Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026 - 01 UDO Amendments 2026 SHPO Adv Opinion KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 May 22, 2026 John F. Safford, Mayor City of Saratoga Springs 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Re: Proposed Changes/Updates to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), 2026 Dear Mayor John F. Safford: Thank you for requesting the comments of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) in response to the proposed changes to the Saratoga Springs Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Our office notes that the Saratoga Springs City Council passed an amendment on 4/21/26 initiating the adoption of significant changes to the existing UDO and in turn, submitted these changes to OPRHP for review on 4/23/26. The purpose of this review is to offer an opinion on best practices for local preservation legislation, but also to ensure that Saratoga Springs remains compliant in its status as a Certified Local Government (CLG) community. Our review found that some of the proposed changes to the UDO conflict with our state and federal program standards. The goal of the CLG Program is to facilitate State and local government cooperation with Federal partners to promote nationwide preservation initiatives. Through the certification process, local communities make a commitment to national and state historic preservation standards. Communities operating with CLG status are seen as those who utilize “best practices” and maintain regular communication with OPRHP. The City of Saratoga Springs was certified on October 10, 1986, making it one of New York’s oldest and most continuously participating CLG communities. Many aspects of Saratoga’s local preservation program are seen as a model for other communities in New York State. The city’s motto of “Health, History, Horses” speaks directly to its wealth of historic cultural resources and distinct architectural fabric that gives the community its appeal. Preservation of these tangible aspects of history is important and should not be taken lightly. CLG communities are subject to state and national regulations but also have access to tools and resources used to bolster the local preservation program, such as the NYS Model Law for Historic Preservation. The Model Law, last updated in 2014, is a basic local preservation ordinance that any municipality can adapt, enact, and utilize for its own preservation purposes. In many ways, Saratoga’s existing UDO is stronger than components of the NYS Model Law because it outlines specific review criteria for various districts with different classifications. In other ways, however, the proposed changes to the current UDO seem to obscure and weaken the role of the Design Review Board (herein referred to as the “DRB,” the commission responsible for decisions impacting historic resources). Our review that follows will outline these points specifically. Our office conducted a thorough review of the following materials, provided by Deputy Mayor Lisa Shields on 4/23/26: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form 2. Summary of UDO Amendment – Edits to Articles 4, 13, 19, 21 3. Problems and Proposed Changes to UDO, April 2026 4. Signed City Council Resolution, dated 4/21/26 5. Redlined (edited) drafts of Articles 4, 13, 19, 21 KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 Based on our review of the above-mentioned materials, OPRHP offers the following comments: 1. Proposed Changes to Article 4: • The major change to this section entails the process of granting an additional 15-foot “height bonus” to site plan projects in mixed-use and commercial districts. These districts may include properties subject to DRB approval because of their status as locally designated historic structures or structures contained within the architectural review district. The proposed amendments state the DRB shall be able to review the “design implications” of additional height but ultimately, all approvals are subject to the Planning Board. In this capacity, the opinion of the DRB becomes advisory to the Planning Board. OPRHP does not approve of instances where DRB approval becomes advisory. Additional height and new construction in historic districts can severely impact the character of the historic district and its surroundings. OPRHP does not support this proposed amendment to the UDO. Our state procedures for CLGs dictate that historic preservation review commissions shall have the power to “approve or disapprove any demolition, relocation, new construction, or exterior alteration affecting designated properties under its jurisdiction.” Therefore, this change is not in compliance with CLG program standards. 2. Proposed Changes to Article 13: • Table 13.A.1 outlines the primary legal authority for each land use board in the City of Saratoga Springs. Municipalities may create preservation programs under NYS General Municipal Law, Section 119aa-dd specifically for the regulation of architectural and visual design review. OPRHP recommends adding reference to this enabling legislation in the DRB section. • Section 13.5.E (“Site Plan Review”) notes the Planning Board may request an “advisory opinion” from the DRB in its review of an application for site plan approval when a proposed development is located within a Historic District or Architectural District to “obtain early design guidance.” The DRB has 30 days to transmit written recommendations to the Planning Board. Ultimately, the Planning Board “shall consider the advisory recommendations” of the DRB but shall retain “sole authority” to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. This is not an appropriate change per CLG program standards because