Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250943 171 Church St. Roof Replacement Supplemental InfoCannie Law PLLC 4 Roberts Ln. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-350-4137 cannielawfirm@gmail.com December 3, 2025 City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Board Attn.: Julia Destino 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 Via in hand delivery and email RE: Massetti – 171 Church Street Roof Architectural Review Application Dear Julia: As you are aware, this office represents Daniel and Jillian Massetti, the owners of 171 Church Street (the “Property”) and Applicants relative to the above referenced Architectural Review Application (the “Application”). On behalf of the Applicants, I submit the following response to some of the comments made by the Board at the meeting on November 19, 2025. Board comment will appear in italics and Applicant’s response will be in bold. 1) Reference was made at the meeting to certain “design guidelines” that apply to the proposed Roof Replacement. The guidelines cited are titled “Historic District Review Guidelines” and dated in 2015. A copy is submitted herewith. The guidelines cited last month identify in the title that they are specifically “Historic District Review Guidelines”. On that basis alone – by the title of guidelines themselves - they should not be applied to this Property. The Property is not in one of the seven Historic Districts of the City and is only in the Architectural Overlay District. Further, UDO Section 13.9 provides for the “Purpose, Powers, Authority, Duties, Composition and Procedures of the Design Review Board”. Section 13.9(A+B) provide that the Board has the overarching general obligation to conduct historic review in Historic Review Districts and Architectural Review in Architectural Review Districts. Section 13.9(E) sets forth 19 specific enumerated Authority and Duties of the Board. Of those, Section 13.9(E)(10) provides: “Develop specific design guidelines for the alteration, construction or removal of landmarks or property and structures within historic districts.” Nowhere in the enumerated duties does it provide the power and authority to establish guidelines in architectural review districts. As such, the Historic Review Guidelines cannot be applied to this Property, as the Board has no authority to establish guidelines for the District in which it is located. Instead, the Board must apply only the Architectural Review Approval Standards contained in Sec. 13.9(I) when evaluating this Property and the Application. 2) A statement was made that Section 13.9(I)(10) did not apply to the Application, as that Section only related to “new construction”. Section 13.9(I)(10) is set forth below: “Materials. Materials used in new construction must be compatible with those traditionally used in the neighboring area. Contemporary materials may be acceptable provided that the overall texture, color, and details of the building are compatible with neighboring buildings.” This section contains two sentences. The first sentence clearly relates only to new construction. However, the second sentence makes no reference to new construction at all, nor does it reference the proceeding sentence directly. The second sentence has the ability to stand alone and can be applied separately to applications without need to read or refer to the first sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the second sentence from applying to applications that are not considered new construction. To view this section as not applying to anything except new construction would result in an inconsistent result of the Board not having any standards to apply and consider when reviewing the materials of an application at all in rehabilitation and repair projects. It would be unreasonable and illogical for the Board to only have the right to consider materials of new construction and not with respect to rehabilitations and repairs. In applying the second sentence to the Application, the proposed Slateline® shingles as a contemporary material should be considered an acceptable material by the Board as it is compatible with neighboring buildings. As noted in the Applicant’s prior submission and at the November 19, 2025 meeting, of the neighboring 22 properties 17 (77%) have asphalt shingles as the roof material on their primary building. As the overwhelming majority of neighboring buildings have asphalt shingles, it is clear that the material proposed by the Applicant is “compatible with neighboring buildings”. With this additional information, I request the Application be placed on the Design Review Board agenda for December 11, 2025. As always, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Very truly yours, /s/ John B. Cannie John B. Cannie, Esq.