Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190539 Zoning Amendment Change Corr as of 6-11-19 Zimbra mlynn.bachner@saratoga-springs.org Fwd: Railroading a zone change From :Meg Kelly <meg.kelly@saratoga-springs.org> Thu,Jun 06, 2019 06:24 PM Subject:Fwd: Railroading a zone change To :lynn bachner <lynn.bachner@saratoga-springs.org> saratoga-springs.org> Sent from my'Phone JUN 0 6 2019 LI Begin forwarded message: By From: Dawn Marie Lapp <dawnlappvoice@gmail.com> Date: June 6, 2019 at 2:36:23 PM EDT To: Meg.Kelly©saratoga-springs.org Subject: Railroading a zone change Dear Mayor Kelly, Are you aware that the development corporation is proposing development counter to the 2015 zone plan for the city?Today, I just learned about the drastic change surrounding Railroad Run,which I and my family use regularly. The tree line has provided many happy backdrops to our outings and serenity on walks year round. I plan to attend the meeting tonight. Might you be in attendance? Sincerely, Dawn Lapp 6A Perry St, Saratoga Springs (518) 584-5242 Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. Zimbra m.lynn.bachner@saratoga-springs.org Fwd: Saratoga Hospital zoning change for medical offices From :Meg Kelly <meg.kelly@saratoga-springs.org> Thu,Jun 06, 2019 06:24 PM Subject:Fwd: Saratoga Hospital zoning change for medical offices To :lynn bachner <lynn.bachner@saratoga-springs.org> $g)ig 11.7 Sent from my'Phone 1 $1-) JUN Begin forwarded message: g 0 6 20in lirlf From: Brian Reilly <bcreillYn ca . r.com tl '° Date: June 6, 2019 at 2:51:27 PM EDT To: me g.kelly©saratoga-springs.org Subject: Saratoga Hospital zoning change for medical offices Mayor Kelly: We are writing to express our concerns over the Hospitals effort to change the zoning to accommodate medical offices. Our sympathies go to surrounding home owners who risk a dramatic impact to their property values. The Hospital has other options, including a multi story garage or expansion of facilities on West or Care Lane. Please vote AGAINST this zoning change. Sincerely, Brian and Connie Reilly 5 Timber Ln Saratoga Springs Sent from my iPad Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s)or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. Zimbra milynn.bachner@saratoga-springsiorg Fwd: Correspondence for the Planning Board re: DraftZoning Map From :Meg Kelly <meg.kelly©saratoga-springs.org> Thu,Jun 06, 2019 06:50 PM Subject;Fwd: Correspondence for the Planning Board re: Draft Zoning Map E 1 attachment To :lynn bachner <lynn.bachner@saratoga-springs.org> 02 r z 4277 Sent from my'Phone z £ Begin forwarded message: JUN 0 6 2 049 / From: Alexandra Besso <alexandra.besso@ gmail.com> Date: June 6, 2019 at 3:46:21 PM EDT To:Jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Cc: meg.kelly©saratoga-springs.org, skip.scirocco@saratoga-springs.org, michele.madigan@sarataga- springs.org, peter.martin©saratoga-springs.org, john.franck@saratoga-springs.org, bbirge©saratoga- springs.org, susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org, Vincent DeLeonardis <vince.deleonardis@saratoga- springs.org> Subject: Correspondence for the Planning Board re: Draft Zoning Map Good afternoon,Jennifer, Attached please find my letter to Chairman Torpey and Members of the Planning Board for acceptance into the record regarding the Draft Zoning Map. Thank you, Alexandra Besso Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s)or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. Torpey, arkLtrRespondingtoC audiaBraymer6.6.l9anlb.pdf `°� 375 KB JONES 68 West Avenue, P.U. Box 4400 Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 STEWS Phone (518) 587-0080 www.s arato galaw.c orn ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 6,2019 Mark Torpey,Chairman via electronic mail Saratoga Springs Planning Board Recreation Center 15 Vanderbilt Avenue Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Re:Draft Zoning Map Chairman Torpey and members of the Board, Please accept this letter into the record regarding the proposed city-wide rezoning as a part of the initial phase of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). I am writing in response to Claudia Braymer's letter to this Board of May 13, 2019(copy attached). In her letter,Ms. Braymer makes several arguments against rezoning Parcel#1 to OMB-2. My responses to her claims are set forth below. The Proposed Zoning Change for Parcel#1 Complies with the Comprehensive Plan Ms. Braymer contends that thero osed zoningchange of Parcel#1 to OMB-2"is not in P p accordance with the Future Land Use Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan"because only a portion of the area where Parcel#1 is located is designated Institutional. As the Comprehensive Plan itself states,"the boundaries for each of the land use categories are intentionally nog.precise and meant to be fluid. The boundaries of the zoniti g districts are far more specific and detailed." Comprehensive Plan p. 55,emphasis added. The boundaries of the Institutional zone set forth in the Future Land Use Map are not fixed;the intention of the boundary is to be flexible. It is clear from a simple glance at the map that the various land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan do not match up exactly with the specific parcels of land which they overlay. It is the intention of the land use map to identify general areas where a future land use designation shall be implemented. It is throughthe city-wide rezoningprocess,in which this Board is currently p �' participating,that the specific boundaries are drawn, and as such must match up with existing parcel boundary lines. More importantly,however, is Ms.Braymer's main argument to this point that OMB-2 does not fit within the intent of any institutional zoning district laid out in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore is in contravention of the Comprehensive Plan. She is correct that OMB-2 does not fit within an institutional definition in the Ordinance.And it doesn't have to. OMB-2 must instead fit within the Institutional designation of the Comprehensive Plan, as my co-counsel described to you in his letter dated May 15,2019, The OMB-2 use provides for health-related } services,a use which by definition complies with the designation in the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. Ms.Braymer defines OMB-2 as a commercial use in her letter and we do not dispute that. What matters is not whether the use is commercial in nature but instead whether that use conforms to the"intended uses and densities desired or anticipated for the community in the future." Put another way,the question at hand is whether a medical office building as permitted by OMB-2,fits within the Institutional designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The answer to this question is self-evident,and was answered in the affirmative by previous conclusion of this Board'. The only difference at present is that a zoning change would implement the proposed use instead of a PUD amendment. P Finally,Ms.Braymer references a statement by former Commissioner Mathiesen at the February 2,2016 City Council meeting where he urged the Council to bring the Institutional designation of Parcel#1 "back to the table and go [] back to square 1"to re-evaluate it and possibly return the land use designation to residential. Ms.Braymer states at page 6 of her letter that this`rescission attempt did not proceed." Ms.Braymer either misunderstands or misstates these facts in her letter. In truth,on May 17,2016 the City Council did undertake a subsequent review of the land use designation of Parcel#1. Notwithstanding recusals from Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Franck,the review did not require a supermaj ority and therefore was put to a vote. Only a single vote was east in favor of rescinding the Institutional designation for a residential one. Therefore,by Ms. Braymer's argument,the City Council has already undertaken a second,"legitimate vetting"of the Institutional designation of Parcel#1, choosing to leave it intact. The Pros osed Zonin. Chan.e for Parcel#1 Is Not Contr. to the Zonin. Ordinance Second,Ms. Braymer maintains the proposed OMB-2 use is contrary to the general Ordinance because the proposed change to Parcel#1 does not purposes and intent of the Zoning p p promote the"orderly physical development"of property by allowing a commercial use in what she claims is a residential neighborhood. I respectfully disagree. To the contrary,the proposed change is born from a process that upholds the principle of orderly development. It is through a very specific and definite legislative process that amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance are made. By law3,amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be reflected in the Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance must follow procedure as required by the Ordinance itself,including the process this Board is currently undertaking to provide an advisory opinion to the City Council. This is the definition.of orderly physical development. Ms.Braymer contends that part of the disorder of this process is that the proposed change would"allow commercial development to be placed in the middle of established residential neighborhoods." The area surrounding Parcel#1 is not residential,but rather mixed use. The Saratoga Hospital and other medical institutions sit immediately adjacent to the south,the Wesley Community to the east and the Golf and Polo Club to the west,next to the Markey Estate On October 14,2015 the Saratoga Springs Plannin Board provided a favorable advisory opinion to the City Council regarding the PUD Amendment proposed by Saratoga Hospital for a medical office building on the lands referred to as Parcel#1. 