THIS MONDAY EVENING – MAY 23 – ZONING BOARD – “DOWNTON WALK” – LIKELY FINAL VOTE.

EVERY COMMENT IS CRUCIAL

Hi folks,

Hang in there, and please come to the next (and possibly final) meeting. We need you!

Thanks to all who attended the last ZBA meeting.

The zoning board will vote on our appeal (and, we fear from their comments at the last meeting, not in our favor). They will then go right back, the same night, to considering the “Downton Walk” proposal, and may vote, then and there, to approve the whole project. This could be a done deal in one shot, so we need to get as many people in the room to make a quick comment. John Witt will have supporters in the room. Without as many of us as possible attending and speaking, we will lose.

Again, this is about more than just this particular proposal. If it is approved, it will set a disastrous precedent for this city.

The agenda for this Monday’s meeting is here:

The two items are “#2887 DOWNTON WALK APPEAL” and “#2759.1 ANW HOLDINGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”

While we don’t want to overwhelm with detail, there are two sets of crucial points below (“A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS TO STRESS” and “THE 5 CRITERIA THE BOARD CONSIDERS”) that will be helpful to forming our comments to the board and in how they will make their decision. Below that is complete background info on the project.

Thank You

Please feel free to contact:

Sam Brewton (206 Lake Ave)

sambrewton@earthlink.net

—-

A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT POINTS TO STRESS:

*In 2013, Mr. Witt was granted the same variances he is re-applying for now (the variances lapsed, so he has to re-apply). He and the board have leaned heavily into “well, we passed this before, so let’s do it again”. However, in 2013 we were dumbstruck when the board granted approval. We feel they made a bad decision. Today is a new day, a new application, and a chance for the board to look more closely at the massive variances Mr. Witt is asking for.

*We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should build on this parcel. We are opposed to the mass and scale of the proposal and want our zoning laws to be enforced.

*We agree the old building should be replaced, but that is not reason to grant these massive variances and allow this project to depart radically from zoning. A reasonable project would still accomplish the goal of replacing the old building.

*We are NOT at odds with the few neighbors who have supported this project based on their desire to see the old building gone. We just want it to be replaced by something reasonable. The developer is counting on our fear of “getting nothing” if we don’t allow “everything”.

*Witt has stated that he will sell these homes for $700,000 to $1,500,000. He has also stated that in order to make a profit he has to build and sell seven. We believe that a reasonable proposal of five homes could certainly still be profitable for him.

*Our aim is to make the Zoning Board require Mr. Witt to come back with a more reasonable proposal, more in line with the zoning laws that were intended to protect us from projects like this.

THE 5 CRITERIA THE BOARD CONSIDERS (and some of our possible answers):

1. WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY ANY OTHER MEANS.

The core benefit to the city and neighborhood is eliminating the current structure. This can be accomplished by building fewer homes and requiring minimal area variances. Whether or not this is as economically advantageous to Mr. Witt is not a zoning issue.

2. WHETHER GRANTING THE VARIANCES WILL PRODUCE AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES.

These huge, tightly packed-in homes are out of character with this historic neighborhood. The square footage of the proposed homes is clearly greater than the existing surrounding homes, in some cases double and triple. Rather than creating privacy as claimed, this proposal produces a walled environment, which separates the new homes from less expensive housing next door.

3. WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.

It is blatantly inaccurate to describe this project as minimal. All the variances being requested (variances listed below) by the applicant are very substantial.

4. WHETHER THE VARIANCE WILL HAVE ADVERSE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT

5. WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED.

The difficulty was self-created by the developer by asking for too much.

 

. . . For those who want more background, read on:

OVERVIEW – IN A NUTSHELL

-One home is allowed on this lot, or five, if the property is subdivided. But space would be needed to accommodate an access road, so four homes seem more likely if the proper route, in line with zoning, were taken.

-Witt is asking to NOT subdivide yet be allowed seven buildings instead of one (a massive departure from zoning).

-He is calling them “individual condominiums”. He needs the land to be commonly owned, since, if not subdivided, who would own the property?

-Each home will be selling for between $700,000 and $1.5 million

-Our zoning allows 30% of the parcel to be covered by buildings. He wants to be allowed to cover 46% (a 52% increase from what is allowed).

-By not being required to subdivide and calling these “condominiums” he relieves himself of the setback and maximum coverage requirements of our zoning laws and can arrange the seven buildings any way he wants, tightly packing them in.

-On the north side of the parcel he is required by zoning to leave 25 feet between the backs of his buildings and the adjoining properties. He wants to be allowed to reduce that requirement to only six feet. The backs of these 32 foot high buildings would be virtually on, and towering over, the property line, with no room for buffer or trees. All existing trees would be cut down.

-These buildings will be large (see below), and out of character with the neighborhood.

-As of yet, Mr. Witt has not made any concessions or compromises to his plans. He has stated that if he is not allowed the full extent of what he is asking, this project would not be profitable enough for him. We feel this is a false claim – that he could certainly make a profit with a more reasonable project, more in line with zoning.

OUR APPEAL

Our appeal challenges Mr. Witt’s claim that he needs only AREA variances (listed below) to build these seven “individual condominiums” on this one lot. We believe that a USE variance is required, since he is not subdividing the parcel and wants his seven buildings (instead of the ONE legally allowed) to reside on one commonly owned property in “multi-family” fashion. But multi-family, by definition, is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3). We oppose the scale of the AREA variances as well; but, in filing this appeal, we want the board to address our belief that a USE variance is needed for a condominium development of this sort. It is important to understand that a USE variance requires a very different approval process in our city.

