Loading...
2020809 Simpson Demolition Correspondance 1111' Preservation. League 0/NYS QFFICJRS Frank Emile Sanchis III-Chair December 8, 2020 Karen Arrlson-Vice Chair DEC 0 9 Duncan Barrett-Vice Chair 2�2� Dr.Carol Berae.l,FAIR-Vice Chair Ms.Tamie Ehinger Lee Miller-Vice Chair Chair, Design Review Commission �� Ruth .cretary City W.Warren-Treasurer City Hall _._ ..". -._._...._ BOARD Or TRUSTEES 474 Broadway Angel Avon,AIA Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 lidiku Butler ['atrick Ciccone via email to jennifermerriman@saratoga-springs.org Suzanne Clary Bret Garwood Dr.Georgette Celts Key Re: 65 and 69 Phila Street Thoma,Jayne Gregory R.Long Paw R.Provost Dear Ms. Ehinger, Anne H.Van Ingen Charlotte Worthy,AIA `"Moil' I write on behalf of the Preservation League of New York State in support of the Design Car cline Rob Zaleski Review Commission reviewing 65 and 69 Phila Street as a structure with historic and Jay t Boren>' architectural significance under Section 7.4.11 of the Saratoga Springs Historic Review President Ordinance.The Preservation League of New York State is New York's statewide historic Jan C.K.AnCetre n!!. preservation nonprofit focused on investing in people and projects that champion the Jan C.K.A::derson Kent Barwick essential role of preservation in community revitalization, sustainable economic growth, George H.Beane William L.Bernhard and the protection of our historic buildings and landscapes. David Christensen Constance L.Clapp Randall T.Crawford Based on the extensive research on both properties completed by the Saratoga Springs Joan K.Davidson Scott Ducnow,AIA Preservation Foundation, as well as the engineering reports commissioned in the last three su,ven C.fngelhart years, we believe both 65 and 69 Phila Street have the historic significance and Stephen A.Facey R.Br;r,don Fradd architectural integrity to have their demolition permit considered under Category B Section Lionel Goltltrar:k"' 7.4.11, "Structures with architectural or historic significance." Roberta Brar+.de,Grata Christopher Holbrook Gerald A.Holbrook Further,we believe that the applicant will fail the "good cause"test for demolition under Anne A.Hubbard Robed J.Kafir that section, considering this demolition permit is clearly an instance of demolition by Marilynn ressr" neglect. Our colleague organization,Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, has clearly Robert J.Y.resse .Aima Lath shown that there is interest in rehabilitation of these buildings and that they can be Richard 1.Hopes Robert B.MacKay repaired based on the engineering report from Old Structures Engineering. (Richard A.Martino lean M.McCarroll Henry A.McCartney Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me with any fd:ar:oar:M.Clint, Dede B.Nashquestions. Anne H.Oder (tee.Dr.Thomas Pike Robert C.Quinlan Best regards, Daniel G.Rornualdez Janet C.Rays ." Jahn Save 'Dictums J.Schwarz Robert D.Snedeker Robert A.M.Stern,FAIA Erin M.Tobin Paliriae,Trernentozzi Cynthia C.Wainwright Vice President for Policy and Preservation Diane:S.Waite .Arete Swartz Warren Steven J.Weiss 44 Cuncra1 Avcnuc •5Ibanv,Now Vurrk 12206 518.462.5658 518462.5684 Fax www.prescrccnps.rtrf; 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Design Review applications #20200809 and 20200852 - Helen and Case Simpson demolition of 65 and 69 Phila St From : funiciello@aol.com Tue, Dec 08, 2020 05:52 PM Subject : Design Review applications #20200809 and 20200852 - ,93 attachments Helen and Case Simpson demolition of 65 and 69 Phila St To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- 11,i)' springs.org> P' Cc : robin dalton <robin.dalton@saratoga-springs.org>, 'J eileen finneran <eileen.finneran@saratoga- Lsy_ springs.org>, sbosshart@saratogapreservation.org "` , Reply To : funiciello@aol.com CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Ms Merriman, I'm attaching a letter to oppose demolition of 65 and 69 Phila St. I'm also attaching pertinent portions of prior Design Review Committee and Zoning Board minutes in support of my opposition. Would you please make all of these available to the Design Review Committee members in advance of the meeting. Please let me know if you have any problems with the attachments and I'll be happy to resend. Many thanks, Pam Funiciello DRC Itr for 12-9-20 mtg.docx 11'11 20 KB DRC April 5, 2001 Simpson DRC minutes.pdf 705 KB DRC October 27, 2004 Simpson Zoning mtg.pdf 2 MB https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114436&tz=America/New_York 1/1 DESIGN REVIEWCOMMISSION EETt G CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS THURSDAY, IL 5, 2001 CITY COUNCIL ROOM 1:15 P.M. MINUTES TAUT PRESENT: Susan Davis James Gold, Chair DEC 0 9 2020 Nancy Ingersoll,Vice Chair Thomas Richards By Steven Rowland ABSENT: Mary Alyce Evans Rich Martin CALL TO ORDER James Gold, Chair,called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF ARCH 1i 2001, MEETING MINUTES Steve Rowland moved and Nancy Ingersoll seconded to approve the March 1, 2001, meeting minutes. Ayes all. 01.003 DP /CAROUSEL (300 Broadway) This is an application for discussion on details of new construction. Appearing before the Commission was John Muse, architect and William McTygue, Director, Utilities, DPW. Nancy Ingersoll recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. William McTygue said they were reappearing this evening primarily for the roof. John Muse