Saratoga Springs Politics

Saratoga Hospital plan draws fire from neighbors

By Dennis Yusko (Times Union) on December 11, 2015 at 4:39 PM

•  Saratoga Hospital will present its latest expansion plans on Tuesday amid neighbors’ concerns that its proposed medical building for Morgan Street would overwhelm the residential area and lower property values. The project hinges on the City Council authorizing the hospital’s application for a zoning change from urban residential to a planned unit development (PUD). After a handful of residents objected to the project earlier this month, Matthew Jones, an attorney representing the hospital, agreed to provide a 15-minute summary of the project during a public hearing scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall. The project is opposed by some members of the Birch Run homeowners’ association, who live nearby and worry the large building will bring unmanageable traffic, flooding and light pollution. “This is just a very, very large project that is taking up one of the last green areas on the west side,” said Dean Higgins, an attorney who is president of the homeowners’ association. “I’m concerned for the whole neighborhood.” Founded on Church Street in 1911, Saratoga Hospital employs 2,200 individuals, and spends $750,000 on 10 leased locations in the area, Jones said. The proposed 53-foot high medical building’s interior would measure 75,000-square-feet, though the PUD amendment seeks 88,500-square-feet as a maximum size, Jones said. The project is the latest in a series of expansions the hospital has proposed.In an interview Friday, Morgan Street resident Jack Despart, who lives directly across from the proposed project site, said he wants the area’s zoning to remain residential. If the hospital develops the Morgan Street lot, it would cut into the value of nearby homes because no one would want to buy property that’s essentially surrounded by hospital facilities, Despart said. The hospital has an option to purchase the Morgan Street parcel from D.A. Collins. The City Council this summer adopted changes to the city’s Comprehensive Plan that allow for a medical office building to be constructed in the area. That led to the Planning Board in October to issue a favorable advisory opinion on the rezoning request to the City Council. The Planning Board also determined the medical building would not have an adverse effect on the environment. If the council approves rezoning the parcel, the project would return to the Planning Board for a site plan vote.
• “I don’t want to walk out my front door and see a 50-foot building in front of me,” Despart said. “I can hardly get out of my driveway now.”
• The facility just completed a $33 million extension of its surgical unit on the southwest corner of its Church Street property, and in the last couple of years, built a $30 million emergency center and a $3.6 million orthopedic center. Some homeowners in the area are beginning to feel boxed-in by the activity.
• Map shows parcel where Saratoga Hospital wants to build an at least 75,000-square-foot medical office building. (Matthew Jones)
• “This building is necessary for the hospital,” Jones recently told the council. The project is part of the hospital’s effort to increase efficiency and save money by centralizing physicians under one roof that is owned by the hospital, he said.
• The hospital on Church Street applied to build an 88,500-square-foot medical office building with at least 300 parking spaces on a vacant 8.5-acre site located a few blocks away. The three-story structure would allow doctors and staff that work off-site to relocate into one medical building that is about 200 yards north of the hospital.
• Rendering of Saratoga Hospital’s proposed medical building for Morgan Street in Saratoga Springs. (Provided by Matthew Jones).

Previously I posted the results of the research that Skidmore professor Bob Turner’s students did on this year’s city election.  He has asked me to get the word out that one of his students is doing an additional survey  on political engagement.  For those of us who worry about the current state of politics, anything that encourages the public to think about these issues is to be applauded and supported.  I hope the readers of this blog will take the time to respond to this latest survey.

Hi John,
If you could write a short posting asking your blog readers’ to take my student’s survey, she would be most appreciative. Bob

My student Rachel Thomeer is conducting a short survey on political engagement. Your responses are confidential and the survey should take 2-3 minutes to complete. Please share with your politically engaged Saratoga friends. Thank you for your time.
https://skidmore.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8DlILM0AzgjHl65

 

As noted in an earlier blog Gary Hasbrouk, who sits on the Zoning Board of Appeals, was seen drinking with Sonny Bonacio and attorney Michael Toohey following the meeting in which they had applied to the ZBA for variances for Moore Hall.

