Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250943 171 Church St. Roof Replacement Presentation 2025 12 10171 Church Street Roof Replacement Architectural Review Approval SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK December 10, 2025 By: John Cannie, Esq.-Cannie Law PLLC And Matthew Fortier –Benson Contracting Architectural Review Approval 171 Church Street SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK •APPLICANT: •PROPERTY: •TAX PARCELS: •ZONE: •Proposed Action Jillian and Daniel Massetti 171 Church Street SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 165.50-1-59 Urban Residential -3 (UR-3)and Architectural Review District Replacement of Existing Slate Roof . Property Condition ●Single Family Home was built in 1878 ●Slate Roof is at end of life ●Poor quality slate in prior repairs ●Poor quality installation at time of repairs ●Leaks present . Proposed Action ●Replace Slate Roof with Slateline®Shingles ●Same product approved by this Board on Phila Street –within the Historic Review District ●Replace Metal roof on porches with standing seam Response to Board Comments ●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. ●They pre-date the UDO, and by name alone should not apply to the Arch. Review Dist. ●UDO Section 13.9(A+B) provide obligation to Board to conduct historic review and Architectural Review in those respective, separate districts. ●Section 13.9(E) provides the authority and duties of the Board ●13.9(E)(10): “Develop specific design guidelines for the alteration, construction or removal of landmarks or property and structures within historic districts.” ●Does not provide the ability to set design standards in Architectural Review Districts. ●Without authority to set or apply standards in Architectural only districts, the only standards to apply to this Application are in UDO Section 13.9(I). Response to Board Comments ●A statement was made that Section 13.9(I)(10) did not apply to the Application, as that Section only related to “new construction”. ●“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.” ●First Sentence clearly applies only to new construction. ●Second sentence,can function on its own without reference to the first. ●To exclude a materials review component from the Board’s Arch. Standards would be inconsistent, as it would lead to the illogical result that the Board could not weigh in on materials except and for new construction and any rehabilitation or repair projects materials could not be considered. ●Instead, because the second sentence stands on its own and can be applied to both new construction and repair applications, it must be applied here. ●For this application, it is all about the materials and as such this provision must and should drive the Board’s decision. ●10.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. ●Proposed Contemporary Materials are compatible in texture, color and detail of neighboring buildings ●22 neighboring properties, only 2 have slate only roofs (9%) –including the Property ●17 of the 22 (77%) Utilize Asphalt Roofing Only –none with slate-like look ●Applicant is proposing a contemporary material that matches the neighborhood in its substance, but also respects the traditional material of the Property ●All properties surveyed are in the West Side Historic District, marking clear trend to move away from traditional slate roof ●Holding the Applicants to a higher standard than their neighbors would be severe penalty ●Applicant holding themselves to higher standard in proposal by utilizing designer shingles . Address Current Roof Material Original Construction Date 171 Church St.Slate 1878 183 Church St.Asphalt 1934 179 Church St.Asphalt 1878 175 Church St.Asphalt 1880 173 Church St.Asphalt 1869 188 Church St.Asphalt 1927 184 Church St.Slate 1850 178 Church St. Asphalt 1900 174 Church St.Asphalt 1840 172 Church St.Flat 1900 166 Church St.Asphalt 1874 160 Church St.Asphalt 1890 150 Church St.Asphalt 1870 147 Church St.Asphalt 1900 145 Church St.Asphalt 1897 143 Church St Asphalt 1850 139 Church St.Asphalt 1895 149 Van Dam St.Asphalt 1900 151 Van Dam St.Asphalt 1888 153 Van Dam St.Asphalt 1910 161 Church St.Slate and Asphalt 1885 163 Church St.Slate and Asphalt 1900 9.Treatment of Major Building Elements c.Roofs. Features that give a roof its essential historic and architectural character must be retained and rehabilitated whenever possible. Roof designs for new structures must be compatible with neighboring buildings. Exterior mechanical equipment shall be minimized and screened from view. ●Letter from Benson Contracting Confirms current roof cannot be rehabilitated –confirmed by SSPF Letter. ●Because the historic slate cannot be restored and rehabilitated, and entire new roof is needed. ●The remaining historic form and architectural features of the roof will remain in the new roof –it is only the materials that will change. ●As previously noted, materials should be reviewed under the previously discussed standard of 13(I)(10).