again, it reduces the opinion of the DRB to advisory as opposed to regulatory. OPRHP does not support this approach, as it is not in compliance with our program standards. • Section 13.9.A (“Design Review”) clarifies the review standards for historic and architectural districts. It is appropriate for these districts to have separate review standards, as the buildings have different classifications. For areas where the architectural district overlaps the historic district, the review standards of the historic district shall take precedence. • Section 13.9.B (“Historic Review”) notes the DRB utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for the Treatment of Historic Properties. This is appropriate and forms the basis for strong preservation reviews. KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 • Section 13.9.B.2 (“Architectural Review”) specifically outlines the function and purpose of the Architectural Review district. These purpose standards are appropriate. • Section 13.9.6 outlines training requirements for board members, subject to Planning Staff approval. OPRHP does not recommend the training required for DRB members be subject to Planning staff approval unless those staff members are 36 CFR certified. Our state procedures for certification state “Commission members shall maintain or augment their knowledge through participation in historic preservation training at least annually or as provided by OPRHP. OPRHP will provide all local commissions with orientation materials and training pertaining to the roles and operations of federal, state, and local historic preservation programs. Commission members may satisfy the training requirement through attendance at training provided by OPRHP or at other training approved by OPRHP. Unless otherwise stated, at least 75% of commission members must attend such training.” OPRHP does provide regular training opportunities to CLG commission members, including those members of the Saratoga DRB. It is in the City’s best interest to have DRB members attend OPRHP-approved training regularly and whenever possible. DRB members may also seek out additional training opportunities, but all proposed training should be approved by OPRHP. • Section 13.9.E.5 (“Appeals Process”) notes that any person aggrieved of a DRB decision may appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. While some CLG communities utilize a ZBA in their hardship/appeals process, this is not common practice. The NYS Model Law for Historic Preservation outlines a specific appeals process based on the grounds of economic hardship. Hardship appeals may only be filed after a certificate of appropriateness for an alteration/demolition is denied and there are specific criteria for outlining instances of hardship. OPRHP recommends the City consult this section of the model law for additional information and consider that hardship appeals be overseen by the specialized board that is understood to have preservation expertise. Later sections of the UDO that outline the specific ZBA appeals process clearly put the responsibility of preservation expertise on a board that is not expected to adhere to the same review standards and training regulations as the DRB. This is not advisable per CLG best practices. • Section 13.9.F (“Authorities and Duties”) outlines the roles and responsibilities of the DRB, including many of the responsibilities for Certified Local Governments outlined in the New York State procedures for certification document. OPRHP is supportive of the amendments contained within this section. • Table 13-D (“Approval Standards”) outlines the review standards for landmarks, “architecturally and historically significant” structures, and “non-contributing” structures. It is understood that buildings/sites/structures located within the boundaries of the historic district are locally landmarked and therefore should be subject to historic review standards. The city should maintain a copy of the pertinent landmark designation forms at all times should members of the public want additional information about local designations. It is also understood that the boundaries of the architectural review district outline the City’s central core and entrances, but these properties are not locally landmarked unless also contained in the local historic district. While the architectural review district likely contains historic properties, if the City’s desire is to amend the UDO KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 to better distinguish between “historic” and “architectural” district, this section should better clarify that distinction. It is also unclear how “non-contributing” properties are determined. The State and National Register of Historic Places regularly uses the phrase “contributing/non-contributing” to discuss properties and their historic classification, but if the local landmark designation process also contains a provision for “contributing/non-contributing,” that information should be easily identifiable. We note a definition for “contributing/non-contributing” has been added to Article 21 but it should be clear this is for local landmarking/designation. • Section 13-D.vi (“Treatment of Major Building Elements”) very clearly outlines acceptable standards for building features that are often considered character-defining. Having additional design guidance available to the public on the City’s website is also considered best practice. OPRHP notes this continues into section 13.D.2 (“Design Considerations: Alteration, Additions, and New Construction.”) • Section 13.D.3 (“Historic District – Demolition Review”) outlines procedures for seeking a demolition permit when the structure is contained within or contributes to the local