling its status as a mirror image and representing another significant change in the application. There was a retort from Coreno that the drawings had not changed. But, Witt clarified for her that he did remove one pool for the 2014 submission.

 

Coreno also contended that the lot coverage measurement had not changed – although no pool measurements were included in those figures in any of the applications. In our view, this means that all the applications – 2013, 2014, and 2015 – were incomplete and misstated as far as lot coverage is concerned. We also do not know if the optional porches shown in the presentation were included in the original footprint measurements in any of the applications, which would add to the pools as two more significant changes.

 

And one must note that, since the pool measurements clearly were not included in lot coverage, and possibly the optional porches were not included either, these things also will mark a change in the permeability of the land that is part of the approval process is another significant change.

 

We realize the Board is anxious to close this matter, but ignoring such issues and significant changes will not be doing the City any favors. So, although they plan to present a resolution at the next meeting, on July 11, it is clear that they will be voting on something about which they do not even have all the facts.

 

During the Public Hearing, Kira Cohen reiterated the City Attorney’s explanation about significant changes in circumstances, which needed to be presented for a basis to deny the application. She directed the Board’s attention to ANW’s response to the May 23^rd question of why they had not subdivided the land to which Coreno replied that one of the two purposes of building seven condos had been because of the desire for shared maintenance, which would not be available with a subdivided parcel. Cohen countered that State Law not only allows shared maintenance in subdivisions, but also the Attorney General’s office had simplified the procedure for applying for it in January 2014, another significant change in the application.

 

Sam Brewton presented the changes in the neighborhood the project would cause on the small, settled, more than 100-year-old community, many of the inhabitants of which have lived there for a very long time. His comments centered on things that neighbors wrote when signing the neighborhood petition – at least 14 of them reversing their original signatures from the developer’s petition they signed in the early days of the process. These individuals voluntarily added their names to what is a list of 47 neighbors, and some signed the change.org petition of more than 500, mostly Saratogians or individuals who have lived here – some who have grown up here and moved on but return to visit family and lifelong friends.

 

Although Kaplan stopped this presentation saying it was irrelevant, the Board’s 2013 resolution cited “The Applicant has demonstrated, and several neighbors have testified in support, that this development will have a very beneficial impact on the neighborhood,” which refutes Kaplan’s determination that it is irrelevant to the 2016 Application. So our showing the valid diminishment of that support does represent a significant change.

 

Question number 1 in the evaluation criteria that the ZBA must consider is, “Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.”

 

Members of neighborhood do increasingly feel that this development, as currently designed, will be overwhelming in both size and price. The structure sizes will dwarf the homes surrounding it, and it will bring a superfluity of populace, traffic, and noise to this single lot.

 

Gerald Mattison addressed the financials — how much they have changed since 2013/14, reiterating such things as how home prices have risen and the lower cost of constructing fewer homes would provide the builder the ability to make the project feasible with only five homes on a subdivided lot, at today’s selling prices.

 

Jane Valetta persisted that the neighborhood has changed since the ballet and karate schools have gone. Now it’s quiet with little traffic. She also noted that none of the homes currently there rise to the $500,000 range, so even the ones at the lowest end of Witt’s spectrum will change the nature of neighborhood. She cited that the drawings have changed. The 2013 drawings made the homes look smaller and cottage-like – which is how the developer described them when he came to get signatures on his petition. But the new drawings depict three-story homes much larger in volume. That is another significant change.

 

Debra Mattison spoke of the dangers presented by the dead-end lane into the community and the issue of not having accounted for the swimming pools in the original measurements. She pointed out that pools also need their own separate fences, which must follow code. She explained that the pools will cause increase in land coverage, and would lower permeability, none of which had been taken into consideration in the original numbers. And the absence of pool fences in the drawings is another significant change.

 

At the finish of comments, the Board approved a motion to hold open the public comment period until the next meeting when they would vote.

 

These NINE changes — financial information and feasibility, overall home sizes, differences in number of pools and complete lack of pool fencing, price fluctuations, possible lot coverage increase, possible permeability decrease as a result of these other issues, new knowledge of HOA law and its more recent changes, and the increased undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood — are each significant and substantial changes that could and should allow that vote to change without violating the Doctrine of Precedence.

 

At the ZBA’s meeting on July 11, 7 p.m. at City Hall, private citizens will have their last chance to speak to the Board before they vote on this project. Currently, Downton Walk is first on the agenda. We hope many of you will take advantage of this opportunity.

 

I visited the walkway today (July 6).  I was pleased to see that the broken step had been repaired and the barrier removed.  I have no idea what precipitated this repair but am glad to see it done.  There continues to be litter along the walkway.  I do not know how frequently the area is swept but the debris from my last visit was gone and new detritus has taken its place.  Still, this represents some progress.

 

Norreida Reyes has done a terrific job in taking some very modest resources and putting out a very interesting newspaper, Saratoga Today. She recently did an interview with Angelo Calbone who is the CEO of Saratoga Hospital.  The interview was quite revealing but not in ways that Mr. Calbone may have hoped for.

---

From Wikipedia

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., “downsizing” for layoffs, “servicing the target” for bombing^[1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.^[2][3]

---

From the Times Union:

The proposal would give Albany Med authority over Saratoga Hospital’s budgets and strategic plans, the hiring and firing of Saratoga Hospital’s chief executive, incurrence of debt, and hospital policies and procedures. Each health system would have representation on the other’s board.

---

From The Albany Business Review:

Under the agreement, Albany Med would have approval of Saratoga’s budgets and operating plans, hospital policies and procedures and contracts for clinical and management services. Albany Med would also have authority to appoint or remove the CEO, according to information submitted to the health department.

