Saratoga Springs Politics

In early April, Mary Caroline Powers, Vice President for Communications and Government Relations at Empire College, telephoned one of the leaders of the neighborhood association that defeated Sonny Bonacio’s original proposal for Moore Hall.

Ms. Powers explained that the College was very concerned about the new variances being sought by Mr. Bonacio for his revised plans for the Moore Hall property.  Specifically, the College was concerned about the side set-back variance (for 10 feet versus the required 20 feet) impact on the back side portico door of the historic building owned by the College at the corner of Regent and Union.

She asked whether the neighbor had attended the ZBA meeting on April 11.  She was informed that he had.  He described what had occurred to date regarding the project in terms of SEQR and other issues.

He then shared with her that it was unlikely that the College could expect much support from the neighbors in light of the College’s unwillingness to support the concerns of the neighborhood regarding the original project.

Ms. Powers explained that they had met with Mr. Bonacio and had agreed not to publicly oppose the original project.  She advised the neighbor that they had privately expressed concerns regarding parking and pedestrian safety.

He told Ms. Powers that he would pass her concerns on to the neighbors but expressed skepticism that in light of the College’s previous lack of support, that there would be much interest in working with the College.

She welcomed any feedback from the neighbors, and said she would be glad to explain the College’s position with regards to the previous  Moore Hall proposal for 53 micro units in the existing building.

 

 

 

Saratoga Today published a front page story this week in which documents released by Saratoga Hospital raise serious questions about Mayor Joanne Yepsen’s recusals regarding their PUD applications.

Saratoga Hospital has been frustrated in their attempt to secure a Planned Unit Development approval for an office complex they wish to build near their main buildings.  As a result of a legal challenge by the neighbors who abut their proposed project, a vote of at least four members of the City Council is required to secure the PUD.  Mayor Joanne Yepsen and Commissioner John Franck have recused themselves claiming conflicts of interest.

According to the documents, Mayor Yepsen introduced Saratoga Hospital’s application for a PUD for their proposed offices on her agenda at the August 18 meeting of the City Council.  In October Mayor Yepsen began corresponding and meeting with representatives of the hospital to explore how her consulting firm might provide services for the hospital.   In January the hospital wrote to her that they were no longer interested in pursuing contracting her services citing the potential conflict of interest that such an arrangement might entail.   This was communicated to her in correspondence on January 14 and January 15 of this year.

At the January 19 meeting of the City Council (only four days later) when the Council was to take up action on the PUD, Mayor Yepsen announced that she had been in talks with the hospital about doing work for them and was therefore recusing herself from any participation in any discussions or votes related to the matter.   For some unknown reason, she did not reveal that Saratoga Hospital had formally notified her that they would not be pursuing business with her while she was mayor.

On April 12^th, Commissioner Skip Scirocco submitted the documents to the City’s Ethics Board requesting an inquiry.  The Ethics Board went into executive session and no further information is available on their deliberations.

It is very troubling that with Saratoga Hospital’s proposal before the Council that Mayor Yepsen would enter into negotiations with the hospital.  It is puzzling that she would then recuse herself from the PUD when there was no longer any possibility of a contract.

I sent the Mayor a note advising her about this story and offered to print her response verbatim on my blog.  I am publishing her response below.

It is very much worth exploring Saratoga Hospital’s actions in this matter.

According to Saratoga Today:

“This correspondence has been verified by an official from Saratoga Hospital, who stated, ‘…we are aware that these documents might someday reach the media.’ The packet was originally sent by Amy V. Raimo, Vice President for Community Engagement and Executive Director of The Saratoga Hospital on March 1, in a response to a January 30 request for information letter from Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan to President and CEO of Saratoga Hospital, Angelo Calbone.” 

As someone who has been heavily involved in seeking documents from a variety of institutions I found Saratoga Hospital’s role in this story of great interest.

Saratoga Hospital is a private not-for-profit institution that is not subject to the open meetings law and therefore not subject to Freedom of Information requests.  My experience with institutions like Saratoga Hospital is that they jealously control information.  Their release of this information, especially in light of its highly political and damaging character is extremely unusual.

I am also struck by the documents that they released.  I have included the documents in this post.  Readers will note that there are documents that cite Joane Yepsen’s apparent failure to provide a writing sample as part of what the hospital required in order to contract with her in spite of repeated requests. The release of this information which seems to be unrelated to the recusal issues strikes me as unusual.

It is also worth noting that Commissioner Michele Madigan is cited as having made the request for the documents.  Commissioner Skip Scirocco is cited as having submitted them to the Ethics Board.  The story does not explain how Mr. Scirocco was brought into this matter.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.  Attorney Matthew Jones has spoken twice before the Council at hearings about changing the City’s Comprehensive Plan to preclude the hospital PUD.  Mr. Jones has repeatedly expressed frustration over the inability of the hospital to pursue their PUD in light of the lack of the necessary quorum to decide the matter.  He has repeated that the hospital simply wants a vote on the matter and that once there is a vote that the hospital will accept the decision.

