HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026 - 01 UDO Amendments 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, bu t
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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