SIZE OF THE PROPOSED HOMES

So far there are no actual measurements per unit, only Witt’s very generalized predictions.

The (rounded) square footage (reflecting all living space – not just footprint) of some of the existing houses on Jumel are: 1400, 900, 1200, 1300, 1500, 1200, 1500, 1900, 1600, 2000.

Witt’s footprints (footprint=first floor only) are: 2,449, 1357, 1472, 2099, 2739, 2340, 2070. A guess-timate of second stories would lead us to predict Witt’s proposed homes to be clearly larger — and possibly double or more — than most of the other existing houses on the street. Even his footprints alone are larger than the full square footage of a good number of the surrounding homes. From his rendering of the facades it looks as if the homes will also have a third story (see attached pdf).

overhead

overhead angle 2

overhead angle 1

heights and facade

“AREA” VARIANCES WITT IS REQUESTING

1) The maximum building coverage allowed on this lot is 30%. The applicant is asking to be allowed to cover 46%, or 52% more than what is allowed. Granting this request would be a massive increase from what is allowed by zoning.

2) The applicant is asking for maximum principal buildings on one lot to be increased from one to seven, a 600% increase. Only five single-family units are allowed by law on this property — BUT ONLY after the property is subdivided. Why is this property not being subdivided? To go from one to seven houses is a massive increase.

3) The rear yard setback required for each unit is 25 feet. The applicant is asking that this requirement be eliminated by 100% for five units, going from the 25 feet required to zero (0) feet. For the remaining two units he is asking for a 76% reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 6 feet.

4) The front yard setback required for the two front units is 10 feet. The applicant is asking for only a one (1) foot setback, a 90% reduction in the front yard. The applicant claims that this is so “our (2) front porches [can] be placed on the unit.” However, his drawings show that he is not proposing porches, only overhangs.

5) The fence height allowed in this UR-3 residential area is six feet. The applicant is asking for an eight-foot fence, a 33% increase in height over what is allowed. Why is this necessary only for this development? Is the applicant trying to exclude the rest of the neighborhood? A fence this high would create an exclusive walled enclave shutting out the existing neighborhood.

OUR STANCE

-We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should develop this property.

-We all agree that the existing building is an eyesore and should be replaced

-But, first and foremost, we contend that this multi-family proposal (he is asking to build 7 homes as “condominiums” on one non-divided lot) requires a USE variance, as multi-family is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3)

-And, at the same time, we are opposed to the massive scale of the AREA variances he is requesting and of the project as currently designed.

-We feel that the current design and density of the proposal and the number and size of the proposed homes are out of character with this historic neighborhood.

-We want a revised more reasonable proposal MORE IN LINE WITH OUR ZONING LAWS.

 

 

Saratoga Springs seeks solutions when dealing with vagrants

A speaker comes to the microphone during Thursday’s Public Safety Forum. Jennie Grey — jgrey@digitalfirstmedia.com

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 05/20/16, 5:37 PM EDT |

The audience gathers at Thursday’s Public Safety Department Forum in the Music Hall. Jennie Grey — jgrey@digitalfirstmedia.com

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> With aggressive panhandlers becoming a challenge downtown, the city council is actively seeking solutions. Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen, whose department is the most affected by the issue, held an open forum titled “Vagrancy in Saratoga Springs” Thursday in the Music Hall.

“Our downtown was reinvented in the ’80s and is now doing extremely well,” he said. “We owe this to the active Chamber of Commerce, the tourism bureau and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. But as wonderful as things are now, it’s still a fragile miracle. People are concerned.”

The issue

Citizens have come forward with public comments, letters and petitions against the aggressive acts of some panhandlers, who yell abuse, physically block or pull on passers-by, and misuse public and private property.

Children’s Museum of Saratoga Executive Director Michelle Smith said she’d had eight recent instances of vagrants troubling the museum. These ranged from a man shaking his fist at a driver who wouldn’t roll down her window to finding human feces in the stairwell leading to the basement.

“It’s very difficult; very concerning,” she said. “We would like the police to come by more often. It’s very unsettling to be so unsafe.”

“No city is exempt from homelessness,” said Shelters of Saratoga (SOS) Executive Director Michael Finocchi.

The homeless who come to SOS are victims of domestic violence, have mental illness, lack affordable housing options, are underemployed, have chronic health conditions, have chemical dependency or were recently incarcerated.

The definitions

One of the first points of clarity Mathiesen raised was that vagrants and homeless people have rights, just like any other citizens. He called Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo to the microphone to speak on this.

Izzo said that first, it’s important to understand the issue here. Vagrants can be defined legally as idle people without visible means of support, as tramps or beggars. Vagrants may well have homes and cars, whereas homeless people lack housing.

“If you follow a vagrant at the end of the workday, you might see him get into his car and drive home,” Finocchi said.

The rights

People have the right to panhandle, Izzo said, since asking for money is a form of free speech. Being drunk in public is also not a crime. Loitering is not a crime.

“So we are limited in the types of laws that can be written that pass a constitutional test,” he said. “We are working on writing a city law against sitting or lying on the sidewalk. There are lots of reasonable exceptions, such as sidewalk sales.”