historic district. While OPRHP does not advise local municipalities to utilize any reference to the State and National Registers of Historic Places in ordinances relevant to local land-use decisions, this reference may remain if only to provide additional historic significance context. The decision path that follows is generally appropriate and adheres to standards for CLGs. • Section 13.D.H (“Architectural Review Applicability”) outlines approval standards for the architectural district, which understandably should differ from the historic district. Table 13-E outlines specific approval standards/accepted best practices for various building elements, which is clear. • Section 13.D.H.3 (“Architectural District – Demolition Review”) notes the purpose of the Architectural District is to regulate the design of new construction and alterations “rather than prohibit demolition.” Accordingly, demolition permits “shall generally be issued for structures that are not designated landmarks or identified as eligible for landmark designation under this Ordinance.” OPRHP does not encourage the promotion of building demolition regardless of a structure’s historic status. Demolition contributes to environmental waste, is not sustainable, and comes with a significant cost. While demolition of structures may be advisable in specific scenarios due to building safety/cases of economic hardship or redevelopment purposes, it should be pursued cautiously. This section continues with a careful description of required demolition application materials and contains a built-in provision to determine if the proposed demolition building has any historic significance. However, this section also utilizes State/National Register criteria as a defining factor of historic significance once again, which OPRHP advises against. The solution is for Saratoga to have more carefully defined local designation criteria of its own, which do occur in later sections of the UDO and should be mirrored or referenced here. • Section 13.I (“Designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts”) outlines the local landmark designation process. New York State’s CLG Certification Procedures dictate the historic review commission (DRB) “shall have the power to designate or recommend KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 designation of properties worthy of preservation.” New York State also does not allow owner consent/owner denial of local historic landmark designation. Therefore, OPRHP does not support the amendment stating “residents or property owners within the City through submission of a petition” can initiate a designation. There must be a clear pathway to local historic designation at all times, just as the UDO seeks to make a clear pathway to new construction and demolition. If there is great concern over properties in the Architectural District that are likely historic but not defined and classified as local historic landmarks, there must be an avenue to pursue local landmark designation and the increased protection that comes with it. This pathway to designation should be available and easily accessible for any city resident to pursue regardless of their ownership status or link to the project. The proposed change, as written, is not in compliance with CLG program standards. • Section 13.I.3 (“Exemption for Pending Land Use or Building Application”) it is not acceptable per CLG program standards to pause or halt the landmarking process where a land use application or building permit application is pending. OPRHP does not support making this change. Given the above comments, OPRHP notes the City of Saratoga Springs has done well in recent years to comply with its responsibilities as a CLG community. A performance evaluation completed in 2024 noted the City’s consistent performance in upholding program standards, but the City should make best efforts to submit required annual reports on time in the future. Despite this consistent performance, it is clear that specific review situations and general confusion about the distinction between the local historic district and the architectural review district have necessitated the proposed amendments to the UDO. OPRHP notes that while existing Saratoga DRB members are qualified to serve, none have attended training sessions in the recent past that were either hosted or sponsored by OPRHP. The only way to maintain a successful historic preservation review commission is to consistently keep training board members on the nuances of historic preservation and the municipal ordinance they are tasked with upholding. This is true for longstanding board members, who benefit from continuing their education, along with new board members who require orientation and guidance. We appreciate the City for taking its role as a CLG seriously and for sending us these materials to review in a timely manner. We look forward to continuing our work together to ensure that historic and cultural resources in Saratoga Springs are protected and appropriately managed for years to come. If you have any questions about this review, you may contact me directly at (518) 268-2219 or Frances.Stern@parks.ny.gov. Respectfully, Frances M. Stern Statewide Certified Local Government Coordinator NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation KATHY HOCHUL Governor KATHY MOSER Acting Commissioner DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION | P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, N.Y. 12188 | PARKS.NY.GOV | (518) 237-8643 Enc: Certified Local Government Program in New York State: Information and Regulations Regarding the Certification Process, NYS Model Law for Historic Preservation CC: Lisa Shields, Deputy Mayor, City of Saratoga Springs