submitted new renderings. John Muse suggested reviewing the smaller issues first. He said if it was determined that railings are needed at the windows,they will be a simple 1/2 inch square stock, wrought iron black railing. James Gold said the applicant should be sure that it meets the four- inch code. John Muse said they did not believe that a railing was needed because it is a window, however, if it necessary, it will meet code. Susan Davis asked if the windows were operable. John Muse explained that the center window opens and gets clipped to the outer windows. John Muse said they were not proposing any coping stone. He said there will simply be a brick cap. Page 1 of 16 01.009 SI PS® , HELEN & CASE (69 Phila Street) This is an application for historic review for demolition of the rear portion and reconstruction of that area. Appearing before the Commission was Helen &Case Simpson,applicants. Helen Simpson said they simply want to remove the rear addition and replace it in the same footprint. Case Simpson said the main structure is still in sound shape. Nancy Ingersoll asked when the addition was constructed. Helen Simpson said she was not sure, however, they found some old newspaper under the vinyl floor that said 1865. James Gold asked if the new area would be similar to what is existing. Case Simpson said it would be slightly different in that there would be no windows on the east elevation. He said the addition would match the main structure in color and material though. it was agreed that any approval issued this evening would be contingent upon small committee's Page 8 of 16 City of Saratoga Springs Design Review Commission Meeting Minutes Thursday, April 5, 2001 review of the final elevation drawings and his review of the new window dimensions and details. Steve Rowland moved and Nancy Ingersoll seconded to approve the application for demolition as submitted and further note that the final plan design for reconstruction are to be referred to small committee. It was further noted that the addition would be the same footprint as the portion to be demolished. Ayes all. Page 9 of 16 To: Saratoga Springs Design Review Committee From: Pam Funiciello resident of 116 Circular Street and owner/manager of 61 Phila Street Date: December 8, 2020 Re: Design Review applications#20200809 and 20200852 - demolition of 65 and 69 Phila St Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Design Review Committee Agenda Thank you to the members of the Design Review Committee (DRC) for taking the time to read this letter and for all your work in recognizing and preserving the historic value in properties throughout the city. I am writing to you personally and on behalf of my husband, Tom, who with his parents, purchased 61 Phila Street (next door and west of 65 Phila) in 1982. Our family restored and renovated 61 Phila, bringing it from an uninhabitable 32-bedroom rooming house to the multi-family it is now. In addition to meeting local and state building and zoning requirements, the project required local, state and federal historic review because of the building's location in the East Side Historic District. It takes a lot of effort. You have to value historic preservation to undertake the task of restoring and renovating. You must want to restore and renovate. Tom and I lived with our children at 61 Phila from 1985 to 1998 when we finished renovation of our current home, just around the corner on Circular. My parents lived in the building from 2003 to 2015 and my son now lives back in the apartment in which he was born. We are very familiar with the historic restoration process and the neighborhood surrounding the proposed demolitions sites. We oppose the demolition of 65 and 69 Phila Street for a variety of reasons, and believe that if you review the City DRC, Planning and Zoning Boards minutes and the Code Enforcement and City Court records, they will support the following: 1) The applicants caused the current condition of the buildings by neglect and their own actions; 2) There's no substantiation that the Simpsons ever intended to restore the buildings; 3) No evidence of hardship that would prohibit restoration was ever presented to any Board; 4) No good faith effort was made to sell the properties to buyers who wanted to restore; 5) The applicants have little to no history of follow-up to the point of completion with any plans approved by City Boards, nor notices of building code violations, for this or any other properties owned by the applicants in the City of Saratoga Springs, unless Court intervention was warranted; and 6) If the applications are approved there are at least two possible negative outcomes for the neighborhood: - The construction of the proposed two new identical residences would sit in the middle of a block in the East Side Historic District, surrounded by multi-family and commercial buildings where most of the owners (past or current) have invested a great deal in restoring and maintaining their properties and will be dramatically out of place and change the character of the neighborhood forever, OR - The applicants will proceed with demolition only. Demolition would stop the annual vacant property registration fees, code violation fines, Court appearances and would lower property taxes. This rewards the applicants at the detriment of the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the City seems to lack enforcement capability