The solutions

Wellspring Executive Director Maggie Fronk said that one of the wonderful things about this community was that everyone works together to brainstorm ideas. Her organization helps support people fleeing domestic violence and sexual abuse. Wellspring has given 15,000 bed nights annually for such individuals.

“We all want to make the city safe and thriving for everyone,” she said.

Police Chief Greg Veitch said people should call the police whenever they felt uncomfortable or threatened by vagrants.

“But you can’t confuse the police with being a solution to the problem,” he cautioned. “We can’t arrest our way out of this issue.”

He said the police did not do homeless sweeps or roundups, which would be illegal. The homeless have the right to be in public places.

Finocchi said, “You need services in place for the homeless.”

SOS runs a 35-bed case-managed shelter, the only one in three counties. It’s a drug- and alcohol-free environment where the onus is on the individual to do the right thing. SOS also runs the emergency shelter Code Blue and a street outreach program.

The shelters run a drop-in center one day a week. Finocchi said having that center open more days would help SOS build relationships with the homeless and get people the services they need.

He shared success stories: In 2014, SOS sheltered 400 individuals. Some 44 percent of guests left with an income of their own. Some 109 were permanently housed, and four graduated to affordable housing units.

“We do ask people not to give money directly to the homeless,” Finocchi said. “Many of these individuals have mental-health issues, which they self-medicate with alcohol or drugs, and that’s where the money from panhandling often goes. In Schenectady or Troy, panhandlers can make $200 in a week. In Saratoga Springs, they can make $200 in a day.”

Educating the summer tourists is also key, he said. SOS recommends buying the homeless a meal instead of giving them money.

The nonprofit is also working with downtown businesses to install locked drop boxes where people can place money to be donated to the shelters. That way, the funds will be used for good instead for drugs.

One man who stood up to speak at the forum said the city ought to aggressively address the problem and help our neighbors to real independence.

“We need to make sure we aren’t giving money to support people’s vices,” he said.

Brian Farr, a substance abuse counselor, took the microphone and said, “Hats off to everyone who is here and cares about this community.”

He said that for 17 years, he had worked with thousands of people with addiction issues: rich, poor, those who owned mansions, those on the street. Farr emphasized the importance of recognizing substance abuse and addiction as diseases, not merely vices or bad habits.

“Part of what you’re seeing in the homeless is the results of addiction,” he said. “And Saratoga is an awesome place to get sober.”

Farr is currently chair of Recovery Advocacy in Saratoga.

The successes

A former shelter resident came forward to speak. On his own since age 8, he was employed steadily until he was hit by a truck. Now, after his time in SOS, he is working for a local philanthropy and living in his own apartment.

“The past five years have been heaven,” he said. “This city is a miracle. And everyone who comes can get help if he just asks.”

Nancy Black told of her arrest for driving while intoxicated and how the consequences changed her life. She warned against giving the panhandlers money.

“Positive changes can come with proper services and help,” she said.

 

Proposed change to Comprehensive Plan voted down by council

This lot on Morgan Street is where Saratoga Hospital hopes to build an office structure. jennie grey – jgrey@digitalfirstmedia.com

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 05/18/16, 5:09 PM EDT | Updated: 1 day ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> With two recusals, the city council voted 2-1 against amending part of the Comprehensive Plan at the May 17 meeting. Two parcels Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen had hoped to change from an institutional designation back to their original residential will therefore remain institutional, and Saratoga Hospital can continue to propose an expansion project on that land.

“I think this never should have gotten so far,” said Mathiesen, the sole assenting vote. “The designation shouldn’t have been changed in the first place. But the city council had a lot of work to do on the Comprehensive Plan and didn’t pay enough attention to this change.”

Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan said she did pay attention and remembers the map reviews. She and Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco voted against the plan amendment, although both said they appreciated Mathiesen’s bringing the matter to the council. The three had a lengthy public discussion before the vote.

“I just don’t see a benefit in changing the plan,” Scirocco said. “It doesn’t make sense to change the designation of these pieces of property. It opens up a whole can of worms, leading to possible requests for more changes.”

He and Madigan said they were in favor of the hospital’s expansion.

The hospital’s project, a $14 million medical office building, has been planned to consolidate the facility’s physician employees, their staffs and their patients in one space in close proximity to the hospital, and provide better patient care and efficiency. The hospital would like to build on nearby Morgan Street, about 200 yards north of the facility’s main location at 211 Church St.

However, the application has been stalled due to residents’ protests, the city council’s ethics and Saratoga Springs politics.

During the May 17 public comment period, Ina Harney of Seward St. expressed the concerns most of her neighbors have. They worry about the growth of the hospital taking over the neighborhood; they are anxious about traffic and parking.

For the hospital to construct this building, the city council would need to vote to make the 8.5-acre Morgan Street lot part of the existing Saratoga Hospital planned unit development (PUD) in that area. The city planning board has already returned a favorable advisory opinion on the PUD to the city council.

The city council is where the hospital’s application has stalled. The mayor’s agendas have called for four public hearings on the PUD, a number both the hospital administration and city council members have called unusual and excessive. During these hearings, hospital staff and residents of the neighborhood have spoken at length. Finally, after months of hearing about the project, the council seemed prepared to vote on the PUD extension.

Then at the Jan. 19 city council meeting, Mayor Joanne Yepsen and Accounts Commissioner John Franck unexpectedly recused themselves from further discussion or voting on this hospital issue.

