Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01 UDO Amendments 2026 SSPF Letter 07.21.2026Board of Directors C. Christopher Armer President Sheila Sperling Vice President Tiffany Blair Secretary Kira Karbocus Treasurer Molly Brindle Joseph DeLava Steven Dodds Michele Funiciello James Gold Alex Kammler Stuart Kaufman Vincent LaTerra Samantha Nass Michelle Paquette-Deuel Ellen Sheehan Jason Thomas Roger Woody James Kettlewell emeritus Staff Samantha Bosshart Executive Director Dianne Winter Development Director Stephanie Hadley Administrative Assistant Patricia Herrick Bookkeeper July 21, 2026 Ms. Tamie Ehinger, Chair Design Review Board City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 RE: Advisory Opinion – Proposed Changes to UDO Dear Tamie: The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation offers this advisory opinion on Mayor Safford’s proposed changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), prepared at the Design Review Board’s request on May 22. The Design Review Board has the single most important role in ensuring that the City of Saratoga Springs’ resources are preserved and that new design is in keeping with the historic character of our community. Mayor Safford’s proposed changes to the UDO pose the most significant threat to preservation in decades, as they seek to undermine and remove the Design Review Board’s authority, which could result in irreparable loss of historic resources that define our city; attract visitors, residents, and businesses; and provide economic benefits. Significant changes to the UDO should be made as part of City’s upcoming plan to update the Comprehensive Plan, the guiding document for development in our city, and with the involvement of professional, subject matter experts. The Foundation has asked the Mayor to reconsider his approach. Similar to the Design Review Board, the Foundation did not provide an advisory opinion on the first draft of proposed changes because the Mayor’s Office announced it would be providing a second draft and granting additional time for the Design Review Board to provide their advisory opinion. The Foundation has carefully reviewed both drafts with the assistance of hired legal counsel William Hurst, an author of the New York State Model Preservation Ordinance , an ordinance that meets the minimum requirements for being designated a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Foundation had grave concerns regarding the first draft as written because it jeopardized the City of Saratoga Springs’ Certified Local Government (CLG) status. In 1986, the City of Saratoga Springs was the first city in the state of New York to be designated a CLG, serving as a leader in historic preservation for the state. CLG status requires a city’s ordinance to meet minimum requirements in its preservation ordinance to be eligible for grant funding. The City of Saratoga Springs has benefitted greatly from significant CLG funding that has underwritten reviews and updates to the historic review ordinance, a preservation plan – “A Working Plan for Historic Preservation for the City of Saratoga Springs,” design guidelines, an economic impact study of the value of historic preservation in the City of Saratoga Springs – “Saratoga Springs: Enhancing the Values through Historic Preservation,” multiple neighborhood building surveys, and various educational programs for Design Review Board members and the public. 112 Spring Street, Suite 203 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 (518) 587-5030 www.saratogapreservation.org The Foundation is pleased that the Mayor’s Office made changes in response to the State Historic Preservation Office’s review of the initial draft, restoring the purview of height to the Design Review Board and removing limitations on designating local landmarks that would have resulted in the loss of the City’s CLG status. The Mayor’s Office proposes to include a hardship of appeals process for Design Review Board Decisions. It will be the only land use board to have an appeal process other than Article 78, which is disconcerting since the Design Review Board has the fewest number of Article 78s of the three land use boards. The threshold for meeting an Article 78 is far greater than the outlined proposed hardship appeal process. As a City that has built its reputation in part on its history – “Health, History, and Horses” – the appeal process should not be made easier. The first draft proposed that all decisions could be appealed and granted the review process to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Mayor’s Office has since limited the appeal process to denials, limited it to economic hardship appeals, and granted the review of those appeals to Design Review Board, the board with the required expertise – following the New York State Model Preservation Ordinance. The Foundation’s gravest concerns are the review of demolition. The Mayor’s Office proposed changes will significantly weaken protections against demolition of our historic resources. The requirements to allow demolition in the historic district would change significantly. Under the Mayor’s Office proposed change, applicants would no longer be required to meet all five of the demolition criteria that they must currently meet, and there would no longer be a requirement that the applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. The requirements to allow demolition in the Architectural Review District would change dramatically. If City Council does not designate the proposed building to be demolished as a landmark or part of a historic district within 90 days or simply takes no action, the demolition permit can be issued upon satisfaction of all other applicable requirements. While the Foundation respects the City Council, we are concerned that the City Council will not designate buildings or will take no