pertaining to "no demolition by neglect". If the buildings are demolished there's no bringing them back. Being in the neighborhood for over 35 years, I've known and had conversations with Helen since she and Case were tenants at 58 Phila. Helen and I talked about her interest in buying 69 Phila at the mortgage foreclosure. Tom and I considered attending the auction of 69 with the possibility of buying and restoring it as our home. I told Helen that we thought the large back tax bill on top of the foreclosure price, made it too expensive for us. spoke with Helen again after she bought 69 as the sole bidder. She was confident that the City would forgive all the back taxes in support of the renovations they would do. She acknowledged that she'd check into it and had time to pull out of the purchase without losing anything. Helen assured the neighbors that paint and renovation to the façade would begin quickly to make it look nice. New windows were installed on the front, but after they began to gut the inside, the roof collapsed and there was significant water damage. All other work on the building seemed to stop. We've always opposed plans that involved new construction at 65 and 69, but I've maintained a civil relationship with Helen and Case over the years. I chose to speak with Helen or Case directly and give them the opportunity to address hazards on their properties rather than involving City authorities. I don't feel animosity towards them, but this long history with the Simpsons and their proposals have led Tom and me to find what they're representing and proposing in the current demolition applications offensive. I've had conversations with potential buyers, who were interested in purchasing one or both of the properties for restoration. Helen's been the exclusive listing agent since obtaining her real estate license and the properties have been advertised only intermittently over the years. Helen did call me after we moved into our home at 116 Circular to ask if I would be interested in "trading" my house for 69 Phila Street, but I don't think there were any other real efforts to sell either property to anyone interested in historic preservation. The Simpsons should be asked to provide documentation of their efforts to sell the properties including the offers received and the reason they were not accepted. Before considering any demolition request, please review the long history of DRC, Zoning and Planning Board minutes that go back at least as far as 1996. Please don't feel pressured to act because, (after 25 years of neglect) there's a possible safety risk. Please take decisive action now and deny the applications to prevent further waste of City resources. Attached for your convenience, are copies of the cover and Simpson-Case related pages of the minutes of the April 5, 2001 DRC meeting and the October 27, 2004 Zoning Board. In 2001, the Simpsons request for 69 Phila was to: "simply...remove the rear addition and replace it in the same footprint". We're not certain if the "rear addition" was removed or collapsed, but no replacement was built. (It's difficult to see in the application photos, but the rear back and side is largely particle board installed by the Simpsons.) In October 2004 the Simpsons requested a variance to allow for subdivision of the two lots into three in order to build a new residence at the rear. They indicated intent to renovate the existing buildings, but presented no plans. They stated that "demolition is not cost effective and that (they) cannot afford to renovate the buildings". No evidence of financial hardship was provided. Please read the attached minutes in their entirety, but note the following statement made over 16 years ago and excerpted from those minutes: "Amy Durand, asked the applicants about other options to save the buildings: Mr. Simpson stated that demolition is always an option or he could board up the buildings and leave them for years" You must want to restore and renovate. However, the Simpsons don't seem to have that desire. They do apparently have the time, patience and resources to go to court and pay a multitude of fees in order to wait out the process to demolish the buildings and construct new. They've shown no concern for the negative impact they've had on their neighbors. We ask you to reject both applications for demolition without any contingencies and require restoration of the existing buildings. Please do not set a bad precedent. With appreciation for your time and service, Pam Funiciello Copy via email: Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Eileen Finneran SARATOGA SPRINGS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2004 MUSIC HALL, 7:00 RM. MINUTES PRESENT: Amy Durland Eileen Finneran Nancy Goldbergt tnRonald Kim Christian Mathiesen DEC 0 9 2020 Eric Schreck Chris Signor By ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bradley Birge, Staff Tony Izzo, City Attorney CALL TO ORDER Chair Ronald Kim called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING It was agreed the next meeting of the Zoning Board would be held on November 3 as a decision meeting. The next application meeting will be held on December 8, at 7 PM with December 15, at 6 PM, as the decision meeting. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 MEETING: Approved with minor corrections. Amy Durland made a motion and Eileen Finneran seconded the motion. All in favor 6-0-1 approved. Nancy Goldberg, having been absent at that meeting,abstained. APPLICATIONS #2149 Paul Tommell -2 Gilbert Road This is an application for an area variance to construct an exterior stairs addition to an existing building, and construct a 24'x 28'detached garage in a Rural Residential-1 district. Appearing before the Board was Paul Tommell. The Tommell's purchased the property with the plan to turn it into an office using 70%of the floor plan for his surveying business and leasing two smaller offices.The Tommell's are planning on putting doors on the side of the building with a stairway going to the second floor. Relief is needed from the side yard setback requirement for a two-car garage. Mr. Tommell had spoken Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals—October 27,2004 Page 1 of 12 #2148 Simpson Residence-65 & 69 Phila Street This is an application for an area variance to divide two combined properties into three parcels allowing renovation of a existing structures and the construction of a new one-family unit in an Urban Residential-4 district. Appearing before the Board was John Arpey, H. Case Simpson and Helen K Simpson. Mr. Arpey said the parcel of land is approximately 10,383 square feet.The Simpsons are seeking a series of area variances to make 2 lots into 3 lots.Two of the lots are currently single family; one building was used as a boarding house originally, but no longer. The property is zoned as an Urban Residential-4 property and is in need of a lot of work. Ron Kim remarked that the application stated that demolition is not cost effective and that the applicant cannot afford to rehabilitate the two buildings but no financial information was provided. The applicant has come before this board in the past seeking variances and offering promises with no results. He reiterated that the application contained no financial information. Nancy Goldberg stated for the record that the Simpsons are her neighbors. She inquired if one building were in violation, could it be repaired so that it would be brought into compliance or could you at least preserve what is there now. Ron Kim stated that the Simpsons were given a number of proposals, they were also given area and use variances, but that nothing was done on the property after the applicant came before us. Records will show in April 1996 and in April 2002 extensions were granted to continue to start work. Mr. Simpson then stated that the City Engineer went to look at the building and suggested to take down the building. Ron Kim replied that the Board would then need this information as part of the application. Ron Kim continued that this applicant has not taken care of the 2 properties they own on Phila Street and that they are still in violation of numerous building codes but now they have come before the Board and asked to put up another house. It has taken over 2 years to correct five items out of fifteen identified building code violations. Mr.Arpey said that this is a particularly difficult situation.The Simpsons started to spend some money to make the property look good in 1996. On the drawings the building envelopes are too Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals-October 27,2004 Page 4 of 12 small. The benefit of putting up a 3'" home would improve, not change the character of the neighborhood and conform to the zone they currently are in. No adverse change to neighbor's property. If you want to renovate, it would be necessary to make 3 lots.These lot sizes are fine, all we are asking for is a variance for a setback. Ron Kim addressed the issue of the Code of Ethics and if he should recuse himself or anyone else should recuse themselves. He had no interest in this project and thus does not have an opinion of this project. If I had an interest then I would recuse myself, he then asked if anyone else would need to recuse themselves. No one had a conflict of interest with this project. Nancy Goldberg stated that this is a historic structure. Ron Kim asked if an engineering study on rehabilitating these building had been done. John Arpey said that an estimate conducted to retrofit the structure was expensive. There are times you come upon things that were not anticipated he said. Nancy Goldberg asked what the cost of this project would be since we have nothing in front of us. One property was purchased and few repairs were done, then a second property was purchased and now two properties are standing with a tack of repairs done. Now you are coming before us with an interest in subdividing these lots to build a third house to become economically sound. I feel we need to know more information and that the Board cannot make a decision based on the material in front of us. Nancy Goldberg then asked in 1997 why the repairs weren't done and when they purchased the house did they know there were structural issues. The Simpsons replied that we started some of the repairs and structural issues came up, and yes they were aware of the condition of the homes when purchased. Amy Durland asked about other options to save the buildings. Mr. Simpson stated that demolition is always an option or he could board up the buildings and can leave them for years. Ron Kim's concern was keeping the public hearing open beyond next Wednesday meeting would place a stay on the building code violations, and he was reluctant to do it. Mr. Arpey stated that the code violation predate