Saratoga Springs Politics

I have seen Macbeth done many times and I have to admit that I have never connected with the play.  Today I saw a film of the play directed by Justin Kerzel.(“The King’s Speech) with Michael Fassbender (“Steve Jobs”) as the lead.

In the past I have often had difficulties with movie production of Shakespeare.  Often, without the immediacy of the live stage, they are flat.  Sometimes the director overwhelms the words with over production.

This film takes some significant liberties with the play but I found it a stunner.  Its use of the cold and dominating highlands of Scotland and its portrayal of a very physical cast never took away from the language.  The film involves some very graphic violence but it is never gratuitous.

It runs through next Thursday and if you can find time to make the drive to Albany it is well worth it.  Even if you think you do not like Shakespeare this is worth giving it a try.

Link To the Spectrum and the trailer

I received a thoughtful post on the proposed Saratoga Hospital expansion from Elizabeth “Libby” Smith-Holmes that I am reposting to the people who follow this blog:

As a 20+ year resident of Birch Run, I have great concerns about Saratoga Hospital’s proposed expansion on the adjacent property. The building and its parking lot are all out of scale with the surrounding residential area. The proposed site is prime residential land with beautiful views to the northwest over the gold course and toward the hills in Greenfield – perfect for two or three large, handsome houses, but not for a large office building with a huge parking lot. The proposed project takes the land off the tax roles. Due to its intrusion into the quiet residential neighborhood, would it not be better to explore development along Church Street? Several house have already been turned into doctors’ offices; this would not only be closer to the hospital, but more appropriate for development. Large buildings with some parking garage space would be feasible.There is also room in the Care Lane development, just down the road. And 1 West Avenue has rental space available, according to the signs. I am a supporter and contributor to the hospital – it is a fine institution that is always improving. Bit please, planners and hospital officials – rethink your options before making a very large mistake!

Saratoga Today is a fun little newspaper.  There are two stories in recent editions that are particularly worth checking out.

The first is excellent coverage in this week’s paper of the proposed expansion by Saratoga Hospital.  To Mayor Yepsen’s credit she has asked the hospital to formally respond to issues raised by the neighbors.  The expansion requires a Planned Unit Development which must be approved by the City Council.  Saratoga Today  has not posted this story on their web site yet so pick up a copy of the paper.  The title of the story is “Saratoga Hospital Hopes to Own, Not Rent,” on page 8.

The other is a story of our own little Great Gatsby, “Mega-Mansion up for Auction,” which appeared in last week’s edition.  A grotesquely excessive home built by the head of a financial company who pleaded guilty to fraud in 2003 is up for sale.  Does it get any better?  Does it get any worse?  Link To Story

My heart goes out to the people whose homes could be overshadowed by the proposed extension of Saratoga Hospital along with its three hundred car parking lot.  As one of the people in the article explains, he bought his house with the understanding that it was in a residential neighborhood. Similar to the Moore Hall experience, imagine how you would feel if you had a similar experience to these homeowners.

Jenny Grey, I think,  has written some of the best articles about city issues like this expansion of any reporter with the Saratogian.  She also has been allotted a great deal of space for her stories.  It is interesting that she had two very long, front page stories in Thursday’s edition on land use issues.

Here is her story  on the Hospital proposal and citizen reaction:

Residents’ concerns prompt downsize of Saratoga Hospital expansion

By Jennie Grey, The Saratogian

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> What do you get when you combine a cozy West Side neighborhood, a palatial estate, a growing hospital and a phantom moose? You get Saratoga Hospital’s request for a planned unit development (PUD) expansion, and you get a lot of concerned neighbors.

To consolidate physicians and patients in one space in close proximity to the hospital, and to provide better efficiency and patient care, Saratoga Hospital, located at 211 Church St. has proposed to construct a new medical office building on Morgan Street, solely for its physician employees and their staffs. The planned building would be constructed roughly 200 yards north of the hospital’s main location.

The original plan called for an 85,000-square-foot structure; now it will be 75,000 square feet at 210 by 110 feet. The height of the building has been lowered. Stormwater retention ponds will be built where probes have shown no bedrock, thus no need for blasting in those locations.

For the hospital to construct the building on Morgan Street, the city council would need to vote to amend the now-residential zoning and make the 8.5 acres part of the existing Saratoga Hospital PUD in that area. The city planning board has already returned a favorable advisory opinion on the PUD to the city council.

