HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230232 115 Circular Porch & Gutters Public Comment (3)August 1,2023
Design Review Board
City of Saratoga Springs
City Hall
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs,NY 12866
Dear Board Members,
As a follow up to the July 19,2023 DRB meeting considering the
application of Dominick Trimarchi,No.20230232,I ask the board to
further consider my opposition to the work already done without prior
approval.
It is highly unlikely that had the Applicant followed City procedures and
filled this application prior to construction that a single Board member
would have considered any inappropriate synthetic materials as
appropriate.Please reference or remember the July 19,2023 meeting
presentation concerning the slate roof replacement at 39 5th Avenue,
application No.20230393.Acting Chair Rob DuBoff,almost feeling
guilty in opposition to the “not in kind”material request,quotes the
UDO,Repair Rather then Replace section,as “guidelines that we are
tasked to follow”.Specifically that repairs and replacement be made
with in-kind materials.So…….in as much as this has become an
unusually complicated application due to the excessive non compliant
work that has been done,it all boils down to something very simple.
There is only one question that needs to be answered and that is:Is
plastic the same thing as wood?Is plastic an in kind replacement for
wood?The argument is not whether the bluestone is plastic or stone,
or 100 lbs or 1,000 lbs,or whether it looks nice or whether the work
was done well.The only question is:Is it wood?Was it an in kind
replacement?Same for the lattice,including the frames:Are they
wood?Was it an in kind replacement?And if you think that plastic
and stone are wood,then approve the work.And if you think that
plastic is not the same as wood,then insist that all of it be removed
and replaced according to the UDO guidelines that you are tasked to
follow.
What I have heard as being considered,from the May 3,2023 DRB
meeting discussion,and again at the July 19th meeting,is that
because the work was done well that an otherwise unacceptable
inappropriate material could be acceptable.That is like saying that a
counterfeit $100 bill becomes legal tender because it was well done.
That 150 year old wood,that may or may not have been maintained,
has rotted in places is no surprise.That every 150 years wood parts
may require replacement is what it is.All that goes with the territory of
owning a Historic Masterpiece of a home,which 115 Circular Street is,
and it deserves better and should be maintained as such.
Separately,not specific to this application but something that
warrants consideration of the Board,is any approval of an otherwise
inappropriate unacceptable material,because the work is done well,
sets the Board on a very slippery slope.Would a future procedure
following applicant be permitted use of otherwise unacceptable
inappropriate materials because his contractor did good work?Are
we going to rate the contractors?Are A level contractors going to be
permitted to use otherwise inappropriate unacceptable materials but
the B level guys are held to strict historic standards?
The structure at 115 Circular Street is an architectural masterpiece in
a high traffic,high visibility location.It should be held to the highest
standards that the board holds dear.I Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
DWA
David W.Appel,Jr.
Property Owner
117 Circular Street