Should Mayor Yepsen decide not to recuse herself then there would be the quorum that Mr. Jones and the hospital have been seeking.  The problem is that if Commissioner Mathiesen continues his opposition to the PUD, although there will be a quorum, the hospital will lack the four votes they need for adoption.  If the hospital and Mr. Jones are true to their word, the PUD will finally be dead.

There is also the irony that members of the Council may recues themselves, according to the city’s code of ethics, if they feel they cannot be impartial.  I would say that whatever the merits of Mayor Yepsen’s behavior in all of this, it would be perfectly understandable if she admitted to sufficient anger toward the hospital that it was impossible to be impartial.

---

From: Joanne Yepsen [jdittesyep01@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:16 PM
To: john.kaufmann21@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Heads Up

Dear John,

I am planning a full comprehensive response to the “story” you cite and will send you a copy.  The article lacked an honest review of all the facts. If I had had the chance to respond or even make a statement prior to going to press, — the story had already been printed at the time I was first contacted by the paper late Thursday afternoon — (I will forward you the email first received from Arthur), the public would have had the full story on both the ethics process and the rezoning request.

Thanks,
Joanne

---

The Documents

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Subsequent to this article Mayor Yepsen told the neighbors the city was standing firm behind Steve Shaw, the building inspector]

Murphy Lane barn wants to proceed without new variances

The barn at 39 Murphy Lane as it looks presently, under total reconstruction. Photo provided

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Posted: 04/15/16, 2:49 PM EDT | Updated: 14 hrs ago

The barn at 39 Murphy Lane as it looked in the beginning.

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> The 100-year-old barn at 39 Murphy Lane took another unexpected turn in its renovation journey when the applicant recently withdrew her request for area variance modifications, positing that a 2015 variance gave her all authority to proceed with the scope of the project.

The afternoon of April 11, the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) received a letter from James Fauci, the Ballston Spa attorney representing barn owner and applicant Jean D’Agostino. The letter was addressed to ZBA chair Bill Moore and to Mayor Joanne Yepsen as well. The barn project had been scheduled to appear under old business at that evening’s ZBA meeting; however, the lawyer’s letter withdrew the application altogether, according to Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo, who read from it at the start of the meeting.

“The applicant is withdrawing her variance request, saying the ZBA’s previously granted variance from March 23, 2015 provides her with all authority to proceed with the renovation,” Izzo said. “She also requests that the building inspector withdraw the stop-work order placed on the project.”

D’Agostino’s original proposal was to renovate the barn situated on a one-third-size lot on Murphy Lane, an alley that runs parallel between Lincoln Avenue and White Street on the East Side. The project was presented as a renovation of an existing barn/carriage house into a single-family residence. The zoning board originally granted seven area variances for the work, which began under Engineering America Co. engineer Tonya Yasenchak.

“The plan was to return this 100-year-old barn to its original glory,” said Brian Rodems of White St. during public comment at the March 21 zoning board of appeals meeting. “But after being granted the variances, the owner tore down the barn. The building going up bears no resemblance to the old one.”

Rodems is one of a group of neighbors near Murphy Lane protesting that the work done on the project oversteps its bounds. Essentially, none of the old barn remains — it has been methodically deconstructed and replaced with new materials during the past few months, residents say. The entire roof of the barn has been removed, and it now sits in a state of arrested development due to building inspection.

When city Building Inspector Steve Shaw recently checked out the site, he found that more work had been done than had been approved. He requested a new foundation plan, but said he had not yet received one. Even without that plan, however, he could see the deviation from the originally approved design.

“The plans said the builders would keep the core of the barn as much as possible,” he said. “But the preexisting nonconforming status of the building was being increased.”

He issued a stop-work order.

At the previous ZBA meeting in March, Vice Chair Keith Kaplan had proposed a compromise: asking D’Agostino to modify some of the building’s dimensions and to use Design Review Commission (DRC) approved materials on the exterior. Most of the members agreed to ask the DRC for an advisory opinion on dimensions and materials.

However, Fauci pointed out in his letter that the DRC has no authority over this project, as the subject premises do not fall within the DRC jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, he said D’Agostino has shown herself willing to submit to the ZBA and DRC reviews.

“This further points to her good faith and willingness to work with the city,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, Rodems has also written to the mayor and the city attorneys, addressing both the barn project and the larger issue of how the ZBA operates.

“We are faced with the continued threat of overdevelopment or poorly planned development that will have a deleterious impact on our quality of life and the value of our property,” he wrote. “It would appear that the members of the ZBA have a predilection to provide support for developers — at the expense of neighborhoods — by loosely ‘interpreting’ the zoning code to favor developers.”

After reading parts of the lawyer’s letter aloud, Izzo said to the board, “There are factual as well as legal issues here. The building inspector may have a great deal to say.”

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mayor Yepsen:

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

Thank you

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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