Elisa Sheehan of 48 Myrtle St. spoke to the council during the Dec. 15 public hearing at the council’s meeting. She said she sympathized with the hospital’s growth, but worried that the expansion would encroach upon her neighborhood. She wished the hospital would find another site to on which to build.

“I feel pushed out with all this new growth,” she said. “We’re slowly being encircled, and I’m afraid we’ll end up inside the hospital complex.”

Since it filed its application in August, the hospital has been working cooperatively with area neighbors to address concerns over that issue, as well as building height, lighting, stormwater management and traffic. The historic Markey Estate borders the project, and some neighbors claim a moose wanders through the field on which the hospital plans to build.

Revisions made to the original plan have addressed the concerns of many who contacted the hospital regarding the proposal.

The hospital’s project team addressed the city council and the public during the council meeting, with attorney Matthew J. Jones, founder of the Jones Firm, as lead speaker.

Jones presented a series of figures on the hospital: Saratoga Hospital is the only hospital in Saratoga County and has been operating at 211 Church St. since 1911. The hospital employs more than 1,800 full-time equivalent employees, or about 2,200 individuals at nine locations throughout the Capital Region, and pays out approximately $123 million in annual salaries and income, and another $30 million in benefits.

While the hospital brings in about $254 million per year in net patient service revenue, it currently spends $750,000 on 10 leased locations in the area. The continued expansion of Saratoga Hospital has caused it to outgrow many of its current leased locations. As the hospital continues to attract and recruit an increasing number of physicians, the proposed medical office building will provide space for them to practice, and give patients convenient access to hospital facilities and services.

The planned medical office building would be approximately 75,000 square feet, spread evenly over three floors and will sit on 8.5 acres of land to be acquired by the hospital should the Saratoga Springs City Council vote to amend the current zoning.

Jack Despart lives directly across the street from the proposed building, at 8 Morgan St. He said he bought his home 15 years ago, and has since lived in it, upgraded it and invested in it. He was upset at the prospect of facing a 75,000-square-foot office building and a parking lot that can hold more than 300 cars.

“I would not have bought my house if I knew the residential zoning could so easily be changed,” he said.

John Benzel of 220 Crescent Ave., an architect who has worked with Despart, called this PUD spot-zoning. He didn’t see where the comprehensive plan authorized an institution moving into a residential neighborhood.

“The first PUD has already compromised this neighborhood,” Benzel said.

Specialties to be housed in the new building may include oncology, general surgery, bariatric surgery, urology, pulmonology, nephrology, cardiology and general family practice.

Dr. William Malone, a Saratoga Hospital endocrinologist, spoke of the importance of coordinating care and improving the quality of service. The proximity of doctors to the hospital was important, so they could get to their sickest patients quickly.

“This building will be a big sell for the hospital,” he said. “We need its proximity and its size. And we wouldn’t be supporting its construction unless we believed it was a necessity.”

Although the building will have the capacity to consolidate the hospital’s current leased space into one location, it will increase in occupancy over time as existing leases expire through the year 2020. Fit-up of the building will occur during the next five years, as the leases expire, creating the need for space for these hospital employees.

In 2014, the Comprehensive Plan Committee considered the hospital’s plans for a medical office building at this location, and members agreed to recommend a change in the comp plan designation for this area to “institutional.” The city council agreed with this recommendation in its adoption of the comprehensive plan in June.

The planning board received a negative New York State Environmental Quality Review Act declaration Oct. 14, determining affirmatively that the proposed plan and rezoning are not contrary to the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, and are consistent with the recently revised comprehensive plan, Jones said.

Despite that negative declaration, which means no issues are expected, Ina Harney of 40 Seward St. told the council about problems she’d had during the construction of the nearby Birch Run apartments. The area’s bedrock, deep under the surface, caused problems with blasting during construction and with stormwater runoff afterward.

“I’ve lived in my home 40 years,” she said. “I had to rebuild my driveway to keep the water from my house.”

As for the dynamiting, she said the building of Birch Run involved three months of blasting one summer. Her foundation cracked.

And as for traffic, Harney remained stoic despite her pessimism.

“I will probably be killed getting out of my street,” she said calmly. “And I’m afraid any doctors walking in the roadway here might be killed, too.”

Her neighbor Edwin Klinkhammer of 13 Seward St. agreed that traffic was challenging, even dangerous, in the area. He is in the Navy and expects to eventually be transferred out of his Ballston Spa assignment. He and his wife had planned to rent the home they bought here in Saratoga Springs, but the traffic concerned them.