2 Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance§1.3(A). 3 General City Law§20(25)and§28-a(12)(a). which is also under the Institutional designation. The proposed change to Parcel#1 would keep the area of Parcel#1 in line with existing neighborhood character,not change it. Finally,Ms.Braymer cites Zoning Ordinance§1.3(B)(3),which states the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance includes the additional purpose of"provision of privacy for families and the maximum protection of residential areas." Not only has the area in question always been mixed use and not purely residential,but Ms. Braymer cites only one of eleven enumerated purposes,all of which should be read as a whole in order to understand the overall intent of the Ordinance. Furthermore,the next section of the Ordinance, §1.4, directs that"[allay amendments to this Chapter and all development approvals shall be consistent and in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan." (Emphasis added). The Ordinance itself requires that any zoning amendments be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above,the Institutional designation makes no provision for residential use,instead calling for provision of services in areas related to religious,educational,health cultural and tourism.5 I wish to thank the Board for its thorough analysis of the City Council's request for an advisory opinion under§1 0.1.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Your time and efforts devoted to this undertaking are a valuable asset to our City and its residents. Respectfully, 1 Pto 401, Ale:andra Besso ANB/ Cc: Saratoga Springs City Council (via email only) Bradley Birge(via email only) Susan Barden(via email only) Vince DeLeonardis(via email only) ` Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance§1.3(13)(1)-(1 1). 3 Saratoga Springs Comprehensive Plan p.59. thz' d 11 A ` LA' PO Box 2369 Glens Falb e NY ����1 (518) 882-3252 ig&e, claudia@braymerlaw.com 4), 9. t4,4,4,9 / May 13,2019 Planning Board City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Re: Saratoga Zoning Amendments Parcel#1 • Dear Saratoga Springs Planning Board Members, I represent a group of neighbors,known as Saratoga Concerned Neighbors,who are citizens residing in the Birch Run community,as well as in'the Morgan Street and Myrtle Street neighborhoods. The a iembers of Saratoga Concerned Neighbors live near Parcel#1 of the g g g proposed zoning changes that are being considered by the Saratoga Springs City Council. The Planning Board and the City Council need to engage in a more deliberate review of the entire package of proposed zoning changes,with particular attention to the review of the significant changes to Parcel#1. We respectfully request that you defer action on Parcel#1,and that . 1 you ask the CityCouncil for an extension of time to render your written advisoryopinion regarding Parcel#1. Seek an Extension of Time to Obtain and An_alyzslhQaa,tiQnge.IQLitkTro sed a As you correctly identified during your workshop meeting on April 25,2019 and again at your meetingon May2019,the rationale for the proposed amendments � p p dine s to the zoning map is important to your review and to the formulation of your advisory opinion. You are the City's . t . authority on land use planning in the City-you have the power to"make any investigations and reports relating to the planning of the City and its future growth". City Zoning Ordinance § 34.4(8). The rationale for the proposed amendments should be available to you prior to you giving an opinion about the prudence of the proposed changes. At the workshop meeting on April 25, 2019, the consensus of the Board was that a presentation from the City Council's consultant, and an extension of time from the City Council, were appropriate in order to do your due diligence.on a review of this magnitude. The Planning Board's Principal Planner, Susan Barden,indicated that the City Council's consultant would be coming to the City in May and could provide a presentation to the Planning Board alone,or in conjunction with a presentation to the City Council. There will be presentations about the zoning map amendments on May 21 and May 22. Ms.Barden also indicated that the consultant could provide written documentation regarding the rationale for the proposed changes for each of the 18 parcels. You should have the benefit of being able to observe the presentations,ask questions, and absorb tiie written information prior to issuing an advisory opinion about the zoning map amendments. In order to avoid having to make a decision at your meeting on May 16,you will need an extension from the City Council of the 60 day deadline. We respectfully request that you ask for that extension,and defer action on Parcel#1 until you have all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. ere ` o V id 'a `ona e fo Chan•' _ 'arcel# In the event that you undertake to review the rationale for changing the zoning district of Parcel#1,you will find that there is no valid justification for g charg in the zoningdistrict of that land. The land in Parcel#1 is properly zoned as a residential zoning district, and should stay that a . on one ,roto a a ital his std�t~ ing a t e:e .......... .. .. .... Y y � g sp a �p nse o dozens of longtime residential neighbors. See the"I trust Saratoga Hospital"comments from Saratoga Hospital's representatives, employees,doctors and others submitted to you to date(see also the enclosed letter from Saratoga Hospital to its contacts asking them to submit the form letter entitled"I trust Saratoga Hospital"). 2 • Changing the zoning district of Parcel# . for the benefit of one or two landowners � the City,while negatively impacting the surrounding properties,is not a valid rationale� for upholding the proposed zoning change because not it is not compatible p with the majority of the adjacent property uses, or the Comprehensive Plan.' Moreover,there are other available and suitable alternatives for Saratoga Hospital to pursue for itsro osed medical office p c e build.ing and parking lot on its current lands or on other lands nearby. See the enclosed letter from - Saratoga Hospital.regarding its proposal,and other alternatives. Parcel#1 Should.Remaiidential• Co+n maerclal S yawl Should Shquidabsdifijkd The residential property owners almost unanimously oppose the zoningchange that would allow sprawling commercial development because their property values and. p p �" resale values will be negatively impacted, and the peace and privacy of their properties,that they cherish and paid for, will be destroyed.. See the enclosed letter from the Birch Run Homeowners Associations. Parcel#1 is sandwiched between a low-intensity, residential neighborhood� orhoo gi. d of townhomes on the edge of the City,another single family residential neighborhood to the south oath of the parcel,and the Saratoga Golf and Polo Club to the west. The character of these ' residential and low density neighborhoods will be forever changed by a zoning change that allows Commercial use(OMB-2) on Parcel#1. The intensity of the use of the land will increase with the change from an existing medium density residential zone (UR-1) to a high impact commercial'use - With the• change from UR-I to 01\113-2,the minimum lot size requirement decreases and the maximum building coverage allowed increases. See Zoning Ordinance Chapter (Table 3 . The c'p � principal allowed.uses and uses permitted with site plan approval will increase from single family y resp vices on y n 1R-1 tb officeonedical office/clinic,and parking facilities in OMB-2. See Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 (Table 2). • See the enclosed ownership information for the tax mapparcels p is( Dorgan.Street and 55 Myrtle Street) that comprise Parcel#1. Saratoga Hospital in its 2015 PUD Zoning Amendment,a copy of which is enclosed for your reference,represented to the City that it had"acquired title"to 55 Myrtle Street gad I Morgan Street. 3 - c There will be a significant loss of open space,increased development pressure on lands with steep slopes', an adverse effect on wildlife,including the deer seen in that area, increased traffic on narrow City streets,and increased noise and light impacts to the neighborhood. The City must do"what it can"to protect open space and historic properties to "creat[e] sustainable livablecities for all". Local First, ai 's ive +te adds eex sectio April 25,2019,quoting Commissioner Michele Madigan. While the environmental impacts of any commercial buildings must be examined,the environmental impacts of the zoning change itself must be carefully reviewed,and no such review has taken place. TJLQBLQpoggjSjEnmfgLrLarsgiaDaanoIfpnfornaQhCo reh n The proposed change for Parcel#1 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's primary goal of"m.ain.tain[ingl a City that includes diverse housing opportunities for all economic levels throughout the city". Comprehensive Plan p.41. The proposed change also does not support the objective for"all development and rehabilitation{toj be respectful of the original community character". Comprehensive Plan p. 48. Instead,the proposal involves changing the lands in Parcel#1 from an existing medium density residential zone(UR-1),where the principal permitted structures are single family residences, to a commercial zoning district (OMB--2),where the intent is to accommodate"business,medical and professional office uses as well as health related institutional facilities". Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2(Tables I and 2). Second, the City's Comprehensive Plan expresses the City's vision for the`intensity of uses"to become"less as one travels away from the Core"of the City. Comprehensive Plan p. ....... ..........._...55. The current proposal to change Parcel#1.,which is about 1,000 feet from the City's northern .... border with the Town of Greenfield, does not make the intensity of use less. To the contrary,the • 2 A copy of the City's Open Space Plan Map,showing steep slopes on the lands on Parcel#1 is enclosed for your reference. The Open Space Plan(p. 17)states that"Development on steep slopes is discouraged due to the potential for soil erosion associated with the removal of vegetation from these slopes." 4 G• proposed area to be rezoned would become a more intense use of land,and thus would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Third,the proposed change to Parcel#1. is not in accordance with the Future Land Use Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that prtio of the area where Parcel#1 is located is intended to become an Institutional land use. According to the Zoning Ordinance,the Institutional zoning districts are intended to"accommodate uses that supplement and complement the operation of education-oriented facilities", "horse track operations","local goverment"functions,and F "passive and active recreation". Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2(Tables I and 2). The Institutional zoning district is not intended for medical office buildings(OMB-2 is a Commercial use)as is beingproposed for Parcel#1. Therefore,the current p p urr proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be rejected. Additionally,the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map showed that additional areas are to be designated Institutional Land Use. Those areas include lands, owned by Saratoga Golf and Polo Club,that are already zoned Institutional Parkland Recreation. There is no rational explanation for why Parcel#1, the site of Saratoga Hospital's intended medical office building,is being rezoned to OMB-2,a Commercial Land Use. Finally, at the time that the 2015 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council, contrary to the claims about a two-year review process,there was no detailed,thorough review that resulted in the change to the land use classification for Parcel#1. To the best of my knowledge, the proposal to change the zoning for Parcel#1 was suggested by a Saratoga Hospital representative at one of the last meetings of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, at the end of a long night deliberating about other issues. When Commissioner Christian Mathiesen learned of this afterwards,he attempted to rescind the change that had been made to the Commissioner Mathiesen indicated that"the Council missed this when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan", that there was no review conducted of this particular change, and that"it is in the best interest of the City to leave it residential". Minutes of the February 2,2016 City Council Meeting,p. 11. However, due to Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Franck S li • recusing themselves from the issue, the r eseision attempt did not proceed. As Commissioner. Mathiesen stated then,the Council should "bring this back to the table and go[] back to square 1". Minutes of the February 2, 2016 City Council Meeting,p. 11. In any event,to the extent that it may appear that the proposed zoning map amendment is in accordance with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan,the change should not be allowed to proceed without a legitimate vetting of thero osal for Parcel#1. See Commissioner Mathiesen's May p 1 ,2019 letter to the Planning Board. •The Proposed Change for Parcel#1 is Contrary to the ZQ ing OrRdin mice The proposed change for Parcel#1 is contrary to the"general purposes and intent"of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance § 10.1.5.1. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to: "encourage appropriate and orderly physical development;promote public health,safety, and general welfare; classify,designate and regulate the location and use of buildings, structures and land for agricultural,residential,commercial,industrial or other uses in appropriate places; and to divide the City of Saratoga Springs into districts of such number,shape and areas as may be deemed best suited to carry outthese regulations and provide for their enforcement." Zoning Ordinance§ 1.3(A). One of the"additional purposes"of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for the"provision of privacy for families and the maximum protection of residential areas". Zoning Ordinance § l.3(B)(3). The proposed change for Parcel#1 does not promote the"orderly physical . development"of property because it would allow commercial development to be placed in the middle of established residential neighborhoods. Zoning Ordinance § 1.3(A). While many of .._ .._.. _ the other 17 Sir -oed thar ei are designed edto eliminate split paxcel.situatidiis, . ... - .. create that kind of problem. Moreover,the proposed change clearly does not protect "residential areas" or"privacy for families". Zoning Ordinance § 1.3(B)(3). Therefore,the proposed change is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance,and should not proceed. • 6 Co'ips-Lon For the reasons stated above,we respectfully request that you recommend to the City Council that Parcel#1 be removed from the package of changes currently under consideration so that this particular proposal can be more thoroughly evaluated. We also request that you ask the City Council for an extension of time to render your written advisory opinion regarding Parcel #1. Thank you for yourtime and attention to this important zoning oning amendment. • Sincerely, Is!Claudia K Brayer Claudia K.Braymer enc. cc: Vincent J.DeLeonardis,City Attorney Saratoga Concerned Neighbors (all via e-mail) f . iy JONES 8 West Avenue, P.O. Box 4400 Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 sTEvEs Phone (518) 587-0080 www.saratogalaw.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW { June 6,2019 } Mark Torpey,Chairman war+electron, Saratoga Springs PlanningBoard r � u N Recreation Center tit:A; 15 Vanderbilt Avenue 2019 Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 ft y� n. Re: Draft zoning Map Chairman Torpey and members of the Board, Please accept this letter into the record regarding the proposed city-wide rezoning as a part of the initial phase of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). I am writing in response to Claudia Braymer's letter to this Board of May 13, 2019(copy attached). In her letter,Ms. Braymer makes several arguments against rezoning Parcel#1 to OMB-2. My responses to her claims are set forth below. The Prop osed tonin Chan e for Parcel#1 Comlies with the Comlies with Plan Ms.Braymer contends that thero osed zoningchange of Parcel#1 to OMB-2"is not in P p accordance with the Future Land Use Map City's the Ci 's Com rehensive Plan" because only a =. portion of the area where Parcel#1 is located is designated Institutional. As the Comprehensive Plan itself states,"the boundaries for each of the land use categories are intentionally nog precise and meant to be fluid. The boundaries of the zoning districts are far more specific and detailed." Comprehensive Plan p. 55, emphasis added. The boundaries of the Institutional zone set forth in the Future Land Use Map are not fixed;the intention of the boundary is to be flexible. It is clear from a simple glance at the map that the various land use designations in the Comprehensive - Plan do not match up exactly with the specific parcels of land which they overlay. It is the intention of the land use map to identify general areas where a future land use designation shall be implemented. It is through the city-wide rezoning process,in which this Board is currently participating,that the specific boundaries are drawn, and as such must match up with existing parcel boundary lines. More importantly,however,is Ms. Braymer's main argument to this point that OMB-2 does not fit within the intent of any institutional zoning district laid out in the Zoning Ordinance and therefore is in contravention of the Comprehensive Plan. She is correct that OMB-2 does not fit within an institutional definition in the Ordinance. And it doesn't have to. OMB-2 must instead fit within the Institutional designation of the Comprehensive Plan, as my co-counsel described to you in his letter dated May 15, 2019. The OMB-2 use provides for health-related services,a use which by definition complies with the designation in the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. Ms. Braymer defines OMB-2 as a commercial use in her letter and we do not dispute that. What matters is not whether the use is commercial in nature but instead whether that use conforms to the"intended uses and densities desired or anticipated for the community in the future." Put another way,the question at hand is whether a medical office building as permitted by OMB-2, fits within the Institutional designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The answer to this question is self-evident,and was answered in the affirmative by previous conclusion of this Board'. The only difference at present is that a zoning change would implement the proposed use instead of a PUD amendment. p P P Finally,Ms.Braymer references a statement by former Commissioner Mathiesen at the February 2,2016 City Council meeting where he urged the Council to bring the Institutional designation of Parcel#1 "back to the table and go { back to square 1"to re-evaluate it and possibly return the land use designation to residential. Ms.Braymer states at page 6 of her letter that this"rescission attempt did not proceed. Ms. Braymer either misunderstands or misstates these facts in her letter. In truth,on May 17,2016 the City Council did undertake a subsequent review of the land use designation of Parcel#1. Notwithstanding recusals from Mayor Yepsen Franck,the review did not require a supermajority orit and therefore was put to a and Commissionerq p J y vote. Only a single vote was cast in favor of rescinding the Institutional designation for a g residential one. Therefore,by Ms. Braymer's argument,the City Council has already undertaken a second,"legitimate vetting"of the Institutional designation of Parcel#1, choosing to leave it intact. The Pro•osed Zonin I Chan.e for Parcel#1 Is Not Contrar to the Zonin. Ordinance Second,Ms.Braymer maintains the proposed OMB-2 use is contrary to the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed change to Parcel#1 does not promote the"orderly physical development"of property by allowing a commercial use in what she claims is a residential neighborhood. I respectfully disagree. To the contrary,the proposed change is born from a process that upholds the principle of orderly development. It is through a very sp ecifi c and definite legislative process that amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance are made. By law3,amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be reflected in the Zoning Ordinance. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance must follow procedure as required by the Ordinance itself,including the process this Board is currently undertaking to provide an advisory opinion to the City Council, This is the definition of orderly physical development. .. .. ................... .. Ms.Braymer contends that part of the disorder of this process is that the proposed change would"allow commercial development to be placed in the middle of established residential neighborhoods." The area surrounding Parcel#1 is not residential,but rather mixed use. The Saratoga Hospital and other medical institutions sit immediately adjacent to the south,the Wesley Community to the east and the Golf and Polo Club to the west,next to the Markey Estate 1 On October 14,2015 the Saratoga Springs Plannin Board provided a favorable advisoryopinion to the City Council regarding the PUD Amendment proposed by Saratoga Hospital for a medical office building on the lands referred to as Parcel#1. Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance§1.3(A). 3 General City Law§20(25)and§28-a(12)(a). which is also under the institutional designation. The proposed change to Parcel #1 would keep the area of Parcel #1 in line with existing neighborhood character, not change it. Finally, Ids. Braymer cites Zoning Ordinance § 1.3 (B)(3 ), which states the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance includes the additional purpose of "provision of privacy for families and the maximum protection of residential areas." Not only has the area in question always been nixed use and not purely residential, but Ms. Braymer cites only one of eleven enumerated purposes, all of which should be read as a whole in order to understand the overall intent of the Ordinance.4 Furthermore, the next section of the Ordinance, § 1.4, directs that " aIny amendments to this Chapter and all development approvals shall be consistent and in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan." (Emphasis added). The Ordinance itself requires that any zoning amendments be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, the Institutional designation makes no provision for residential use, instead calling for provision of services in areas related to religious, educational, health cultural and tourism. I wish to the the Board for its thorough analysis of the City Council's request for an advisory opinion under§ 10.1, 5.1 of the Zoning ordinance. Your time and efforts devoted to this undertaking are a valuable asset to our City and its residents. Respectfully, 6i4 Ale ands Be ANB/ Cc: Saratoga Springs City Council (via entail only) Bradley Birge (via email only) Susan Barden (via email only) Vince DeLeonardis (via email only) Saratoga Springs Zoning Ordinance §1.3(B)(1)-(1 1 ). Saratoga Springs Comprehenstive Plan p. 59, BRAYMER LAW, PLLC FO Box 2369 Glens Falls NY 12$01 (518) 882-3252 claudla@brayiiierla-sAr.com bxayinerlaw.com May 13, 2019 e4l9 Planning Board City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Sprigs NY 12$66 Re-, Saratoga Zoning Amendments Parcel #1 Dear Saratoga Springs Planning Board" Members, 3 represent a group of neighbors, mown as Saratoga Concerned Neighbors, who aro citizens residing in the .birch Run community, as well as in the Morgan Street and Myrtle Street neighborhoods, The Members of Saratoga Concerned Neighbors live near parcel #1 of the proposed zoning changes that are being considered by the Saratoga Springs City Council. The Planning Board and the City Council need to engage in a more deliberate review of the entire package of proposed zoning changes, with particular attention to the review of the significant changes to Marcel #1. We respectfully request that you defer action on Parcel #1, and that you ask the City Council for an extension of time to render your written advisory opinxon 3 regarding .Parcel #1. Seek an .extension of Time to Obtain. and Analyze the Kati ale for t Pro sed haft As you correctly identified during your workshop meet'ng on April 25, 2019 and again at your meeting on May 2, 2019, the rationale for the proposed amendments to the zoning snap is important to your review and to the fornzzdation of your advisory. opinion. You are the City's T authority on land use planning in the City - you have the power to "make any investigations and reports relating to the plaiming of the Citi and its future growth". City Zoning Ordinance 34w4(B). The rationale for the proposed amendments should be available to you prior to Yo11 giving an opinion about the prudence of the proposed. changes, At the workshop meeting on April 253 2019, the consensus of the Board was thana presentation from the City Council's consultant, and an extension of time froom,. the City Council, were appropriate in order to do your due diligence on a review. of this magnitude. The Planning Board's Principal Planner, Susan Barden, indicated that the City Council's consultant would be coming to the City in May and could provide a presentation to the Planning Board alone, or in Conjunction with a presentation to the City Council. There will be presentations about the zoning reap amendments on May 21 and May 22. Ms. Barden also indicated that the consultant could provide VM en documentation regarding the rationale for the proposed changes for each of the 18p arcels. You should have the benefit of being able to observe the presentations, ask questions, and absorb the wri.f:en information prior to issuing an advisory opinion about the zoning reap amendlnenls. In order to avoid having to make a decision at y9ur meeting on May 16, you will need an extension from the City Council of the 60 day deadline. We respectfully request that you ask for -that extension, and defer action on Parcel #I until you have all of the information necessary to make an informed decision. Where ia-N-Q 'd Rationale for Chan in Parge-1 #1 In the event that you undertake to review the rationale for changing the zoning district of Parcel #1, you will find that there is Ao valid justification for changing the zoning district of that g g g land. The land in Parcel #1 is properly zoned as a residential zoning district, and should stag that ..................� ...... way. nal�.. as requested the zon g . cl7iange at the f .. dozens of longtime residential neighbors. See the "I trust Saratoga Hospital" comments from Saratoga Hospital's representatives, employees, doctors and others submitted to you to date (see also the enclosed letter- from Saratoga Hospital to its contacts asking them to submit the form letter entitled "I trust Saratoga Hospital"). 2 C Changing the zoning district of Parcel #1 for the benefit of one or two la ndo��ners in the City, while negatively *mpacting the surrounding properties, s not � valid p lid rationale for upholding the proposed zoning change because not it is not compatible with the majority orq ty of the ad, 0a.cent property uses, or the Comprehensive Plan.' Moreover, there a ' re other available and suitable alternatives for Saratoga Hospital to pursue for itsro osod mei ; p p medical office building and parking lot on its current lands or on other lands nearby. See the enclosed letter tier fTom Saratoga Hospital regarding its proposal, and other alternatives. Parcel 11 Sbould Remain lesigential•Cozrnincrciai � rawl Should be Malted The residential property owners almost unanimous)' oppose ose the zoning g change that would allow sprawling commercial development because theirroe a p p � values and resale values F gill be negatively impacted, and tiie peace and privacy of their properties, that they cherish and paid for, will be destroyed.