HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230391 CORRECTED Stewarts Significance DRB NOD
Page 1 of 2
Tamie Ehinger, Chair
Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair
Chris Bennett
Leslie DiCarlo
Jeff Gritsavage
Tad Roemer
Ellen Sheehan
Karen Cavotta, Alternate
Kennedy Flack, Alternate
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
D ESIGN R EVIEW B OARD
City Hall - 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Tel: 518-587-3550 x.2517
www.saratoga-springs.org
NOTICE OF DECISION
In the matter of the application
#20230391
Stewart’s Redevelopment Plan
28 Lincoln Avenue
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Involving determination of historic and/or architectural significance under Section 13.9(J)(1) of the
Unified Development Ordinance for an existing single-family residence at 177 South Broadway and 28
Lincoln Avenue.
This application seeks a determination of no historic and/or architectural significance under Section
13.9(J) so that the applicant may proceed with demolition.
The first two subsections of Section J read:
J. Demolition
1. General
(a) The Design Review Board must determine whether the proposed structure has
architectural or historic significance.
(b) Significance includes having particular important associations within the context of the
architecture, history or culture of Saratoga Springs or region and may include listing as
contributing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
2. Structures With No Architectural or Historic Significance
The Design Review Board may approve an application for demolition if it finds
that the demolition is consistent with the intent and objectives of this section
and that the structure proposed to be demolished has no historic or architectural
significance.
The Third subsection, Structures With Architectural or Historic Significance, presents what the applicant
in this matter submits is an onerous and impractical hardship. If the Board does not make a finding of no
significance under Subsections (1) and (2), it is alleged that an applicant is presented with a list of
requirements to prove in detail before demolition may be authorized, and that these requirements are
disproportionate to the vague review standards in the threshold determination of the first two
subsections.
The Board finds that the structure retains:
Significant architectural character:
Features and materials: Much of the structure’s original architecture character is evident, the Board
estimates about 75%-80% of the original exterior architectural details remain. In terms of materials, the
exterior wood siding remains, although currently covered by asbestos siding, and the exterior trim
Page 2 of 2
details remain. In terms of architectural features, the gable cornice return remains, as do the transom and
sidelights surrounding the entry door. The French doors leading to the porch also remain.
Style and design: The structure’s architectural features represent the Greek Revival style. More
narrowly, it is a noteworthy example of the Vernacular Victorian style. The original window and door
openings remain true to the original design intent of the front façade composition. Finally, the building
footprint and location on the site are true to the original site design.
Significant historical character:
Age: The structure has been standing for well over 100 years, its precise age has not yet been
determined, but it clearly dates from the second half of the 19th century. Its age is a contributing factor to
its historic significance.
Culture and context: No individuals associated with this property over time can be considered significant
to the city’s history. The fact that the property was originally owned by a woman is noteworthy for the
second half of the 19th century. In terms of current context, the structure contributes to a neighborhood
whose urban design is still intact but is experiencing transition. It represents the “end cap” of this
transitioning neighborhood fabric, and is therefore significant. Architecturally, the structure itself is an
example of a transitional time period from Greek Revival style to Vernacular Victorian style in the city,
adding to its significance. This is consistent with other Vernacular Victorian examples in other locations
in the city that have been determined by the Board to be significant.
In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the subject structure has historic and architectural
significance.
The Board is mindful, however, of the challenges that can potentially be faced by any individual
applicant in satisfying the requirements of Subsection 3. The Board is also aware that the quality and
quantity of proof that may reasonably be required under Subsection (3) may depend upon the degree of
historical and/or architectural significance present in a given situation. The Board has always
endeavored to take such circumstances into account, and will continue to do so in exercising both its
discretion and its responsibilities.
This Decision moved at a regular meeting of the Board on June 12, 2024
Record of vote: motion to approve made by T.Ehinger, seconded by CBennett: passed 5-2
In favor: T.Ehinger, CBennett, L.DiCarlo, R.DuBoff, J.Gritsavage,
Opposed: T.Roemer, K. Cavotta
Recused: E.Sheehan
As a result of this decision, the applicant:
may not proceed with the proposed project as approved
__________________________________________________________
Please contact the Building Department to verify permit requirements.
June 20, 2024
Chair Received by Accounts
cc: Building Department
Accounts Dept.
Applicant/Agent