“The traffic is a problem for potential renters with little kids,” he said. “If the PUD goes through, my wife and I will probably sell this house and make an investment in some other city.”

Jones said, “We believe the most recent public hearing was constructive, and we appreciate the legitimate questions and concerns raised by the neighbors who spoke to the council. We continue to be encouraged by the dialog we are having with the majority of neighbors, and we have every confidence the city council will give our proposal a full and fair hearing.”

 

Mayor Joanne Yepsen will be making appointments to the city’s Land Use Boards as terms expire at the end of this year.  As this blog has documented, our city desperately needs people to serve on these boards who are independent of the real estate industry.  I urge people to consider helping the city by offering to serve on these Boards.  Interested city residents should email  resumes to joanne.yepsen@saratoga-springs.org

It also would not hurt to urge the Mayor to  appoint new members who are free of ties to the traditional special interests that now dominate these boards.

 

[For some reason the video of the last ZBA meeting has not been posted so I cannot provide a leak]

This is a follow-up to my posting on the Monday night ZBA meeting.  It was brief so this is a more complete report.

Michael Toohey began by saying that he was not withdrawing the current application to modify Moore Hall but that he did want to discuss this application.  He asked that the members of the public who had come to the meeting refrain from addressing this application.  Instead, he told the Board, he wanted to introduce an alternative proposal.

Sonny Bonacio then explained that they had listened to the public and that they had decided to completely rethink the parcel.  He then said repeatedly that the public had asserted that they were happy with the original proposal put forward in 2006. This was important because what he was proposing to replace Moore Hall with now was a set of buildings that appeared to have the same footprint as the 2006 plan.  It also appeared to have the same mass. Bonacio emphasized that they would be asking for the same setback variances the Board had approved for the 2006 plan.

It was interesting that during the presentation Mr. Bonacio addressed the audience as much as he did the Zoning Board.

Michael  Ingersoll of the LA Group did the presentation of the actual plans.  First he showed renderings of what the original 2006 building looked like.  He then explained that the graphic of the layout of the buildings they were proposing now were very roughly thrown together.  He displayed the 2006 plan with the new plan to show how similar their footprints were.  Mr. Bonacio added that Ingersoll had drafted the rough plan the Saturday morning that the City Council had been meeting with the community.  Mr. Bonacio said that his group had reviewed all the public comments as part of their reassessment.

Mr. Bonacio ran through a Powerpoint presentation regarding the economics of what they were doing.  First he showed some statistics about the sale of condos of one million dollars.  The gist of this was that while a number had sold, they had been on the market a long time before they sold.  He argued that the economics of the original 2006 proposal were not workable and that the environment for the sale of such high end properties was even worse now.  This brought him to the need to downsize the condos for this project so they could be sold for under $700,000.00.  This also meant that rather than eighteen units  proposed in 2006 and that the property is zoned for  the new project would be comprised of twenty-eight units.

The response to the Zoning Board was, of course, very positive.  Two members of the Board made it quite clear that they would not have approved the Moore Hall conversion to 53 units.  The chair, William Moore, commented that he liked the original conversion. 

The public was then invited to speak.  The response was, in general extremely positive.  A number of speakers thanked Mr. Bonacio for his new direction.

I asked if the Zoning Board could see that the materials we saw be posted on the city’s web site.  Mr. Moore dismissed this request with something about the newness of the City’s web site.  I am troubled by not being able to scrutinize the powerpoint analysis of sales of condos or the layouts of the proposed buildings.  Granted these are rough drawings.  Michael Toohey told the board that they would be back in January for further discussions.

Talking to people after the meeting the general feeling was great relief  that the plan to convert Moore Hall  into 53 units appeared to be over.  There was a universal sense that while people were very encouraged, there remains some skepticism and concern.

 

Land Use Board members are barred by law from entering into conversations with applicants regarding proposals before them outside of the formal meeting venue.  This is called an ex parte contact.

At Monday night’s ZBA meeting Gary Hasbouck responded to the issue of his being seen having drinks with Michael Toohey and Sonny Bonacio immediately following a ZBA meeting where their Moore Hall proposal was before the Board.  Mr. Hasbrouck alleged that he just happened to run into Toohey and Bonacio at a bar immediately following the meeting on their application and that he simply said hello and exchanged pleasantries.  He said that he never discussed the application with Bonacio and Toohey.  He told the rest of the Board and the public that he saw no reason to recuse himself.