- See the enclosed letter from the Birch Run Homeowners Associations. Parcel #1 is sandwiched between a low-intensity,residential ` neighborhood of townhornes on the edge of the City, another single famil residential nei hbor g hood to the south of theparcel, and the Saratoga. Golf and Polo flub to the vest. The characterresidential of these residential and lour density neighborhoods will be forever changed b a tonin change h . � g g that alloys Commercial usb (OMB -2) on Parcel #l. The intensity of the use of the land will increase with the change froom an existing g s ung medium density residential zone (UR -1) to a high impact com* mercial iise A (OMB --2). With the change fr orn UR.- l to OMB -27 the minimum lot size requirement. decreases . � ases and the max-Imuln building coverage allowed increases. See Zoning Ordinance Cha(Table pter � 3). The principal alto ed.uses and uses permitted with site plan approval will increase from m single family res ences on n -- to' ornCe. medical ical offic /cl in c, aril paiking facilities in OMB --2. See Zojung Ordinance Chapter 2 (Table 2). See the enclosed ownership information for the tax map1 arcels Morgan Street p � g and 55 Myrtle Street) that comprise Parcel #1. Saratoga Hospital in its 2015 PUD ZoningAmendment a co 0 � p� f which is enclosed for your reference, represented to the City that it had "acquired title'= to 55 Myrtle, Morgan Street. � Street and I 3 'rhere will he a significant loss of open space, increased development pressure on lands with steep slopes', an adverse effect on wildlife, including the deer seen in that area 0. increased traffic on narrow City streets, and increased noise and light impacts to the neighborhood. The City 1-nust do "what it can'17 to protect open space and .historic properties to "creat[e] sustainable livable cities for all". Local First, Sa City's website adds eeii. section, April 25, 2019, quoting Commissioner Michelc Madigan. While the environmental impacts of any commercial buildings must be examined, the environmental impacts of the zoning change itself must be carefully reviewed, and no such review has taken place, lbe Propased Change for Parcel #1 Does N oL Co}lform to the Camprehensiv&Ea The proposed change for Parcel #1 does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan's primary goal of ""maintainm" g a City that includes diverse housing opportunities for all economic levels throughout the city". Comprehensive Plan. p. 41. The proposed change also does not support the objective for "ail development and rehabilitation [to] be respectful of the original community character". Comprehensive Plan P. 4$. Instead, the proposal involves cbmiging the lands in Parcel #1 from an existing inedium density residential zone (UR -1), -where the principal pex pitted structures are single fainliy residences, to a commercial zoning district (OMB -2), where the intent is to accommodate "business, medical and professional office uses as well as health related institutional facilities". Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 (Tables 1 and 2), Second, the City's Comprehensive Plan expresses the City's vision for the `intensity of uses37 to become "less as one travels away from. the Core" of the City. Comprehensive Plan p. 55. The current p pppsal to .chapg, Parcel #1.,.Wiigh is-abqut 1 000 feet from the Cits's.nQrlhPm ................. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... . border with the Town of Greenfield, does not make the intensity of use less. To the contrary, the 'A copy of the City's Open Space Plan. Map, showing steep slopes on the lands on Parcel ##t is enclosed for your reference. The Open Space Plan (p. l 7) states that ``Development on steep slopes is discouraged due to the potential for soil erosion associated w'[Lh the removal of vegetation from these slopes." 4 i proposed area to he rezoned would become a more intense use of land, and thus would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Third, the proposed change to Parcel #1 is not iii accordance with the Future Land Use Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map set forth in the City's Comprehensive plan indicates that a =tion of the area. where .Parcel #1 is ionated is intended to become an Institutional land use. According to the Zoning Ordinance, the Institutional zoning districts are intended to "'accommodate uses that supplement and complement the operation of education -oriented facilities", "horse trach operations", "local goveinment" functions, and `passive and active recreation". Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 (Tables I and 2). The Institutional zoning district is not intended for inedical office buildings (OMB -2 is a Commercial use) as is being proposed for Parcel #1 Y Therefore, the current proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Flan and should be rejected. Additionally, the Comprehensive p'lan's Future Land Use Map shoved that additional areas are to be designated Institutional Land Use,, Those areas include lands, owned by Saratoga Golf and Polo Club, that are aheady zoned Institutional Parkland/Recreation. There is no rational explanation for why Parc cl' # I , the site of Saratoga Hospital's intended medical office building, is being rezoned to OMB -2, a Commercial Land Use. Finally, at the time that the 2015 Comprehensive flan was adopted by the City Council, contrary to the claims about a two-year review process, there was no detailed, thorough review that resulted in the change to the land use classification for parcel #1. To the best of .my knowledge, the proposal to change the zoning for Parcel #1 was suggested by a Saratoga Hospital representative at one of the tast meetings of the Comprehensive plan Committee, at the end of a long night deliberating about other issues. When Commissioner Christian Mathiesen learned -of this afterwards, he attempted to rescind the change that had. been made to the Cornprehens�ve Flan �n � � 1 � , Commissioner Mathiesen, indicated that "the Council missed this when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan", that there was no review conducted of this particular change, and that ;`it is in the best interest of the City to leave it residen,tiar. Minutes of the February 2, 2016 City Council Meeting, p. 11. However, due to Magor Yepsen and Commissioner Franey W1 recusing themselves from the issues the rescision attempt did not proceed. As Commissioner Mathiesen stated then, the Council should "bring this back to the tante and go[] back to square I ". Minutes of the February 2, 2016 Cit} Council .meeting, p. 11. In any event, to the extent that it may appear chat the proposed zoning neap amendment is in accordance with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, the change should not be allowed to proceed -without a legitimate vetting of the proposal for Parcel R l . See Commissioner Mathiesen's May 12, 2019 letter to the planning Board. The PrgvQs,ed,ChanggL for Parcel #1 is Conte � o the Zon`n Ord' x�ce The proposed change for Parcel #1 is contrary to the "general purposes and intent" of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance § 10. 1.5 . l.. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinannce is to: "encourage appropriate avid orderly physical development; promote public health, safety, mid general welfare; classify, designate and regulate the location and use of buildings, structures and land for ag-icultural, residential, commercial, industrial or other uses in appropriate places-. and to divide the City of Saratoga Springs into districts of such number, shape and areas as may be deemed best suited to cam out these regulations and provide for their enforcement." Zoning Ordinance § 1.3 (A). One of the "additional purposes" of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for the '"provision of privacy for families and the maximiirn protection of residential areas". Zoning Ordinance 1.3(B)(3). The proposed change for Parcel #1 does not promote the `orderly physical development" of property because it would allow commercial development to be placed in the middle of established residential neighborhoods. Zoning Ordinance § 1.3(A). While many of the- 6thet 17 ]xbp0sed &dhgds ate designed - to -4611rniri w split- ......., .. .................. _. .. . . ...... .......... .... . parcel sitixa�onsthis change vrauld create that kind of problem. Moreover, the proposed change clearly does not protect . "residential areas" or 44privacy for families". Zoning Ordinance § 1.3(B)(3). Therefore, the proposed change is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance, and should not proceed.. R Lai M4 For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request that you recommend to the City 3 Council that: Parcel #1 he removed from the package. of changes currently under consideration so � 3 that this particular proposal can he more thoroughly evaluated. We also request that you ask the � City Council for an extension of time to render your written advisory opinion regarding .parcel � 'hank you for your time and attention to this important zoning amendment. Sincerely, Isl Claudia K. Brayiner Claudia K. Braymer One. Cc: Vincent J. DeLeonardis, City Attorney Saratoga Concerned Neighbors (all via e-mail) 7. 