HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200175 Boger Porch Renovation Supplemental Info Members of the SARATOGA SPRINGS DRC,
Below, please find a timeline of our roof replacement as you requested at the Zoom
meeting on 4/21/21.As we explained,we purchased 41 George Street slightly over
a year ago in a decades-long dream to live in and restore an historic home in
Saratoga Springs and in doing so committed to the support of the historic mission of
Saratoga. As you know,we have anticipated the need to address the roof from our
initial home inspection by Rich Martin (former long-time Chair of the DRC) prior to
the purchase of our home when he deemed the roof"at the end of its life." (as
discussed and contained in the inspection material provided in the first DRC
meeting of 5/20) In order to garner more knowledge as instructed by the DRC and
with intentional anticipation of appearing before the DRC to address our roofing
concerns at a later date,we engaged additional professionals to access the roof's
status and its impact on our home over several months:
TIMELINE:
1) Fall 2019: we purposely did our original inspection by widely respected Rich
Martin, given his extensive experience with historical preservation in Saratoga both
on the DRC and as an independent contractor on many historic homes in Saratoga,
including several residences on the North Broadway corridor.
2) 11/2019: I went to the SSHPS to research the home we anticipated purchasing in
12/19 and gathered info on historic renovation and guidelines. I was provided with
a pamphlet that directed me to additional online resources (specifically "City of
Saratoga Springs Historic District Design Guidelines") which we have subsequently
researched and referenced at length.
3) 5/20: In response to the concerning roof conditions at inspection, we engaged
Karl V. Sbardella to come assess the roof from Fair Haven,Vermont and owner of
Sbardella Slate, Inc. Karl is a widely respected slate roof specialist through the
northeast. Upon inspection of the roof, he agreed with Rich Martin and stated that
"The existing slate roof has met its life expectancy due to being soft/punkt'' and the
lack of underlayment and over-all condition." Further, Karl said that simply
"repairing it would not guarantee against leaks and ongoing issues" or protect the
historic structure. Lastly, Karl told us in conversation at the time of inspection that it
would be impossible to recreate the original pattern as those colors of slate were
not currently available to be mined in modern times and that much of the patterning
was a result of coincidental fading over more than century. (SEE ATTACHED
DOCUMENT)
4) 6/20: Karl Sbardella provided an initial quote that was later increased due to
Covid related costs to upwards of$60,000 and stated in a subsequent phone
conversation that he was booked through the summer of'21.
{H2043920.1} 1
5) 9/20: Our architect, Mike Tuck, engaged SB Engineering PLLC Structural
Solutions to access the roof from a structural engineering perspective out of
concerns from discussions with Karl Sbardella regarding the load upon addition of
insulation (as mandated by our permit, code and addressed more broadly below).
Scott Burlingame, Professional Engineer, informed us that the roof structure is
framed with 2"x6" rafters spaced at 20 inches and that the rafter size and spacing
would be "undersized"based on current design practices and building codes.
"Furthermore, the addition of insulation within the home (as required to meet the
current energy codes) will lead to an increased snow load on the existing roof and
increase the stress on the existing rafters." Mr. Burlingame concluded that for safety
reasons and to protect the structure we should "consider removing the existing slate
roofing and replacing the material with a lighter weight roof, such as asphalt
shingles."
(SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT)
6) 11/23/20: Having already gotten a quote for a new slate roof and in light of the
above professional statements and concerns raised by Mr. Burlingame,we obtained
an estimate for an asphalt roof utilizing shingles of the style, color and size
recommended by both our contractor, architect and roofer, all of whom have
worked on jobs in which the DRC has approved said same shingle design, including
as a slate replacement. This was in anticipation of coming before the DRC again to
request approval of changing the slate roof to an asphalt roof.
7) 12/16-17/20: As you may recall,we had an almost 3-foot snowstorm followed
quickly thereafter by a 3+ inch rainfall. The home had preexisting leaks and roof
material integrity deficiencies and the fact that we had just literally spent our
savings on the restoration of our home and having already procured the above
referenced professional assessments, in light of this large snow load/rainfall and the
fact we were trying to save this historic house, we had an emergent and highly time
sensitive need to move forward quickly.
(PHOTOS ATTACHED BELOW)
8) I called the City of Saratoga Springs, NY two (2) times subsequent to the winter
storm after the resultant weather issues had escalated the leakage issues, in a good
faith effort to get guidance and emergent approval. I left 2 messages on the main city
voicemail but received no response from anyone.
9) As time was of the essence, after the winter storm we contacted and hired a
highly reputable roofing company (who provided the aforementioned quote) who
we had used previously for other roof needs and who installed the metal roof during
the approved renovation of 41 George St. This roofer had also completed multiple
projects within the historic district, including for other homeowners who were
approved by DRC and the City to convert slate roofs to asphalt shingles. They stated
they generally give their crew the week between Christmas and New Year's off but
were nice enough to honor our pre-existing relationship and agreed to get a roof on
to protect the integrity of the house structure and our renovation investment.