Following Hasbouck’s statement, Keith Kaplan, another Board member,  made note that he had been at the History Museum fundraiser and ran into Sonny there and chatted with him.  He entered into the record that they did not discuss the application.  Other members of the Board made similar statements about being at public events and encountering Sonny.

When the meeting was over, Michael Toohey announced that he would be going to a particular bar and advised the members of the Board not to go there.  This was meant to be funny and he got laughter from some of the Board members.

These are just more examples of the flagrant contempt displayed by many of the members of our land use boards.

To begin with, it is obviously poor judgment to be seen socializing with an applicant following a meeting where their proposal is being considered.  Mr. Hasbouck was seen having a drink with the applicant.  It was not a drive by hello.  We will never know whether he discussed the application with Mr. Bonacio and Mr. Toohey.  We have only his word for it.  Bear in mind that early on Mr. Hasbouck had made statements at the meetings that showed he was solidly in Mr. Bonacio’s corner.  Most of us would be embarrassed about creating the public appearance of impropriety. It’s too bad he didn’t  have the good grace to indicate that he could at least understand why people opposing the project would be disturbed by this.

It is obvious that Hasbouck’s meeting with applicants in a bar  is very different from encountering an applicant at a public event.  Clearly it would be very difficult to have an inappropriate conversation in a situation such as a public fundraiser where other parties could either overhear you or could easily join the conversation.    The “confessions” of the other Board members  seemed to be an attempt to denigrate the criticism of Mr. Hasbouck.

Mr. Toohey’s “joke” was particularly in bad taste and had a certain silly macho quality.

Along the same lines, a member of the audience attempted to advise the board that there was a problem with the live web feed at Monday night’s meeting.  This person had been contacted by text message of the problem.  The response by one of the members of the board was to interrupt her and actually shout at her that she could not speak.  She persisted and they finally acknowledged her.  William Moore, who is chair of the Board, simply dismissed the problem.  In a tone reminiscent of “whatever” he said it was being recorded.  He meant that people could access it later.  One would have expected the chair to halt the meeting momentarily to try to determine if something could be done.  When it comes to the public, Mr. Moore just does not do “nice” well.  His attempt to limit the lawyer representing the Moore Hall neighbors to a two minute comment after Mr. Toohey had been afforded an open ended amount of time to present his case for the applicant  is particularly memorable.  Mr. Moore makes his living doing appraisals for the real estate industry.

All of this is just another example of how broken our Land Use Boards are.  It is not that there are no fair and gracious members of these Boards.  There most certainly are.  Unfortunately, though, a majority  of our Land Use  Boards’ members  are representatives of  real estate interests who are used to helping their friends out without the irritating habit of community members interfering.

 

What a fantastic victory!

Briefly, Bonacio Construction and Norstar Development tonight asked that the Zoning Board of Appeals put their conversion proposal for Moore Hall aside and consider a radically new one.  They did a presentation of a very rough plan to tear down Moore Hall and replace it with a series of structures that will house twenty-eight condos with all of the required parking on site, almost all or it  underground (two spaces will be above ground).  The condos will be priced to sell for under $700,000.00.

The exciting thing here is really the extraordinary spirit, energy, and organization of the many people who devoted their time and skills to oppose this project.  This was a classic example of “people power” :   the signs throughout the Southeast sector of the city, the petitions, the research on the problems with the project, the publicity to get the word out, and the poise and dignity of the many speakers who attended the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings and the special City Council meeting.

To Sonny’s credit, he told the audience that he had run into opposition to every project he had worked on but he had never experienced the opposition he faced with his plans for Moore Hall.

So let me gloat for a few lines at Sonny Bonacio’s expense.  I do so with a certain good humor.  Sonny is a man of extraordinary charm.  He never seems threatened and his enthusiasm for his projects is to be admired.  Still let’s remember the narrative that appears to have evaporated:

1. It is simply too expensive to take down Moore Hall.
2. The only way to make the development of this parcel work is to put 53 mini units in the old dorm.
3. If this project is turned down, this decaying building will be a liability to the community forever.

Well, miracles will never cease.  It is now possible to take down Moore Hall and to build twenty-eight condos.