6/612019 Zimbra Zimbra j r errs a@arat a- ri .r g Online For Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment - - --------------------- - ---- -----___-_.__._w_--___----- _n-_ ----------------- -- - ---- --------___ -------- - ------ - ------------- - ------ -------------------- From : norepiy@civicplus.com Thu, Jun 06, 2019 03:45 PM Subject: Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment To bbirge@saratoga-springs.org,, Jennifer merriman U` ,0<�ennfifer,nerrimanasarato ga-springs.org>susan barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org>, amanda tucker <amanda.tucker@saratoga-springs.org> Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment https://m.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessage?id=86398&tz=America/New York 1/2 61612019 Zimbra Neighborhood (CRN1) to CC/T4. we just built our new home on Joseph Street and were shocked to hear that you are considering this very significant change to the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development ordinance. Allowing high density residential and commercial development in the Railroad Run parcels will have an immediate detrimental effect on our neighborhood, Please do not allow this. Thank you, Steve and Lana MacCormack Attach Photo Iona Field not completed., Email not displaying correctly? View 1t in your browser. https://m.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessagelid=86898&tz=America/New York 212 6/6/2019 Zi m bra a r.errs @arat a- r r Railroad u Fri : Bradley Birge <bbirge@saratoga-springs.org> Thu, Sun 00, 2019 03:35 PM Subject: Fwd: Railroad Run To :Jennifer Merriman <jennifer.merrirnan@saratoga- springs.orp, Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoga- springs.org> JON From: "Dawn Marie Lapp" <dawnlap voiced mail.com> To: "Bradley Birge" < Bbirge@sa ratoga-spri ngs.org } Seat: Thursday, .dune 6, 2019 3:04:43 PM Subject: Railroad Run Gear Mark and members of the Planning Board, Thank you for all the work you are doing for Saratoga Springs and the community= I appreciate it. I'm writing in regards to the proposed zoning changes to the Comprehensive Plan discussed in Proposal 17. The proposed zoning changes to the Railroad Run contradict the comprehensive Plan. Please oppose the rezoning of Railroad Run. There is no legitimate -reason to downgrade it as proposed by Carniros, Ltd. As Saratoga continues to grow, we need to follow thoughtful plans such as the Comprehensive Pian (which the council agreed with). Sincerely, Dawn La pp 6A Perry St, Saratoga springs (518) 584-5242 ............confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the city of Saratoga springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. https://m.saratoga-springs.orglh/printmessage?id=86397&tz=America/New York 6/6/2019 Zimbra Zimbra jenni'fer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org UPDATED - Public Comment for June 6 Planningrear - UDO Zoning Map Area #17 Fri : M White < rrrusers@g mail. com > Thu, Jun 06, 2019 02:43 PM Subject : UPDATED - Public Comment for June 6 Planning Board 1 attachment Meeting - UDo Zoning Map Area #17 T : jenn ifer merrirnan ejennifer. rnerri ma n @sa ratoga- spri ngs.org } Hi Jennifer: Could you please forward the attached PPT to each of the Planning Board members. It is updated to address the latest changes that have occurred in the past day or so. As requested (and suggested during the last PB workshop that I attended) I would like to present this first and have other members of the community yield their time to equal out the PPT presentation. If this could be available and ready to go for Public Comment that would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike White https://m.saratoga-springs.orglhlprintmessage?id=86389&tz=Americ@/New York 6/612019 Zimbra Zimbra jenni'fer-merr'iman@saratoga-springs.org John u a n's SaratogaSpringsPolitics.com Fri : Peter Hopper < PH opper@SARAT0GAcARE.0RG> Thu, Jun 06, 2019 02:58 Ply Subject :John Kaufmann"s SaratogaSpringsPolitics.corn blog 'j en n fifer. m erri ma n @ sa ratoga-springs, org' <jennifer. merri man @saratoga-springs.org >, JUN 'susan, barden@saratog p g ga-s rin s.or I062019 susan. Barden @sa ratoga-spri ngs. org >, 'bbirge@saratoga-springs.org' <bbirge@saratoga- springs.org> Please see the attached post from Mr. John Kaufmann's SaratogaSpringsPolitics.corn blog. In my opinion, it is a thoughtful, well-documented, balanced and independent point of view. I have included both the link to the post and have copied the content below, jittp5:�Jsaratogaspring olitics.corn 2 i9 0 20 saratoga�hospital-vers s -the -n ighbors-� o- easy -answers Saratoga Hospital versus the Neighbors -No Easy Answers It was inevitable that a project of the scope of the proposed medical office building planned by Saratoga Hospital would be highly controversial. It is also more than understandable that the neighbors of the project are waging a fierce resistance to the project. For years they have benefited from the undeveloped land which has served them as a kind of passive park. It is fully understandable that they are fearful about what the full impact of a project of this magnitude may have on them. It is also understandable that Saratoga Hospital views this piece of land as strategically critical to its future. In an age of consolidation with a rapidly changing environment for the financing of healthcare, Saratoga Hospital needs to focus on how to control costs while providing itself with the maximum flexibility for future growth. Much of this is covered by an earlier post on this site. As much of the coverage involves accusations over the alleged abuse by the city and the hospital over zoning questions, some background about zoning is in order. 9 0 -,, t, -1 - * a t I � 171", The New York. Department of State office of Division of Local Government services provides training and technical information for local land use boards. This post relied heavily on an excellent white paper put out by this office titled "Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan." It is written in a clear and easy to understand format. For those of you interested in really understanding the issues addressed in this post, I highly recommend the paper. https://M.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 1!7 6/6120-19 Zimbra The reality is that the city is continually changing as is the wider society in which it exists, and the city needs to adopt policies to address these changes. To that end, it periodically crafts a comprehensive plan= Among the elements of a comp plan is a complete re- assessment of land -use. The comp plan considers ghat kind of activities should take place in different parts of the city. For example, in past comp plans it was decided that the outer areas of the city should be rural in character while the core of the city should take on an urban character, of course there would be other areas for other needs such as industrial and recreational parks. The result has been a map laying out our geography where different areas are designated for different purposes. So the first phase in the zoning process is normally the adoption of a comprehensive plan. The city charter requires thislo be done once every five years but there is nothing that precludes the process being done more frequently. The next phase is to generate a set of zoning ordinances which are meant to implement the plan. so, for example, in establishing the greenbelt, the city would adopt a set of standards for how dense the development should be. The ordinance would be very specific regarding lot sizes, set backs, etc. meant to insure the rural character. It also identifies what kind of activities are allowed that would be consistent with a rural character. so among the activities allowed would be farming. The essential thing to understand here is the two step approach. First the more general description of what should go where and then the very specific process of crafting ordinances to insure that the ideas in the comp plan are implemented effectively. �. MIMI:-111 11 ilk The 2015 Comp Plan process was by anyone's standard, a disaster. Mayor Joanne Yepsen had the authority to appoint the Comprehensive Plan Committee. She decided to appoint 10 members and allow the other Council members to each make one appointment. The result was a Committee comprised of people with radically different priorities and agendas. They ranged from Todd Shimkus of the Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce who is a zealot for passible business opportunities and Sonny Bonacio, developer, to Theresa Capozzola and Tom Denny whose priority was protecting what was left of the city's greenbelt. The result was a largely dysfunctional group where acrimonious sessions regularly ended in stalemates. In fact, the group was unable to finalize the document. 53 amendments were left unresolved for the City Council to deal with. Not surprisingly, the most bitter fights were over the greenbelt. Interestingly, one of the items that was adopted unanimously was the designation of the parcel for development by the hospital (Parcel #1). I recently spoke to a person who was on the committee, and this person observed that everyone was so exhausted over other fights that it appeared at the time that allowing the hospital to expand seemed like an inconsequential idea. The Committee's discussion was quite brief. This is a link to it [Transcript —Kevin Ronayne — 11 17 14.] https:llm.saratoga-spdngs-org/h/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 2/7 61612919 Zimbra In his recent testimony to the City Planning Board Chris Mathiesen, who was the Public safety Commissioner at the time, expressed his regret that he overlooked the gravity of the decision to change the zoning for the parcel when he voted to adopt the Comp Plan. He argued that the interests of the neighbors should have superseded the hospital's. He asserted that the city needed to make the protection of neighborhoods a higher priority. The neighbors believe that discussion of the change by the Comp Plan Committee was inadequate, and that the Committee failed to consider the change's impact an the neighborhoods. 