Yepsen, a professional fundraiser/consultant, recused herself because she had applied to and discussed working with the Saratoga Hospital Foundation, which would give her an indirect financial interest in the hospital’s expansion plan. Yepsen presented her situation to the city board of ethics, which directed her to abstain from voting on the zoning change.

Franck, a certified public accountant, recused himself from the zoning change vote because the Morgan Street Homeowners Association and the Birch Run Homeowners Association are clients of his private business. He does financial work for both groups. These housing developments are located near the hospital, and residents of them are among the members of the vocal citizens protesting any PUD expansion there.

Jan. 29, these residents submitted a petition to the city attorney’s office. Their attorney, Andrew Brick of Albany, said this legally triggered a super-majority, meaning that at least four city council votes must be cast before the PUD could be expanded. With the two recusals, such a vote is impossible at this time and in this situation: Only three commissioners are left on the five-person council to vote.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have five people sitting at the table,” Scirocco said. “It doesn’t make sense for three people to decide for five.”

Madigan agreed the commissioners were too few there.

“The residents of the entire city, not just the Morgan Street neighbors, deserve a fully functioning city council,” she said. “This is one of the most baffling and embarrassing situations I have ever seen on the city council.”

Resident Dave Bronner of Royal Henley Ct., spoke during the meeting’s public hearing, mentioning the concern some citizens have expressed about these recusals.

“This is an important $14 million expansion project for the hospital and the community,” he said. “We need to know why the mayor didn’t recuse herself in October when she first applied for work with the Hospital Foundation and why she did recuse herself in January, when the hospital had decided not to employ her at this time. I hope the mayor isn’t punishing the hospital with this recusal.”

Alice Smith, who lives on nearby Woodland Court, said she thought the mayor had done well to recuse herself. Smith also said changing the Comprehensive Plan designation back to residential was the right things to do.

Jack Despart of Morgan St. lives across the road from the proposed medical office building. He said he too was in favor of the Comprehensive Plan change.

During this period of the council being stymied, Mathiesen, a steadfast advocate for the neighbors, had first proposed changing the institutional designation back to its original residential. He said the lot was a beautiful piece of property for residential building.

As far as traffic and parking, he said Morgan Street was not ready to take on many more vehicles. He would also like the hospital to build parking garages instead of spreading out so many acres of parking lots.

“More traffic and parking would have a direct affect on the neighborhood,” he said.

The Jones Firm’s Matthew J. Jones, an attorney for Saratoga Hospital, said the hospital would wait until a full complement of council members could vote on the PUD.

“Probably that will be after the next election,” he said.

Scirocco said, “The work of the wise is to repair the work of the well-intentioned.”

 

Bharara subpoena shows interest in Albany lofts project

Arbor Hill project developers are big Cuomo donors

By Chris Bragg

Published 9:29 pm, Monday, May 16, 2016

Albany

The company behind a 22-unit affordable housing project in Arbor Hill is among nearly two-dozen firms mentioned in the federal subpoena served to Gov. Andrew Cuomo‘s administration in late April, according to a person with knowledge of the document.

The subpoena seeks information about Swan Street Lofts LP, which is the company behind the renovated apartments called Academy Lofts at The Barn that opened to residents in December 2013. The project, located at North Swan and Second streets at the site of the former St. Joseph’s Academy, provides low-cost units for living and working residences for artists.

It is a project of the Albany Housing Authority, which hired Norstar Development, a company based in Ontario, Canada, that has significant operations in Buffalo and is led in the United States by Richard Higgins, a former state housing czar under Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Norstar helped secure financing for the project and was the general contractor, according to the executive director of the Albany Housing Authority, Steven Longo, who said his organization had not been subpoenaed or contacted by federal authorities.

Like Swan Street Lofts, Norstar is a company of interest in the federal subpoena, which asks about the actions of certain Executive Chamber officials on behalf of the listed companies. People and entities connected to Norstar have given Cuomo at least $157,000 in campaign donations since the beginning of 2010. Its efforts on this project were led by Lori Harris, who heads up the company’s Albany efforts, and herself is a former state governmental housing official.

Many of the companies in U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara‘s subpoena were clients of lobbyist Todd Howe, who is at the center of the probe. But Longo said Howe’s name “to the best of my recollection never came up during this job.”

No one has been charged or accused of any wrongdoing in the probe. Norstar declined to comment.

The project received help from several government sources. In the 2011 round of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s regional economic development council awards, the Albany Industrial Development Authority was granted $5.4 million in low-cost financing, and the Department of Homes and Community Renewal authorized $2.4 million in Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Empire State Development provided $4.5 million in Restore NY grant funding, and $350,000 in local support through the Federal Home Loan Bank and Historic Tax Credits, according to a 2013 news release from Cuomo’s office.

The $4.5 million from the Restore NY grant program was a bump from what was originally intended for the project. Money for the rehab of buildings on and around Henry Johnson Boulevard was shifted after the projects didn’t get off the ground, a move favored by Albany officials that eventually won the consent of Empire State Development Corp., the state’s economic development agency.

A firm representing the Swan Street LLC in the deal was Cannon, Heyman and Weiss, an Albany law firm that puts together the financing for affordable housing projects through

tax credits and incentives. The principals of Cannon, Heyman and Weiss and their firm have also been major donors to Cuomo, giving at least $125,000.

