HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026 - 01 UDO Amendments 2026 Public CommentTO: Design Review Board, Saratoga Springs
FROM: Robin Baxter, resident
RE: Mayor’s UDO Amendments proposed by resolution of April 21, 2026
DATE: May 20, 2026
My husband, William Baxter, and I purchased 182 Caroline Street in 2024 because it is in the Historic Overlay Zoning District. We had moved to this area from the DC area two years earlier,
but could not find a house in the Historic District because it is so popular. Bill found this house while we were visiting family on the west coast and we bought it sight-unseen (except
for FaceTimes). We love it, and have put many scarce retirement resources into keeping it up. I am also an attorney, licensed in Virginia, retired, but practiced for some years in
the area of land use and zoning on behalf of Fairfax County, Virginia. So, I have some background in these matters. My husband is a historian, retired from the Smithsonian and trained
by the Historical Society of Princeton, NJ, so he has some background in these matters as well, and he endorses the following.
Saratoga Springs’ Historic and Architectural Overlay Districts (“Preservation Districts”) are part of the entire set of zoning and land use ordinances that apply in the City. Together
all the ordinances create an interlocking and interdependent whole, that can be badly disrupted and unbalanced by rushed, un-studied piecemeal changes such as those being proposed.
“Study” in this instance does not mean 60 or even 120 days of inquiry from proposal to enactment. The entirety of the Preservation Districts, as part of the land use ordinances generally,
has grown through careful study, true community input and action, professional drafting and amendment, and the accumulated wisdom of over 50 years. For an elected official, Mayor Safford,
in a fit of pique, claiming “unfairness” and stating “I am doing this for the people”, cherry-picking certain sections to provide a pre-determined dismemberment of the decades-successful
management of the Preservation Districts is both shocking and short-sighted.
From 1963, through the zoning ordinance enactments, Historic and Architectural Overlays, Saratoga Springs’ being the first Certified Local Government in New York State (thus eligible
for preservation grants), to the creation of the UDO, the network of ordinances has brought the City’s resources to bear to preserve enough critical mass of historical structures that
our town motto is “Health, History, Horses”. We have deep history, from George Washington trying to buy one of our springs, to Gideon Putnam and the hotel boom, to John Morrisey and
the racing and gaming heydays. But you cannot meet Washington, Putnam, or Morrissey today. Our history is evident today in our buildings. You don’t put it on your welcome signs if
you don’t have the character of the districts to uphold the hype. Saratoga Springs does.
According to the study commissioned by the City Council of Saratoga Springs eight years ago, our historic districts cover 6% of our land area and 9% of the properties, but have helped
lead to our City being named as one of the “top ten” small cities in the country. The historic districts provide 14% of the assessed value of the city, creating a strong tax base.
The historic districts hold 22% of the jobs. And, importantly for housing concerns, the historic districts are more racially and economically diverse than the City as a whole, hold
40% of all apartments in the City, and have more diversity of housing stock than the City as a whole.
These are reasons why we should, and I argue, must preserve our historic and architectural cultural resources. The proposals, if enacted, will damage the preservation efforts. While
too numerous to name in three minutes, here are some highlights (or actually low points) of the problems:
Highly important and damaging to the preservation of our historic and architectural character is creating an appeal path setting the ZBA or even the City Council, as some have proposed,
as the decision-maker above the preservation experts and professionals of the DRB. Rather than having an expert board with deep experience make the decisions, and work with the applicants
to help them achieve compliance, a non-expert appeal board will be bound to make arbitrary and capricious decisions subjecting Saratoga Springs to community agitation and potential
lawsuits and liability for discrimination.
Also highly important and damaging to the preservation of our historic and architectural character is allowing new bases for exemptions from the requirements based on “economic hardship”
and/or “demolition hardship”. Allowing such exemptions, when project cost is not currently one of the factors in the decisions, opens the door to the serious problems of demolition-creep
(once one applicant is allowed to demolish, how will the ZBA say no to the next similarly situated property? One after another, they fall), standards-creep (when one applicant is allowed
to disregard the requirements for an addition, renovation or other application, the next applicant will need to be allowed, as well), district-creep (as an applicant on the preservation
side of the line is allowed an exception based on the non-district property nearby, then the next applicant inside the district argues for the same), and the problems noted above of
potential arbitrariness, favoritism, and potential discrimination and litigation.
Definitional additions/changes create problems as well. One example is the definition of Architecturally Significant Structure. The proposed definition includes “scarcity” as a factor
to be considered. But to have the critical mass of buildings to create a true district and not a token example, is not related to scarcity. Using “scarcity” as a metric could result
in having a handful of scattered preserved buildings, far less than the critical mass needed to preserve the current character and rhythm so important for the preservation of history
and community. Another example is the definition of “Contributing Historic Resource”, which includes requiring that a building have been constructed during the district’s “period of
significance”. This could result in many important, historic and character-enhancing buildings being lost because they fell outside an arbitrary “period of significance”.
Many of the proposed revisions seek to emulate standards which consist of “minimum” standards for preservation, while Saratoga Springs has consistently preserved our history to much
higher standards, and because of that we have seen much success in preserving our historic and architectural character and rhythm throughout the preservation districts, and without
compromising a diverse housing stock and robust economic activity.
Please stand up for preservation and oppose the wholesale dismemberment of the standards and requirements for historic and architectural character, rhythm, and community.
Very truly yours,
Robin W. Baxter
182 Caroline Street
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
(703) 343-0073
robinwbaxter@gmail.com