7U Nip Iiqmn; Al Tv In their release and in the coverage of them at meetings, the neighbors appear to be asserting that the hospital should not be allowed to construct a medical office building as it plans to because it would violate the city's zoning ordinances. In a letter from the neighbors' attorney, Claudia Brayrr er [S-acat9-qaCJ1y.RBay1.], she asserts that the designation of the land as "institutional" according to the city's zoning ordinances does not allow for medical activities. The problem, as pointed out by the hospital's attorney,. Matt hones, is that there are actually tato definitions for "institutional," The key definition is the one called for by the comp Plan. The "institutional" designation includes areas that provide services such as religious, health, educational, cultural, and tourism. The comp Plan supersedes honing, and the 2015 Comp Plan designates the area activities to include health services. The zoning ordinance for the land in question must therefore allot for health related activities such as a medical office building as the zoning ordinance role is to implement the Comp Plan, As regards "institutional" the comp Plan definition rules. In fact, the new, proposed zoning language for the parcel does allow for health related activities. The zoning proposed for the parcel is identified as "office/Medical/Business-2. (OMB -2)" The chart for this has a column headed "lyses Permitted With Site Plan Approval" and the related description is "office Medical/office/Clinic, Parking Facilities." Attorney Braymer is welcome to respond to this on the bldg, but it seems fairly clear that the Comp Plan as written provides for a medical office building should the hospital decide to go forward. In an email to me [JalmeEmail], Jaime Evans, one of the neighbors, contended that the designation of the parcel allowing for a medical office building constituted "spot zoning." https://m.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessage?id= 86393&tz=America/New York 3/7 6/6/2019 Zimbra Ms. Evans and her husband, David, have taken a leadership role in the group opposing the hospital expansion. David and 3aime, who live in Albany, are realtors and own a second home in the affected neighborhood that they also offer as a rental on AirBnB. The group has contracted with Behan Communications which is a public relations firm with offices in Glens Falls. Attached is Ms. Evansf email with her full argument. she asserts that spot zoning is "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners." Ms. Evans goes on to argue that "...we have a zoning change requested by one entity, Saratoga Hospital, for the benefit of one entity, Saratoga Hospital, at the permanent expense of the residential property owners." The hospital's attorney pointed out that the hospital is a not-for-profit corporation providing services to the city and county residents as well as visitors to the city. There are no stock holders in the hospital i.e. there is no benefit to any individual. The benefit is to those in need of healthcare, Ms. Evans also notes that the decision was made by the comprehensive Plan committee in haste with little consideration for its impact. The first problem is with her assertion that the parcel has a "... use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area...". While the parcel does abut residential districts it also abuts the parcel where the hospital is located. According to the NYS Department of state's white paper on comprehensive plans and zoning The question of whether a rezoning constitutes "spot zoning "should be answered by determining whether the rezoning was done to benefit individual owners rather, than pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community. Perl7c7ps.the. most important theme. in the leading cases Interpreting. the. requirement. that zoning he in accordance with a comprehensive pian is the language in those cases indicating that the courts will look to see whether zoning is for the benefit of the whole community. I am sympathetic to Ms. Evans in her frustration with the process, but it is important to look at that process as a court would in reviewing its validity. As noted by the Department of state's white paper, the very fact that the decision on how to rezone the property was done to adhere to a comprehensive plan is critical. while the decision was precipitated by a request by the hospital,, the decision was made by a diverse group of citizens appointed by a governmental body based on their determination that the use of the parcel would benefit the community. I would expect it would be hard to convince a https:Hm.seratoga-springs,orglh/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 4/7 6/6/2019 zimbra judge that they did it simply as a favor to the hospital especially in light of the fact that the determination by the comp Plan Committee was unanimous. In reading the white paper, it should be clear that the law places a high premium on zoning decisions made to adhere to comprehensive plans. I am not a lawyer but my observation over the years is that one can never be sure how a court will decide no matter how strong one's case. I would not rule out the possibility that the neighbors might prevail. still, it appears to this non -lawyer that the neighbors' legal arguments are not strong. As noted earlier, the city is required by law to bring its zoning laves into compliance with its Comprehensive Plan. The following are the relevant legal bases for this. State General City Law (attachment #1, attachment #2} [20 25] The city's zoning codes (attachment #1, attachment #2) [20-1 12] The city has hired the consulting firm camiros Ltd. to draft a unified Development ordinance which includes a new zoning map. This means that the consulting firm must designate the parcels in the map with the appropriate zoning category which complies with the designated purpose under the comp Plan. so the revised zoning category for the controversial parcel would ' have to allow for health services along with the other categories that include educational, cultural, religious, and tourism mandated by the comp Plan. The city council is required to seek an advisory opinion from the Planning Board. As I understand it, the Planning Board is being asked to specifically review the proposed new zoning neap to determine whether the zoning category for the parcel #1 complies with the comp Plan. The consulting firm, camiros Ltd., was awarded the contract to complete the Unified Development Ordinance, The UDO includes an updated zoning reap reflecting the 2015 comp Plan. This would include assigning the correct zoning category for the controversial parcel based on the comp Plan. The question the Planning Board must answer is whether the zoning category and description being proposed by camiros accurately reflects the comp Plan. This explains city Attorney, Mince DeLeonardis' statement to the Planning Board: "Your job is not to go back and find out why they (the consultants) did or did not do anything. Your job is to look at whether the proposed changes align with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan (proposed new zoning map)". https:llm.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 517 6/6/2019 Zimbra Ili 11111T The change in the zoning is entirely separate from what specific structures the hospital may actually build. The Planning Board is not being asked to assess the impact of a particular project like a medical office building. The issue is what will the zoning standards be for Parcel #1 (the land where the hospital plans to expand). In this case it will be a category titled (OMB -2) which allows for any of the following: "office Medical/office/Clinic, Parking Facil ities. if In fact, I suppose the hospital could have told the public that it had some far more modest structure planned and then, following the approval of the zoning change, submitted its more ambitious plans. They did not do this. My sense, based on my conversation with Angelo Calbone, the hospital CEO, was that the hospital management believed that the merits of what they wanted to build were their best arguments for the Comp Plan change. This approach seems to be their continuing strategy. If the zoning change goes through, the hospital will have some latitude as to what they actually build. Their actual plans, however, will have to get site plan approval from the Planning Board in order to go forward. At that point the Planning Board will weigh in on traffic, lighting, drainage, etc. The hospital's project will have to adhere to whatever requirements the Planning Board decides upon. It's The o Pian' So the issue really comes down to whether or not the city council will stay with the existing Comp Plan as written which will benefit the hospital or whether they will bow to the campaign being gaged by the