The Academy Lofts at the Barn project also includes 14,000-plus square feet of space for work studios, rehearsal suites, performance space, a digital media center, retail space and offices for the professional artist community, according to Cuomo’s press release.

 

 

Board hears neighbor’s appeal

Downton Walk is a Witt Construction development planned for Jumel Place and under zoning-board appeal by a group of concerned neighbors. Photo provided.

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 05/11/16, 4:47 PM EDT | Updated: 2 hrs ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> Neighbors are continuing to speak out about a proposed development of several homes in their quiet east Side neighborhood.

At the May 9 zoning board of appeals meeting, the issues of interpreting code and setting precedents came under discussion as a group of citizens appealed a developer’s application to build seven homes on a single 0.79-acre Jumel Place lot.

The developer in question is John Witt, president of Witt Construction, who proposes to build seven single-family condominiums on the site, with the land owned in common. The design plan shows a cluster of $700,000 to $1.5 million Tudor-style homes whose exterior charm has not won over all the local residents.

These concerned citizens live in the neighborhood surrounding Jumel Place. Their stance is that condominiums are defined in Saratoga Springs zoning code as multifamily dwellings. Multifamily structures are not allowed in an Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) Zoning District, where Jumel Place is situated. The neighbors also say only five single-family units are allowed on that size lot, if the property is subdivided, which it currently is not. No application for subdivision has been made.

Since building condominiums on that parcel would constitute a different zoning use, say the appellant neighbors, Witt should first obtain a use variance.

“We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should build on this parcel,” the residents wrote in a letter to their neighborhood and to the city at large. “Our aim is to make the zoning board require Mr. Witt to come back with a more reasonable proposal, more in line with the zoning laws that were intended to protect us from projects like this.”

In background information for this letter, the residents explained their point of view: “By not being required to subdivide and by calling these units ‘condominiums,’ he relieves himself of the setback and maximum coverage requirements of our zoning laws, and can arrange the seven buildings any way he wants, tightly packing them in.”

Tuczinski, Cavalier and Gilchrist Principal Jonathan Tingley, the neighbors’ attorney, presented several views of how the property and the neighborhood might look if the buildings were set closely together.

“Seven homes on a single lot constitute multifamily use,” he argued. “And if this sets a precedent, then in the UR-3, a single lot could be used to build any number of dwelling units.”

Such a cluster of dwellings would amount to an apartment complex, he said. Multifamily units are legal and appropriate in the UR-4, UR-4a and UR-5 districts, but not in the UR-3.

Yet if subdivided, the ensuing lot lines would violate almost all the prescribed setbacks, Tingley said, making for a number of area variances.

Members of the board expressed several concerns, among them the question of whether residents could make such an appeal.

Vice Chair Keith Kaplan said, “I’m troubled that the neighbors can appeal like this and possibly stop the zoning process. I worry about the process grinding to a halt.”

Consulting planning board attorney Mark Schachner assessed this neighbors’ group as having definite aggrieved-party status by virtue of their living so near to the Witt lot.

“I strongly recommend the board not try to dismiss this appeal,” he said with emphasis.

Other issues included coding definitions. Board member Susan Steer noted that condominiums were classified as multifamily dwellings in the ordinance and yet as single-family units in this project application.

Nearly all the board members expressed some confusion over why the appeal focused on defining reasons for a use variance, instead of only an area variance, since the neighbors had long protested the project’s scope and density before this. Tingley said the focus on the use issue gave the appeal broader standing. The development of the entire district would be affected by the appeal’s outcome.

“This matter has wide repercussions for interpretations of code and the definition of ‘condominium,’” said member James Helicke. “Here, the definition is about ownership, rather than use.”

Board Secretary Adam McNeill said any concern about multifamily dwellings spreading all across the UR-3 district was overblown. Any applicant for such a project would have to come before the board and be granted an area variance, he said.

“To say that permitting this development sets a dangerous precedent is alarmist,” he said. “It’s like crying wolf.”

Witt’s attorney, Libby Coreno of Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney and Laird, spoke about procedure, precedent and case law as pertaining to this appeal. Her main point was that the substance of the zoning code was what mattered.

“No matter what a zoning board thinks a city council meant, it’s the plain language of the code that is applied,” she said.

She said the Witt project was not a multifamily condo development, but single-family units on a single lot.

Resident Maureen Curtin said the project should be permitted to build only five single-family or four two-family units under the law.

“Many residents feel variances are abused in the city,” said Saratoga Springs Politics blogger John Kaufmann. “This board may facilitate Mr. Witt circumventing the process and jamming great amounts of dwelling units on the property.”

Witt countered, “Single-family units or duplexes are a permitted use in this district.”

Schachner read pertinent code definition aloud to the board: “‘Residence – multifamily’ is defined as ‘a residential structure containing three or more dwelling units.’”

But again, condominiums are defined in Saratoga Springs zoning code as multifamily dwellings.

“It seems as though there are several possible interpretations in the laws,” said resident Kira Cohen.

After creating and signing an online petition about the issue, now with 478 signatures, resident Sam Brewton wrote, “We’re not against developing this plot, but we oppose the massive scope of the requested variances, loss of setbacks and cramming-in of more buildings than this lot is zoned for. What’s the point of zoning if it can be this easily skirted? This lot can be successfully developed, and we’d welcome this same developer if a more reasonable plan were presented.”