action, thereby allowing demolition. In nearly two decades, the City Council has only landmarked one building: the Smiley -Brackett Cottage at 166 Excelsior Avenue. The Foundation is concerned Mayor Safford’s proposed changes will leave critical preservation decisions to politics, and historic buildings that define the character of our city will be lost forever. The Foundation also has concerns about ambiguous and inconsistent terminology throughout the draft. The provision stating that nothing in the ordinance authorizes the Design Review Board to regulate land use or modify area and bulk standards should be deleted or substantially revised. The DRB is not a zoning board and should not be granted authority to approve uses or vary dimensional standards, but preservation review often requires consideration of scale, massing, height, rhythm, setting, visual compatibility, and site context. The ordinance should not include language that may be misread in future proceedings to prevent the DRB from considering those preservation issues merely because they overlap with dimensional or site-planning concerns. Section 13.9, A. Historic Review and Architectural Review Overlay Districts should be modified. It uses the terms “preservation criteria” and “preservation standards,” which are not defined. The ordinance should clarify the relationship between historic review and architectural review. Historic review necessarily includes architectural considerations because design, materials, workmanship, setting, scale, massing, rhythm, and form are part of historic integrity and compatibility review. Architectural review, by contrast, may apply to non-historic properties and contemporary design issues without applying historic review standards. The ordinance should make that distinction clear. The statement that “Architectural review shall not apply preservation standards” should be revised so it does not imply that architectural significance is excluded from historic preservation review. A better formulation would state that historic review applies historic review standards, including architectural review standards where relevant to significance, integrity, and compatibility, while architectural review of non-historic resources applies design standards only. The proposed definitions in Article 21 should be revised to conform to the terminology used by NYS SHPO, the State and National Register programs, Section 14.09 review, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The draft presently separates “Historic Significance” from “Architectural Significance” in a manner that is likely to create confusion and under-protect historic resources. The proposed definition of “Historic Significance” is too narrow because it appears limited to identification with historic persons or events in the City of Saratoga Springs. That formulation captures only one basis for historic designation. Historic significance may also arise from a building, structure, site, district, object, or cultural resource that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction, use, development pattern, designer, architect, or historic context. Architecture is one established basis for historic significance; it should not be severed from historic review and reassigned to a separate architectural-review category. The proposed definition of “Architectural Significance” creates the corresponding problem. It includes date of erection, style, scarcity, quality of design, present condition, appearance, and characteristics that embody a type, period, or method of constru ction. Those attributes may establish historic significance where the property has the age, context, association, and integrity required for designation. At the same time, some newer buildings may warrant architectural review because of design quality without also being historic. The ordinance should distinguish between preservation review of historic resources and architectural review of non-historic or contemporary design issues without treating architectural significance as outside historic significance. The definition of “Contributing Historic Resource” should be revised. A contributing resource should be defined as a building, structure, site, object, or feature within a historic district that adds to the district’s historic significance because it was p resent during the district’s period of significance, retains sufficient historic integrity to convey that significance, and relates to the events, persons, architectural character, cultural patterns, or other qualities for which the district was designated. A non-contributing resource is one that postdates the period of significance, has lost sufficient historic integrity, or does not relate to the qualities for which the district was designated. The definition of “Local Landmark” should also be simplified. Once the City Council designates a building, structure, site, object, or cultural resource as a local landmark pursuant to Article 13.9, the designation itself establishes that the resource satisfies the applicable preservation criteria. The definition need not separately state that the resource is “worthy of preservation, restoration or rehabilitation.” There is inconsistent use of the words “appropriate,” “compatible,” “credible,” “feasible,” “practicable,” and “possible” with no definitions provided. This advisory opinion does not address every concern the Foundation has, but it provides an overview of our significant concerns regarding the proposed changes. The Design Review Board is critical to ensure the historic character of our community is preserved. The Foundation firmly supports the Design Review Board retaining its authority. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, C. Christopher Armer Samantha Bosshart President Executive Director Cc: Julia Destino, Planner, City of Saratoga Springs Lisa Shields, Deputy Mayor