---

The following is from an interview the CEO, Angelo Calbone gave to Saratoga Today Newspaper in their July 1 edition:

Regarding the AMC affiliation, Calbone explained that it was a multi-year process that involved many thorough discussions with the board. “The board has a responsibility to know and understand how this will work,” said Calbone. “We spent upwards of two years in negotiating the specific terms of the relationship, making sure a very high degree of local autonomy and control stays intact.”

Calbone explained that creating a meaningful affiliation is done through a parent model in New York State, and it is how the State Department of Health regulates them. Although the model does list Albany Medical Center as the parent, the terms in detail are unique to this particular affiliation of the two institutions, and not readily apparent in the public eye [my emphasis added].

“So, internally we knew that is how this structure would work, but ‘parent’ is just a term that is used to describe how relationships are built, and doesn’t reflect the years of negotiations on specific terms. What I believe has happened is that individuals have probably looked at the regs as they are stated in somewhat generic form as to how parent relationships in hospitals work in the State of New York, and took it literally,” [My emphasis: I mean why would we take the regulations’ language literally?] Calbone added. “But unless they were in the room with the board, they won’t know the details. This meets the spirit of those regulations, but leaves a high level of local control and autonomy in place.”

The reason they had to use the parent model goes back to anti-trust laws and other legalities that protect the American public. “We are a business,” said Calbone, “and we cannot work closely as two institutions on regional planning, working to create programs, sharing of information and movement of potential medical education back and forth; you just can’t do some of those things without a relationship because it would break the law. You must connect yourself sufficiently to do it in New York State, and that’s called a parent model.”

Calbone said unequivocally that Saratoga Hospital remains a licensed hospital, which by its nature requires a number of responsibilities to be maintained by the local board. He confirmed that the parent, AMC, would have to approve the local board members.

Although it is a confidential agreement, Calbone could say, however, that the board members put before AMC would first be recruited, interviewed, and vetted by the local board before they are put forward for action by the parent. “Also, they can’t be denied and replaced by other candidates,” said Calbone. “They can only come through the local process of the local board. You wouldn’t know that unless you were part of the negotiations.”

For Calbone’s role, the local board can unilaterally dismiss any CEO they don’t find acceptable, but in choosing a new one, it will be done collaboratively. He said the “parent model” term has been over-interpreted as too dominant, but emphasized that the standard written into regulations [JK: Oh those pesky regulations again] don’t reflect the very unique relationship established between the institutions that is very respectful of the history of the hospital and the value the local board brings to oversee the operations.

“We weren’t forced to do this,” said Calbone. “The local board felt this was the best time to move ahead and it would be helpful to us and our patients. There is grave risk to institutions over the next five years and we choose to take this time to do this while we are successful.”

I have been copying the city council on my emails to Mayor Yepsen regarding the walkway beside Putnam Market.  As of this date after two emails I have not heard from Mayor Yepsen.    I  did, however, receive an email from Commissioner Mathiesen.  He indicated that the walkway will not be fixed until the fall.  I followed up with a telephone conversation.  He explained that because the walkway is heated, the fix will involve blocking off the entire walkway.  In light of its role as an easy pedestrian access to parking from Broadway, it makes sense to do it after the racing season.

I raised with him the issue of what can be done to compel the owner to keep the area clean.  Commissioner Mathiesen assumed that this would have been stipulated in the site plan agreed to when the easement was granted.  He is going to have his code enforcement officer look into the matter.  I will keep the readers of this blog informed.

 

 

It has been a week since I emailed the Mayor asking that she take action about the dreadful condition of the walkway beside Putnam Market.  I visited the walkway today and found that there is still trash there and of course, the sawhorse blocking one set of stairs remains.  Regrettably I had no response from last Thursday’s email to the Mayor so I have written her again.Hopefully she will assign someone to find out who the owners of the walkway are so we can all find out when they are going to fix the broken stairs and when they are going to start to police the walk of trash.

Here is my latest email to the Mayor.

From: John Kaufmann []
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 7:46 PM
To: ‘Joanne Yepsen’
Cc: ‘Christian Mathiesen’; ‘Michele Madigan’; ‘Skip Sciroco’; ‘John Franck’;
‘Vincent DeLeonardis’; ‘Tony Izzo’
Subject: Walkway

Last Thursday I emailed you (see below) about the deplorable condition of the walkway next to Putnam Market.  Having not had response, I visited the walkway again and I attach pictures of the newest trash there.
As noted in my email, I recognize how important our city is to you so I expected to hear from you on this matter.  Do you plan to take any action?
Thank you

Sent June 23:

I have been contacted by people disturbed by the walkway that abuts Putnam Market.  For at least a month there have been sawhorses blocking part of the path there (see picture).  In addition, there does not appear to be any maintenance of the area.  The walkway is strategically located at one of the center points of the city but it has been allowed to become an unsightly embarrassment.  Trash has been allowed to accumulate there (see pictures).
I have been in touch with the Public Works Department and have learned that this area is privately owned and is not under the jurisdiction of Public Works.  I understand that the heating system that is supposed to keep the walkway free of snow needs to be repaired.  I expect that this might be a major engineering project and can understand that this cannot
be fixed overnight.  I have learned that the owner does not expect to begin work on this until after the cing season is over.  Whether this is a reasonable time frame, I do not know.  What I do know is that the walkway is dirty and unbecoming of our city.
Has the city taken any action on this matter?  If not, can the city take action to require the owner to keep the area clean and to expeditiously do whatever repairs are necessary to remove the sawhorses?
I know you take as much pride in our city as any citizen of this community and expect that you share people’s concerns that this problem be addressed.    Could you please keep me advised on this and I will share the progress with the people who read my blog.