The ZBA will decide on the appeal at its next meeting on May 23 at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

 

I ran into Jenny Grey at the most recent ZBA meeting.  I learned that Jenny will be moving to Seattle at the end of the month to join her fiancé.

I want to publically thank Jenny for the terrific work she has done covering city politics.  In the forty years I have been reading the Saratogian, Jenny is one of the three best reporters who have covered city politics.  She will be sorely missed.  On the other hand, I know I speak for many in my warm congratulations and best wishes on her coming marriage and her success in whatever she chooses to do out in Seattle where she will be moving.

 

As the followers of this blog know, I have been seeking information for months from Mayor Yepsen about a variety of issues with little success.  I decided on another tack and wrote the Mayor asking for a meeting.  In response I received an email from the Mayor on May 3^rd indicating that she would have Vince DeLeonardis, the City Attorney set up the meeting.  I subsequently received an email from Mr. DeLeonardis’ secretary informing me of the date and time of the meeting.  Conspicuously absent from the list of attendees was Mayor Yepsen.  I responded by asking whether Mayor Yepsen would be attending and was advised, “I do not believe so.”

When I arrived at the Mayor’s office her secretary appeared surprised to see me.  She asked why I was there and I replied that I was there to meet with the Mayor and her staff.  She told me that I was not on the Mayor’s calendar and that the Mayor was on her way to Kentucky to pick up her son from college.  I said I had an email from both the Mayor and from the City Attorney’s executive assistant indicating that there would be a meeting.  After some confusion, she learned that I would be meeting with City Attorneys Vince DeLeonardis, Tony Izzo, and the Mayor’s deputy, Joe Ogden.

I have to say that, in the slang of the diplomatic corps, the meeting was “frank and constructive.”  All three of the Mayor’s staff had clearly familiarized themselves with the issues.  They were very generous with their time.  The meeting was unrushed and explored all the issues extensively.  I felt I received a very serious consideration of my concerns.  While I secured few in the way of concrete commitments I am cautiously optimistic that some positive changes will result from the meeting.  As these men all work for the mayor, in spite of her absence, I think the Mayor deserves credit for arranging this meeting.  Rather than go into the details of the meeting now, I will offer the Mayor the opportunity to consider the issues covered by the meeting with her staff before commenting.

 

From:    Joanne Yepsen [joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:49 PM

To:          John Kaufmann

Cc:          Tony Izzo; Vincent DeLeonardis

Subject:               Re: Meeting With Mayor

Hi John.  I’ll ask Vince to give you a call or email to set that up. Thanks.

---

From: “John Kaufmann” <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com>

To: “Joanne Yepsen” <joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org>

Cc: “Christian Mathiesen” <Christian.Mathiesen@saratoga-springs.org>, “Michele Madigan” <michele.madigan@saratoga-springs.org>, “Skip Sciroco”<skip.scirocco@saratoga-springs.org>, “John Franck” <johnfranck11@gmail.com>,”Tony Izzo” <tony.izzo@saratoga-springs.org>, “Vincent DeLeonardis”<vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org>

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 7:55:25 PM

Subject: Meeting With Mayor

I am writing to request a meeting with yourself, Tony Izzo, and Vince DeLeonardis.  The subjects are related to requests for information that I have requested but not received.

These involve Saratoga National Golf Course and the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Thank you for responding at your earliest convenience.

---

From:    Trish Bush [trish.bush@saratoga-springs.org]

Sent:     Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:17 AM

To:          john kaufmann21

Subject:               Re: Kaufmann – discuss 5/2/16 email

I do not believe so.

Trish Bush, Executive Assistant

City Attorney’s Office

City of Saratoga Springs

(518) 587-3550 x2516

---

From: “john kaufmann21” <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com>

To: “Trish Bush” <trish.bush@saratoga-springs.org>

Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 10:14:04 AM

Subject: RE: Kaufmann – discuss 5/2/16 email

Will the mayor be there?

——– Original message ——–

From: Trish Bush <trish.bush@saratoga-springs.org>

Date: 05/04/2016 09:00 (GMT-05:00)

To: john kaufmann21 <john.kaufmann21@gmail.com>

Subject: Kaufmann – discuss 5/2/16 email

The following meeting has been modified:

Subject: Kaufmann – discuss 5/2/16 email

Organizer: “Trish Bush” <trish.bush@saratoga-springs.org>

Location: Joe’s office

Time: Monday, May 9, 2016, 3:30:00 PM – 4:30:00 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern

Invitees: tony.izzo@saratoga-springs.org; vincent.deleonardis@saratoga-springs.org;joseph.ogden@saratoga-springs.org; john.kaufmann21@gmail.com

 

[This is a Jenny Grey article which is ostensibly about Commissioner Mathiesen’s effort to address the need for additional space for an additional judge for the city.  What I found most fun about the article was the history of the architecture of the building.  Go Jenny! ]

Spa City commissioner lays out City Hall plans

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 05/06/16, 6:06 PM EDT | Updated: 10 hrs ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> While looking over the options for expanding City Hall, Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen came across some history that isn’t actually history in the 145-year-old building. He showed the city council his findings about the city courtroom and the Music Hall in a presentation earlier this week.