neighbors and alter it. That is what this all comes down to. I am really unclear why the opponents of the project turned out in force for the last Planning Board meeting. The Board must simply determine whether the zoning designation offered by the consultants adheres to the Comp Plan. The Planning Board has little leeway in the !natter. Possibly the neighbors were using the forum to make their case to the broader public. I am told that the Planning Board could, in addition, advise the city council of reservations regarding the Comp Plan's decision. one thing is very clear, they have no authority to block the hospital. That authority rests with the city council. I have already written regarding ghat I see as the hospital's reasons for the expansion. Here is a link. Below I ani publishing the neighbors' release which lays out their arguments along with the hospital's direct response to that release. I was struck by the ferocity of both their releases, This was made inevitable because there does not appear to be any room to find a mutually acceptable compromise. In Th a End It Rea i iy comes [down To Politics https:Hm.saratoga-spdngs.org/h/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 6]7 6/6120/9 Zimbra One of the most irritating things about the campaign to pass the "city Manager" charter change was the repeated promises that having a professional manager would eliminate the %%politics" in city hall. The divisions at the council table were alleged to be the result of the fiefdoms of the respective Commissioners" departments. In fact, the most thorny and acrimonious issues at the council table were almost never about department rivalries. The realities are that managing a city commonly involves addressing issues where competing interests vie. This is really what politics is about. Where there is no technical solution for a community problem, the values and priorities of the citizens will be expressed in a conflict that will have to ultimately be resolved by our elected officials, The economics of healthcare is driving the hospital's decision. They see it as critical for their future. The neighbors are deeply concerned about the impact on their lives were the hospital to prevail. In the end, there is no right or wrong answer. There is no good guy or bad guy. Resolving the future of Parcel #1 will not be easy for the Council. Will they hold to the existing plan and support the hospital or will they concede to the neighbors and change the plan? Over the next months we will find out. Peter M. Hopper Director, Marketing &Communications 518-583-8679 f 518-580-2605 c 518-603-3113 pbopperC&Sa ratogaHospital. org Saratoga Hospital.org 211 church Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 .....Saratoga. Hospital 1 An affiliate of A! ha.n Mid https:llm.saratoga-spdngs-org/h/printmessage?id=86393&tz=America/New York 717 1 012 912 0 1 9 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Hospital rezoning request From : Brian Reilly <bcreilly@nycap.rr.com> we ct9,, 2019 11:23 AM Subject :Hospital rezoning requests,, To : jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> / Ms. Merriman: We are contacting you in order to express our opinion re the Hospitals requested zoning change. Our sympathies lie with residents who are faced with a substantial financial loss, should this change be permitted. What is the purpose of Zoning Laws if they can be changed so easily? In addition the Hospital has other options for the office space they are seeking. Please deny this change. Sincerely, Brian & Connie Reilly 5 Timber Ln Saratoga Springs Sent from my iPad https://m.saratoga-springs,org/h/printmessage?id=94201 &U=AmericalNew_York 111 60.6 2 0'2- Q 19 Zimbra Fwd: Possible zoning change Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org From :Susan Barden <susan.barden@saratoga-springs.org> Subject : Fwd: Possible zoning change To : Jennifer Merriman <jennifer.rnerrirnan@saratoga- springs.org> Susan B. Barden, AICP Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 518-587-3550 ext. 2493 From: "marian roth" <mroth5O50@verizon. net> To: "Susan Barden" <Susan. Barden @saratoga-springs.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 12-931:26 PM Subject: Possible zoning change Mr. Mark Torpey Planning Board Chair Dear Mr. Torpey and Members of the Planning Board, Thu, Jun 20, 2019 12:42 PM JUN 80 2019 ay� I was unable to attend the last meeting of the Planning Board so I was pleased to read the comments made by Board Member Jamin Totino that night. Like Mr. Totino, I feel strongly that a zoning, change to T-4 for the parcel from Circular Street to New Street adjacent to Railroad Run would be a mistake, Like Mr. Totino, my husband and I have lived in this neighborhood for nearly 20 years. It has been such a pleasure to see the neighborhood evolve into what it is today. The use of the Railroad Run path has increased many fold during these years. Especially after the extension to route 50, we have witnessed walkers, runners and bikers on the path along with an occasional wheelchair from a resident at Mary's Haven. https,//m.saratoga-springs,org/h/printmessage?l d--87446&tz-America/New—York 1/2 nor"IMLO Zimbra When I am gardening in my backyard at 10 Joseph Street, I have the good fortune to talk to folks along the path. As we comment on the beauty of the trees and the tranquility of the route, not one person has said, "Wouldn't it be nice to have a four story building here?" Please keep our CRN1 designation as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan of 2015. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Marian Roth Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, Please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. https:/1m.sar@toga-spri ngs.org/h/printmessage?i d=87446&tz—A me rica/New—York 212 6/20/2019 Zimbra Fwd: Railroad Run Zoning Vote 6/20 Zimbra Jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org From :Susan Barden <susan-barden@saratoga-springs.org> Subject : Fwd: Railroad Run Zoning Vote 6/20 To: Jennifer Merriman <ienn1fer.merr1rnan@saratoga- springs.org> Susan B. Barden, AICP Principal Planner City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 518-587-3550 ext. 2493 Thu, Jun 20, 2019 12:41 PM From: "Stephen nycap" <sconboy@nycap.rr.com> To: "Susan Barden" <Susan. Barden @Saratoga-Springs.org >, "Bradley Birge" bir e@S sato a-Sprin .org> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:26:16 AM Subject: Railroad Run Zoning Vote 6/20 Dear Mark and Members of the Planning Board: This message is concerci ng the Railroad Run Toning of tonight. We have already eNprcssed our views acainst the re-zonincy of Raltroad 1un in a previous e-mail. Please do the right thing and don't change the tl_� t7 zoning olRailroad Run. Thank you, Stephen and Barbara Conboy I 10 Elm Street Saratoga Springs Confidentiality/Privilege Notice: This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail. Thank you for your cooperation. https:/Im.saratoga-sphngs.org/h/printmessage?id-87445&tz-America/New York 111 ft NCTIll To : Saratoga Springs Planning Board JUN 9.. 2019 Regarding : Zoning map June 20, 2019 By Proposed zoning map change, Parcel One 1 . The reduction of Parcel One to a use less than Residential UR-1 would be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the principles of the Comprehensive Plan . 2. The Comprehensive Planning Committee's decision ( November 17, 2014) to change 'Parcel One' from residential to Institutional took LESS THAN TWO MINUTES in a gross breach of process. The evasion of the Comprehensive Planning process was followed by a protracted campaign to influence the City's governing body, during which further anomalies occurred . Adoption of the defect in the zoning map will subject it to challenge and juridical review, along with the processes by which it was derived . Please spare the City the time and expense of defending serious planning errors by leaving the zoning for Parcel One residential, as it is. Your correct legal management will determine the validity of the zoning map. Notes la. Comprehensive Plan page 55 : ( 1) "Intensity of uses" become "less as one travels away from the Core" of the City. (Comprehensive Plan p. 55). The proposed rezoning of Parcel One would produce uses vastly more intense than at present — and the project mentioned, spectacularly so. lb. Page 48: (2) "all development and rehabilitation be respectful of the original communit character." This is the original farm of Gideon Putnam — the founder of Saratoga Springs. Through its long history, this section has been residential . The proposed rezoning of Parcel 1 is entirely contrary to the original character. 2. Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting Number 18 ( November 17, 2014) . The previous 17 meetings were largely taken up by topics of density on the city's periphery. Half an hour after adoption of all prior decisions, the Morgan Street change was brought up, the last late amendment. The discussion lasted less than two minutes, with no public comment or discussion of substantive issues. The conversation was guided by the chairman and two committee members with advice provided by a project promoter from the audience. Total time on this topic 6 minutes. [Video is available.] This was a breach of Comprehensive Planning Committee process. Thank you for your service. Timothy Holmes 3 Collins Terrace, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 2019 06 20 PLANNING BOARD ZONING MAP PARCEL ONE