A neighbor reports that he spoke to Mayor Yepsen about the issue of Gary  Hasbrouk’s lack of impartiality.  The Mayor told him that the City Attorneys had requested that Mr. Hasbrouk go on the record as to why he should or should not recuse  himself from voting on the Moore Hall variances.  Mayor Yepsen told our neighbor that while she had no authority to mandate that Mr. Hasbrouk abstain from the vote, she felt “adamantly” that he should abstain.

 

At the Saturday meeting, members of the City Council worried publically that if the Bonacio proposal for Moore Hall were not approved, the cost of demolishing it could mean that the building would stand indefinitely as a rotting hulk.  This prompted me to wonder just how much has Norstar been asking for the Pink Palace?

The result of my attempt to find out is in the email below that I have sent to the members of the City Council and to the Zoning Board of Appeals:

We know that Norstar Development  paid Skidmore College $1,250,000.00 for Moore Hall.  What we do not know is what price they have been offering to sell it for during the last ten years.  We also are in the dark as to how much Bonacio Construction has offered for the property.

At Saturday’s neighborhood meeting with the City Council a number of commissioners expressed concern that the costs associated with the demolition of Moore Hall might make an alternative to the plan Bonacio was offering prohibitive.  The fear of course, encouraged by Norstar and Bonacio Construction, is that if they are not allowed their variances, Moore Hall will sit idle and deteriorating forever.  Given the fact that nothing has been done to the building in ten years, this narrative has an easy appeal.  Unfortunately, this scenario has never been soberly scrutinized.  As public figures who manage complex offices, the members of the City Council should know better than most the risks of drawing conclusions based on assumptions.

Following Saturday’s meeting I began making inquiries about how much Norstar Development is asking for the Moore Hall parcel.  I was amazed to find that there are no available records stating an asking price.  An internet search produced a resolution by the State University of New York to authorization the purchase the property for about two and a half million dollars back in 2011.  Subsequent searches, however,  failed to reveal why the sale did not go through.

I spoke to several local realtors and asked if the property had ever been listed locally.  The answer was that neither of them had ever seen an offering for it.  Both noted that they follow the local market closely and neither could recall any offering of the property let alone a price.

I then spoke to a friend who is a major developer.  He told me that it would not be offered under a local listing for a variety of reasons.  He told me that the closest thing to a listing for a parcel like Moore Hall would be by one of the national real estate firms that specialize in large, multi-family buildings.  He also had never seen any offering of the property.

He explained that with a building like Moore Hall a developer would use his contacts and his knowledge of the industry to periodically check for interest when the developer felt the market conditions were favorable.

So the reality is that we really do not know what Norstar has been asking for the property.  My friend noted that Moore Hall sits in one of the prime locations in Saratoga Springs making it a very desirable piece of land.  It is not at all unusual in the real estate industry, he told me, for an owner of such a parcel to hold the property for years in light of its potential.   Much depends on what the carrying cost and taxes are.

It is also very important to note that we have no idea what Bonacio Construction has offered Norstar as part of their agreement.

My friend offered the obvious: If Norstar is holding the property and paying the carrying costs and paying the taxes it is because they believe that at some point they can sell it or develop it.  The only way to get an honest sense of if viable alternatives might exist for the property would be to press Norstar on how much they have been asking for the land and to document how rigorously they have marketed it.   Lacking that information any assumptions about the potential for plans other than what Bonacio is offering to do with the parcel are simply blind guesses.

While it is to the developer’s advantage to promote the narrative that Bonacio Constructions proposal is the last hope for development of the property, the process would be better served if the members of the Council refrained from offering credibility to what can only be conjecture.

 

 

[

[From left to right: Franck, Madigan, Yepsen, Scirocco, Mathiesen]

[City Assistant Attorney, Tony Izzo]

[Council Members “inspect” site]

[Community Turns Out In Force and Addresses Council]

The City Council convened the meeting at the Empire State College auditorium on Saturday morning to hear neighbor’s concerns about Sonny Bonacio’s plans to re-purpose Moore Hall.  After the pledge of allegiance, it was announced that Council members would be leaving to visit the Moore Hall site and that the people attending the meeting could not join them because only the Council had permission to go onto the site.   This was unfortunate because there are many problems with the site that a number of particularly well informed members of the audience could have pointed out to them.