An expansion is necessary due to a two-year-old New York state referendum from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). This office is the administrative arm of the court system, under the direction of the chief administrative judge. The referendum was intended to assist municipalities by giving them a second judge; but the municipalities are responsible for providing a second courtroom or hearing room at taxpayer expense.

Space is tight in City Hall as it is. The ornate three-story brick Italianate building at 474 Broadway was constructed in 1871 by Cummings and Burt of Troy. It originally cost a mere $109,999 to build.

Four expansion options recently drawn up by Envision Architects of Albany would cost between $1,475,000 and $6,245,000.

Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan asked Envisions to come up with another plan that would utilize the underused space on the third floor, the Music Hall. The firm then created Option 5. Here, all court facilities move to the third floor, displacing the Music Hall. This provides an optimal court program. Significant City Hall expansion is then available on the second floor west, where the courts were. The city council moves to the existing courtroom. Public Safety remains as is. The projected construction cost is $3,000,000.

Two areas of concern rose up out of this design: the displaced Music Hall and the moved courtroom.

The Saratoga Convention and Tourism Bureau’s website describes the Music Hall like this: “The Saratoga Music Hall has a seating capacity of 300 people. Located on the third floor of Saratoga’s City Hall, the Music Hall is accessed by elevator, and you are greeted by a large open room with hardwood floors, cathedral windows and a large built-in stage. The Saratoga Music Hall is the perfect location for your next corporate dinner, cocktail reception, wedding or event.”

Despite that description, the space is greatly underused, said the city commissioners; and they need space. So Mathiesen looked into the history of what was then called the Town Hall Theater. He found that the theater was in use from 1871 to 1933, in a very different form than the Music Hall of today. Back then, the Town Hall Theater was on the second floor of City Hall, where the courts are today. The City Hall’s third floor was only a balcony running around three sides of the high room.

When City Hall was remodeled and that third floor built, the Town Hall Theater was shut down. The space didn’t reopen as an entertainment venue until 1993, when the Music Hall was created. It consists of the upper portion of what once was the original Town Hall Theater.

“So that’s not a deep history,” Mathiesen said. “The Music Hall has only been there, in that form, since 1993. We need to take that into consideration.”

The second sensitive area is the current courtroom, where, legend had it, the American Bar Association first assembled Aug. 21, 1878. A plaque to commemorate this event is in the courtroom. Supposedly between 75 and 100 attorneys from around the country met in Saratoga Springs to form this organization — which, at the time, refused to let people of color, women, Jews or Catholics join.

Mathiesen said, however, that the Saratoga Springs City Hall courtroom wasn’t built until 1933. In that year, the City Hall construction project began, with the second floor of the rear two-thirds of City Hall consisting of rooms that today house the city courtroom, court offices, Police Department supervisors’ offices and Public Safety Department administrative offices.

“The present city courtroom on the second floor of City Hall did not exist until 1933 and thus could not have been the room in which the American Bar Association was established in 1878,” Mathiesen said. “The Music Hall did not exist until 1993 and therefore does not have a significant historical relevance.”

The commissioner thanked City Historian Mary Ann Fitzgerald, the Saratoga Springs Public Library Saratoga Room, the Saratoga Springs History Museum, the publication “George Bolster’s Saratoga Springs” and the publication “Saratoga Springs: A Centennial History” for help with the research and development of this presentation.

 

[Below is an excellent analysis done by the neighbors of the proposed Downton Walk Project.  This appears to be a flagrant abuse by the Zoning Board of Appeals in granting variances.  Zoning is to protect neighborhoods and this project appears completely alien to the neighborhood in which it will be built]

MONDAY, MAY 9, IS THE DAY!

“DOWNTON WALK” ZONING BOARD MEETING! (7pm, City Hall) – Third on the Agenda.

This Monday, May 9, may be our last chance to stop the gigantic “Downton Walk” project in Saratoga! …We need you to attend the Zoning Board meeting and speak up for our zoning laws!

We, the neighbors of the property, have filed a legal appeal that needs support (described in detail below) and will be considered by the board. It might be our last chance to stop this radical departure from our zoning laws from being approved.

But this is about more than just this particular proposal. If it is approved, it will set a precedent, meaning more like it could be on the horizon in just about any neighborhood in the City! Yours could be next!

The Zoning Board seems ready to approve this project, and the builder, John Witt will likely have supporters in the room, without as many of us as possible attending and speaking, this massive project could be approved as is.

Please attend and speak up! If you can’t attend please write a quick email stating your concern to Susan Barden, the city planner:

susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org

We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should build on this parcel. Our aim is to make the Zoning Board require Mr. Witt to come back with a more reasonable proposal, more in line with the zoning laws that were intended to protect us from projects like this.

Thank You for your support!

-Neighbors of proposed “Downton Walk”

—-

. . . For those who want more background, read on:

OVERVIEW – IN A NUTSHELL

-One home is allowed on this lot, or five, if the property is subdivided. But space would be needed to accommodate an access road, so four homes seem more likely if the proper route, in line with zoning, were taken.

-Witt is asking to NOT subdivide yet be allowed seven buildings instead of one (a massive departure from zoning).

-He is calling them “individual condominiums”. He needs the land to be commonly owned, since, if not subdivided, who would own the property?

-Each home will be selling for between $700,000 and $1.5 million

-Our zoning allows 30% of the parcel to be covered by buildings. He wants to be allowed to cover 46% (a 52% increase from what is allowed).