{H2043920.1} 2
-In doing so we also received confirmation from the roofing company and
other homeowners we spoke to in the historic district (for whom the DRC approved
a slate roof replacement with these same asphalt (i.e., "identical" architectural
shingles) and as evidenced in archived DRC minutes that these same shingles were
previously used/accepted on multiple occasions by the DRC/City of Saratoga
Springs as a replacement for slate in order to maintain the architectural historic
integrity and in compliance with the "City of Saratoga Springs Historic District
Design Guidelines." (Addressed more specifically below).
10) Monday,12/28/20: Fearing additional water destruction of our historical
structure from more short-term unknown winter weather ahead, having received
no communication back from the city, and in light of the previously obtained
professional opinions and DRC's approval precedents, as well as its intent from "City
of Saratoga Springs Historic District Design Guidelines" that a "weather-tight roof is
key to the long term preservation of the entire structure,"we were afraid that our
home's integrity needed immediate protection and began having the roof replaced.
The roof replacement was finished on Friday, 1/1/21 and we paid in full on 1/5/21.
(SEE LETTER FROM RIDGELINE ROOFING ATTACHED CONFIRMING THIS
TIMELINE).
-It should be noted that contrary to the factually incorrect statements made
during the 4/21/21 DRC meeting by the Committee,the roof replacement was NOT
done "over a weekend." Furthermore, as set forth in the timeline above, multiple
attempts were made to seek emergency guidance and approval from the City and
prior consultation with licensed professionals was secured with every anticipation
of appearing before the DRC for approval (until the winter weather made it an
emergent structural situation).
After spending years searching for our family's historical home in Saratoga Springs
to preserve and make our (rest of) forever home,we have been conscientious and
meticulous in restoring 41 George Street.We have adhered in principal to the DRC
guidelines and precedent without exception. During our original DRC zoom meeting
a board member even expressed appreciation and complemented us on how nice it
is to see homeowners utilizing appropriate materials and going to great lengths to
historically restore their home. It should be noted that along the way we have
encountered tens of thousands of dollars in additional unexpected and unbudgeted
costs during this renovation process for asbestos abatement, replacement of the City
water line in the street which had been left unmaintained and a deteriorated sewer
line replacement, but have never wavered from the goal of preserving our home.
Throughout this process,we have conscientiously researched and adhered to the
guidelines and long-standing past decisions of the DRC, as well as its stated intent to
"save our historic structures."
{H2043920.1} 3
We now address several important Points of Clarification re: DRC meeting 4/21/21:
1. Contrary to the statements made by the committee who stated that it was
unnecessary to insulate the roof; that the Professional Engineer (attached
Burlingame letter dated 9/9/20) was incorrect in stating so; and further
stated that contractors such as our pre-purchase house inspector, Rich
Martin, would tell us not to insulate the roof: insulation of the roof IS
required both by code and required pursuant to the permit that was
approved by this Board and issued by the City of Saratoga Springs. The City
of Saratoga Springs adheres to the International Building code (IDC) which
applies the "prescriptive method" of residential energy calculation. Our
building permit application which was approved and issued by the City for
our project was based upon adherence to this code and as such mandated the
requisite insulation of the roof.
2. The City of Saratoga Springs "Roofs, Historic District Design Guidelines" with
which the DRC is required to follow as guidance, emphasizes that a "weather-
tight roof is key to the long-term preservation of the entire structure." "Roofs,
Historic District Design Guidelines"also states "typical roofing materials of
19th and 20th century were slate, metal, wood shingles or composite
materials.""Composite materials"by definition (industry and code) are
asphalt roof shingles. Therefore, asphalt shingles are allowed roofing
material for historic 19th century homes, such as ours, pursuant to the DRC's
published guidelines, as well as this Commission's long-standing past
precedent setting decisions. Accordingly, asphalt shingles can be utilized to
as the City of Saratoga Springs Historic District Design published direction
states. (i.e., provide a weather tight roof that is supportive of the ultimate
goal of"preservation of the entire structure.")
Importantly, Chapter 240 7.3B(3)(b) of the Saratoga Springs Zoning
ordinance,which codifies the DRC's permitted actions, allows for the DRC to
"approve" "removal of slate"and "replacement with a different material."