This should also be a cautionary tale to all the people who accepted this narrative and told the neighbors that they would have to live with the plan to paint the pink palace brown,  cram it with “micro” apartments, and deal with all the accompanying  parking and traffic problems.

I will write more about this in a posting later this week.

 

Commissioner Chris Mathiesen submitted the comment below to the Zoning Board of Appeals opposing the current proposal by Bonacio Construction for Moore Hall.

At the community meeting Skip Scirocco spoke in opposition of the proposal and said he would be notifying the ZBA.  I do not know whether he sent them comments.

To the Saratoga Springs ZBA,

Let me first acknowledge that I have the upmost respect for and understanding of the independent status of the Zoning Board of Appeals.  The ZBA carries out a vital role in our City.  As a member of the City Council, I have no right to interfere with the decision-making process of the ZBA. As one of only five individuals who are duly elected to represent our citizens, I do have an obligation to listen to their concerns.  I also have a right and, sometimes an obligation, to provide feedback to City government regarding issues that may have serious immediate or long-term neighborhood or City-wide impact. I have been contacted by a number of our citizens who have had concerns about the Bonacio Construction Co. proposal to re-develop Moore Hall.  On Saturday, Dec. 5, I and the other four members of the Council had the opportunity to meet with citizens during a special Council meeting that was held at Empire State College on Union Avenue.  We also were given permission to walk the Moore Hall site.  Unfortunately, the Bonacio Construction Co. chose not to send a representative and so much of what we learned about the project has been provided indirectly. From what I have been told, the proposal to re-develop Moore Hall would require approval by the ZBA for Area Variances seeking relief from minimum lot size and minimum on site parking requirements.  The Bonacio Construction Co. is also proposing that parking be allowed in setbacks.  The parking would be provided in existing lots that abut White St., along the alley behind the main building and along an access driveway the would be constructed from a new curb-cut on Union Avenue.   Neighbors are concerned primarily about the density of the residential use and the parking impacts on the neighborhoods.  I may be mistaken but I believe that, in the past, area variances that sought increases in residential use such as this would be considered as Use Variances since the relief sought is not merely dimensional but actually having to do with a density of use.  This apparently is no longer the case but I do think that it does point out the importance of giving very serious consideration to neighborhood impacts when considering residential density of use. As the Board considers the Moore Hall application, it must give consideration to all five factors including: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood….   In this case, it is hard to imaging how an application which is so short of the 1.5 parking spaces per unit standard would not have an impact on the neighboring streets. 2. Whether the benefit sought can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue…   According to what we have been told, the applicant plans to leave in place all the one story auxiliary buildings on the property including the cafeteria.  It is my opinion that removing those buildings could solve a number of problems with this project.  Demolishing all those buildings, leaving only the multi-story main building, and gutting the ground floor of the main building so that it could be used for parking under Moore Hall rather than as residential units would significantly increase the on-site parking possibilities and would reduce the number of residential uses on the property. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial.  Both the relief from on-site parking requirements and residential density limits are very substantial.  Given the significant density of use request, it would seem to be particularly important to mitigate the on-site parking deficiencies. 4. Whether the variances will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood…   There is much to consider with this standard.  On the one hand, there is parking and traffic.  On the other hand, developing this parcel would solve a long-standing neighborhood problem.  As the building continues to deteriorate and be vacant, the negative impact on the neighborhood is only heightened. 5. Self created.  The conditions on the Moore Hall property pre-date this application as well as the applicants.  This is truly not self created.  Mr. Bonacio should be given credit for even considering this project.  It is very challenging.  It is my opinion that, with mitigation of the neighborhood impacts with an increase in on-site parking and a reduction of residential units as I described above, the re-development of Moore Hall could represent an improvement for the neighborhood and have a positive impact on the City as a whole and on the availability of relatively moderate cost residential units. Chris Mathiesen Commissioner of Public Safety

A heads up to the public.  The Zoning Board of Appeals will probably decide on Moore Hall at the ZBA meeting which starts at 7:00 PM.

Will Hasbrouk recuse himself for having gone drinking with Sonny Bonacio and Michael Toohey following the ZBA meeting at which Moore Hall was proposed?

Will Sonny Bonacio succeed in getting his proposal approved by a jury (board) of his peers (fellow members of the real estate/construction industry)?

Will the fact that hundreds of people have signed petitions opposing the project and the fact that the project has been shoddily designed and would abuse the concept of variances make a difference?

Visit my site late tomorrow night to find out.