When the Council members returned, the Mayor explained that the meeting would follow the normal procedures.  The attendees would be allowed two minutes each to address the council.  Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo then explained that the land use boards were independent bodies created by the Council.  He noted that the Council could dissolve these bodies but the City Council cannot use its authority to dictate to these boards.  In answer to a question, he acknowledged that there was precedent for a City Council to sue its own boards to overturn a decision.

Over the next forty minutes many spoke to the Council.  It was really a rather Jimmy Stewart “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” experience.   Every speaker expressed their concerns thoughtfully and with dignity and sincerity.

This blog has already gone through the issues that concern the neighbors about this development so I will not repeat them.  What was important at this meeting was that the attendees fully understood that the Council could not overrule the Zoning Board of Appeals.  What the Council was asked to do by a number of speakers was to use its status as the elected representatives of this city to urge the ZBA not to grant the waivers on the basis of the arguments put forth at the meeting.

Before going over the statements made by the Council following the public comment period, a little history is in order.  Apparently on Friday (the day before this meeting) the City Attorney who works under the Mayor contacted members of the Council advising them that they should refrain from making statements at the neighborhood meeting about the Moore Hall proposal because of potential litigation that might follow a  ZBA decision.

The timing of this advice seems rather odd.  Commissioner Mathiesen had discussed having this meeting in the neighborhood at the Council agenda meeting last Monday and at the Tuesday night City Council meeting.  Concerns about the degree to which the Council could comment at the neighborhood meeting never arose. Commissioner Mathiesen discussed reservations he had about the Moore Hall Project at both Council meetings and nothing was said about the risk the city might face by him expressing his opinions. In fact, in light of the many controversies, especially over land use issues, commonly discussed at Council meetings this seems especially odd.  It was fully assumed that the Council would not only hear from the neighbors but would engage in a discussion about the Moore hall proposal at Saturday’s meeting.  If the Council would in effect have a gag rule imposed then everyone deserved to know this prior to attending the event.

As it turned out, the Council did discuss the project.  I think their willingness to enter into a discussion can be understood by a comment by Commissioner Madigan when she said “I never expected to see this many people at this meeting.”  Given the size of the crowd and the substance of their many comments, it would have been hard to imagine Mayor Yepsen being able to credibly simply thank people for coming and close the meeting.

What They Said

Mayor Yepsen made one significant admission.  She agreed that the proposed units cannot be characterized as “affordable housing.”

In an interesting development, she reported that the planning office (in response to correspondence from the neighborhood group)  is now requiring the applicant to secure yet a third variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals having to do with the many problems with their plan for the parking lot.

Other than that she said nothing to acknowledge that she had any specific problems with the project only noting that there were “may things to look into.”  Mainly she congratulated the attendees for coming out and she spoke about her plans to bring affordable housing to the city.

Commissioner Franck recalled that he was on the City Council when it approved the change in the zoning for the parcel in 2006.  He said that his support had been primarily motivated by the applicant’s promise to remove the Pink Palace from the site.  He said he had been quite skeptical about the financial viability of the original proposal.   The significant issue here is that it confirmed that the approval of the zoning change was based on the assumption that Moore Hall would be demolished.

Commissioner Scirocco was refreshing in that he made clear that he thought the project was inappropriate and he shared the neighbors’ concerns.  He said that while the Council could not require the ZBA to deny the project that he would communicate his concerns to them.   He received a warm round of applause.

Commissioner Madigan praised the crowd for their attendance and for their thoughtful remarks.  She reminded the crowd that they needed to bring their concerns to the ZBA.  She made no reference to any specific problems with the project.

Commissioner Mathiesen  noted that the Council had no authority over the Zoning Board of Appeals.  He discussed the challenges that would attend the cost of demolition.  He noted that he had serious concerns about many aspects of the project.