3. Also prescribed within The City of Saratoga Springs "Roofs, Historic District
Design Guidelines" is a heading entitled "Considerations"which lays out the
factors that the DRC is to utilize when rendering its opinion. On 4/21/21
when our agenda item was discussed,the committee stated incorrectly that
the DRC "cannot consider cost to the homeowner." In fact,the issued City of
Saratoga Springs "Roofs, Historic District Design Guidelines"
"Considerations" state "when replacing a historic roof...consider... the cost."
a. In "consideration of the cost" of our roof, a new slate roof was quoted
by Sbardella, Slate Inc. at approximately $60,000 and would include a
warranty of as little as 0 (zero) years to 50 years (depending on the
mine/slate company) and with the only definite warranty being 3
years on workmanship by the roofer. Our Asphalt roof was $35,000
{H2043920.1} 4
and came with a warranty for as long as we own the house. Based
upon an actuarial evaluation of"return on cost of the material ("The
City of Saratoga Springs "Roofs, Historic District Design Guidelines"
"Considerations") and assumption we will keep this house for our
lifetimes, asphalt calculates as a better "return on cost" (see "The City
of Saratoga Springs "Roofs, Historic District Design Guidelines"
"Considerations") and satisfies the guidance set forth by the DRC.
b. Additionally, in further addressing the statement by the committee
that the DRC "cannot consider cost to the homeowner," and "never"
has considered cost in rendered opinions (which is contradictory to
the published guidance above), in fact, on 9/20/17,the DRC approved
209 Nelson Avenue to have a slate roof removed and replaced with
the identical (in brand, style, size) asphalt shingles that we have
placed on our roof. (see Meeting Minutes on file in City archives dated
9/20/17). Of particular significance is the basis for the homeowners'
application (on file in the City archives dated 8/30/17) which was:
1)cost; and 2)DRC's recent allowance of the same transition from slate
to asphalt on homes in the historic district on Caroline and Phila
Streets (see City Meeting Minutes archives) . The Nelson Avenue
application was APPROVED (again utilizing identical asphalt shingles
to the ones used on our home) based upon the exact same concerns of
cost and past DRC decisions that we have asserted. It needs to be
pointed out that four board members currently seated on the DRC
where also seated on 9/21/17 and "voted in favor" of replacement of
the slate roof with aforementioned asphalt shingles. These same
committee members, regardless of their vote on 209 Nelson,
repeatedly told us at the 4/21/21 meeting that cost was never
considered, nor was there any precedence for allowing such a roof
material change.
c. There are multiple additional examples of the DRC granting the
removal of slate roofs and replacing it with asphalt shingles,where
cost was the major factor, in the historic district, and that bear similar
fact patterns to 41 George St.A plurality of such examples include but
are not limited to properties located at:
26 Madison Avenue,
173 Caroline St.,
193 Caroline St.,
563 N. Broadway,
112 Union Avenue,
150 Phila St.,
120 Grand Avenue,
125 Regent St., and
186 Circular St.;
{H2043920.1} 5
several of which utilized (and were approved by the DRC,with
cost being a deciding factor for) the same specific type of asphalt
shingles as used on 41 George St. In fact, the vast majority of historic
homes in our neighborhood have non-original asphalt roofs and/or
portions of roofs:
-Only 3 of 24 houses on our block have an original slate roof
and that includes the houses with Union Avenue addresses on the
south side of George Street and several historically marked homes on
both sides of the street,which have converted to asphalt shingles.
-There is also an overwhelming majority of historic homes on
surrounding blocks, and throughout the historic district,that replaced
original roofs and now have asphalt roofs.
To ignore precedent established by past decisions of the DRC in essentially the same
factual circumstances to our own situation is clearly arbitrary and capricious and
without a rational basis.
d. The Court in Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation v. Boff, 110
A.D. 3D 1326 (2013) clearly rules that financial hardship is to be
considered by the Saratoga Springs DRC (before any appeal to the
Zoning Board).
-Further,the court held that these decisions made by the DRC are
subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard and as such financial
hardship must be considered with respect to the DRC's long standing
established precedent of allowing homeowners to replace slate with asphalt
shingles for reasons including financial hardship.
4. Lastly, pursuant to Chapter 240 of the City of Saratoga Springs Zoning
Ordinance,the DRC's codified "duty" is to "review" and "approve" or
"disapprove" submitted applications only. Most importantly, the Code sets
forth in Chapter 240 7.4 that one of the points of the review criteria that the
DRC is required to follow when an application is examined is that DRC's
decision shall "not (be) based on personal preference of taste or choice"
of any of the members of the DRC.
The details provided in this timeline and the supporting information, as you
requested, clarifies our long term, unwavering objective to meet the City of Saratoga
Historic Design's intention to "ensure the architectural integrity" of our home.As we
have stated in this paper and during the 4/21/20 meeting,the intent of our actions
was only to preserve our house and the investment therein within the Historical
District Design Guidelines and in line with multiple previous DRC approvals and the
professional recommendations we received.
Suzanne Singer Boger and John W. Boger, homeowners
Attachments:
{H2043920.1} 6
Photos of water damage
Letter from Sbardella Slate, Inc.
Letter from SB Engineering PLLC Structural Solutions
Letter from Ridgeline Roofing
{H2O43920.1}