-By not being required to subdivide and calling these “condominiums” he relieves himself of the setback and maximum coverage requirements of our zoning laws and can arrange the seven buildings any way he wants, tightly packing them in.

-On the north side of the parcel he is required by zoning to leave 25 feet between the backs of his buildings and the adjoining properties. He wants to be allowed to reduce that requirement to only six feet. The backs of these 32 foot high buildings would be virtually on, and towering over, the property line, with no room for buffer or trees. All existing trees would be cut down.

-These buildings will be large (see below), and out of character with the neighborhood.

-As of yet, Mr. Witt has not made any concessions or compromises to his plans. He has stated that if he is not allowed the full extent of what he is asking, this project would not be profitable enough for him. We feel this is a false claim – that he could certainly make a profit with a more reasonable project, more in line with zoning.

OUR APPEAL

Our appeal challenges Mr. Witt’s claim that he needs only AREA variances (listed below) to build these seven “individual condominiums” on this one lot. We believe that a USE variance is required, since he is not subdividing the parcel and wants his seven buildings (instead of the ONE legally allowed) to reside on one commonly owned property in “multi-family” fashion. But multi-family, by definition, is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3). We oppose the scale of the AREA variances as well; but, in filing this appeal, we want the board to address our belief that a USE variance is needed for a condominium development of this sort. It is important to understand that a USE variance requires a very different approval process in our city.

RENDERINGS

Below are renderings of his proposal and a list of proposed heights of the homes. This would be a massive, densely-packed compound of homes. (The rectangles with rounded sides, in the overhead footprint rendering, are private swimming pools).

SIZE OF THE PROPOSED HOMES

So far there are no actual measurements per unit, only Witt’s very generalized predictions.

The square footing (reflecting all living space – not just footprint) of some of the existing houses on Jumel are (rounded to hundredth): 1400, 900, 1200, 1300, 1500, 1200, 1500, 1900, 1600, 2000.

Witt’s footprints (footprint=first floor only) are: 2,449, 1357, 1472, 2099, 2739, 2340, 2070. A guess-timate of second stories would lead us to predict Witt’s proposed homes to be clearly larger — and possibly double or more — than most of the other existing houses on the street. Even his footprints alone are larger than the full square footage of a good number of the surrounding homes. From his rendering of the facades it looks as if the homes will also have a third story (see attached pdf).

“AREA” VARIANCES WITT IS REQUESTING

1) The maximum building coverage allowed on this lot is 30%. The applicant is asking to be allowed to cover 46%, or 52% more than what is allowed. Granting this request would be a massive increase from what is allowed by zoning.

2) The applicant is asking for maximum principal buildings on one lot to be increased from one to seven, a 600% increase. Only five single-family units are allowed by law on this property — BUT ONLY after the property is subdivided. Why is this property not being subdivided? To go from one to seven houses is a massive increase.

3) The rear yard setback required for each unit is 25 feet. The applicant is asking that this requirement be eliminated by 100% for five units, going from the 25 feet required to zero (0) feet. For the remaining two units he is asking for a 76% reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 6 feet.

4) The front yard setback required for the two front units is 10 feet. The applicant is asking for only a one (1) foot setback, a 90% reduction in the front yard. The applicant claims that this is so “our (2) front porches [can] be placed on the unit.” However, his drawings show that he is not proposing porches, only overhangs.

5) The fence height allowed in this UR-3 residential area is six feet. The applicant is asking for an eight-foot fence, a 33% increase in height over what is allowed. Why is this necessary only for this development? Is the applicant trying to exclude the rest of the neighborhood? A fence this high would create an exclusive walled enclave shutting out the existing neighborhood.

OUR STANCE

-We do not oppose Mr. Witt per se, or that he should develop this property.

-We all agree that the existing building is an eyesore and should be replaced

-But, first and foremost, we contend that this multi-family proposal (he is asking to build 7 homes as “condominiums” one one non-divided lot) requires a USE variance, as multi-family is not allowed in our zoning district (UR-3)

-And, at the same time, we are opposed to the massive scale of the AREA variances he is requesting and of the project as currently designed.

-We feel that the current design and density of the proposal and the number and size of the proposed homes are out of character with this historic neighborhood.

-We want a revised more reasonable proposal MORE IN LINE WITH OUR ZONING LAWS.overhead angle 1.pdf ¬overhead angle 2.pdf ¬heights and facade.pdf ¬overhead.pdf ¬

There was a time when the Saratoga Springs  Democratic Party was a strong voice on issues like growth and integrity in government.  It was not a matter of the kind of vague generalities that have become the pablum of contemporary spin that now passes for political discourse.  The party took positions on contentious issues.

There have been a slew of important conflicts here in the city over issues of development and  threats to neighborhoods where one would have traditionally expected the Democratic Party to offer support for the underdogs.  No more. 

Today, I received a copy of Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee’s newsletter in which they announce that they will be having their annual fund raiser, the Starbuck Legacy Luncheon, at Saratoga National Golf Course.  This is the same operation that has been attempting to open up the city’s greenbelt for intensive development.  This is the same operation that appears to have violated their agreement with the city that included two nature trails and a limit on special events.  Most recently, a suit has been filed against one of SNGC’s principles over the skimming of the wait staff’s tips and the failure to pay overtime.  Based on news accounts, this included the Prime Restaurant where the Starbuck Luncheon will be held.

A sad commentary on what politics in our country has become.