Originally, I held little hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals would deny the variances being requested by Sonny Bonacio.  After all, the ZBA is dominated by the real estate industry.  I feel cautiously hopeful now.  The combination of the clearly demonstrated broad opposition to the project, the very poor job the applicant has done in the design for the project, the extreme scale of the variances they are asking for, and the great job done by members of the community to research and document the flaws in the project, has created an overall case that makes it very hard for even the ZBA to approve this proposal.

PACs must report to the New York State Board of Elections how they allocated their money in support of candidates (Who they do not coordinate with…wink wink).

This is a copy of the Saratoga PAC’s report to the NYSBE for the 2015 elections.

The image is hard to read so here are the key numbers.

Candidate                                                           Spent

Michele Madigan                                             $2,097.67

John Franck                                                        $2,097.67

Bill McTygue                                                       $5,954.22

John Safford                                                      $5,954.22

Rick Wirth                                                            $18,369.35

 

John Franck had no opponent and Michele Madigan had a very weak opponent.  They received the least support.

Bill McTygue and John Safford received more support but still pretty modest.  Joanne Yepsen did everything she could to support the Casino expansion without being too obvious and she has been very protective of Saratoga National Golf Course. The PAC also might have felt she was likely to win. These are the only explanations I can think of for the PAC’s tepid support for her opponent. As for the Public Works race,  Skip is, after all, a Republican, he went to their fundraiser and again was going to be the likely winner which may explain the modest support for his opponent.

Not surprisingly, the number #1 target of the PAC was Commissioner Chris Mathiesen.  They gave Rick Worth a whopping $18,369.35.  Mathiesen along with Scirocco have been the two elected officials who have steadfastly protected the greenbelt.

Congratulations to Chris Mathiesen for being the #1 PAC target and for winning the election.

 

 

I received another email from Sonny Bonacio.  He indicated that his team was “regrouping” to come up with some new solutions in response to the criticisms offered at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.

As Yogi Berra wisely observed: “It ain’t over ’til its over.”

I had been corresponding with Sonny Bonacio on whether he would be attending the Saturday morning meeting.  This morning I received an email from him saying his company’s proposal for Moore Hall had been pulled from Monday night’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.  He indicated that he was unsure when they would be back in front of the board in the future.

I understood from the last ZBA meeting that two of the members would not be attending the Monday night meeting so I thought board itself might delay a vote.  Still, Sonny’s indication that there were no current plans to go back before the ZBA could imply that he may scrap the project.

The City Council will be meeting on Saturday morning at 10:00 at Empire State College’s auditorium at 2 Union Avenue.  The subject of the meeting will be the Bonacio proposal for Moore Hall.  The City Council invited Sonny Bonacio to attend but as of the Tuesday night he had declined.  I had heard that he was concerned about the attorney that had represented the neighbors being at the event.  I sent him an email advising him that the attorney would not be there but based on his response, I do not expect him to attend.  I am intrigued by his decision not to attend a City Council meeting that will be discussing his project. 

It should be an interesting meeting.   It is common knowledge that the current land use boards are dominated by the real estate industry as a result of Scott Johnson’s appointments during his two terms.  Even though the City Council members are mostly Democrats, it very much remains to be seen how they will respond to what is a potential abuse by the Zoning Board of Appeals were they to grant the variances sought by Sonny.

 

Bob Turner is a professor in the political science department.  Last night he and his students presented the result of their finding on the 2015 city elections.  It is well worth reviewing.

Among the highlights of their findings are the decline in the Republican enrollment in our city.  Based on their data, it appears that the independents and Democrats were both the beneficiaries of this development.

It also appears that the two main issues of concern to the voters in the district were taxes and protecting the city’s greenbelt.  They also found that across the spectrum politically, there was hostility to the increasing role of money in elections.  This relates to the establishment of the super PAC and the failure of most of their endorsed candidates to win office.

There is a whole lot more in the study which is linked to here.

They have broken it up into several parts so you need to access them all.  Also Dr. Turner indicated that they would try to provide a link to the video of last night’s presentation.