the zoning application and are not why the Simpsons are here today. The Simpsons stated that they have tried over the year to come to the City to talk with officials and they where shut out. Ron Kim stated that in 1997, a use variance was received;then we gave you two extensions. The character of the neighborhood is a concern. We have bent over backwards to help you, and things only got worse. Chris Mathiesen asked if the roof was repaired. If you look at the building as you walk by it does not appear to have had any work done to it. Mr. Simpson replied that a temporary roof repair was done a few years back; he continued that 3 single-family units on these lots would be more desirable. Chris continued that the last time the Simpsons came before this board, the neighbors were irritated about the looks of the property. Furthermore, if the Simpsons decided to board up the properties as threatened,they would still have to pay taxes on them. Mr. Simpson replied that boarding up the properties was still an option. Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals—October 27,2004 Page 5 of 12 Chris Signor stated that many owners come up before bureaucracies and in good faith try to do what is right, and try to do things in timely matter. What motivates a financial interest is not the issue here. Nancy Goldberg then stated that creating substandard lots are a very serious issue. Ron Kim said with due respect to Chris Signor that while Mr.Signor has done work around the City and they have looked good, the Simpson's properties have only gone downhill, and the Board and staff have gone out of their way to help them, it is not simply a bureaucratic issue. Ron Kim then asked the Board if there were any other comments. There being no further questions the public hearing was opened. A letter was received from Carol Wells and William Browne of 60 Phila Street and read. They have a problem with a third building due to the foot dragging on major concerns with the other buildings. The only way they would support this application would be upon major provisions being put in place i,e. fix both buildings to fit standards of the neighborhood, the two buildings be completed before a third is built, and finally that the Code Enforcement is given priority to prevent another loophole. Another letter was read from Margaret Roberts and Elizabeth Howe asking that the easement between 69& 71 Phila not be part of the overall plan and not be used for access to the third building. Susan Bastion, 18 Lafayette St. spoke that the property is very close to her property; she has a garden in the back of her house and fears that if the third unit is put in the lot that it will damage her garden and the look she is able to enjoy from the back of her house. She and her family love living in this rural setting and if they had to choose it would be to allow only two homes in these lots and not allow 3 units. They feel that the privacy will no longer be there nor will the value of the homes in the area be worth what they are now. There is also a majestic tree in the backyard that would be a shame to loose because of construction. Elizabeth Howe spoke that they have just encountered a fire at their home and feel that the closeness of the homes would be a fire hazard and wonder how the fire department would be able to respond to an emergency and be able to get into the yard if an additional house were constructed in the back yard. Carrie Woerner, Executive Director of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, then spoke to say they have a strong interest in this property and have been working with the applicants on different ideas for the property. They have been working for over a year on what would fit into the properties and also work for the neighborhood. There is always a way that you can preserve a building, but it does take time and money. These homes are historic structures but right now they are white elephants. Ron Kim asked if the variance were denied, could the properties still be restored. Carrie answered yes. Ron then asked at what point after work has failed to be completed in a timely Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals—October 27,2004 Page 6 of 12 matter does the City step in. Carrie said that there is a window of time to restore buildings. Less then a year ago there were people living in one of the homes so there is still time to work to restore this building. It all becomes a labor of love of what you want for your home. Nancy Goldberg stated that she thought the Preservation Foundation had failed.When people come before the board, we try to give the applicants as much room as needed. in this case,the Preservation Foundation and the City stepped in and the Board is now hearing this without the benefit or knowledge of any background negotiations. Amy Durland then stated that she appreciated Carrie's assessment, and asked if the Design Review Commission standards would result in a historic appearance, even if the buildings were rebuilt as new. Carrie said that what would be sacrificed was authenticity. Phil and Kristen Reynolds of 14 Lafayette Street said their backyard abuts the Simpson's property and said that they did not want to see a third building in their back yard, they also said they did not know about what the Simpsons were doing until last Friday.They do not want see a change in the neighborhood and lessen the value of their homes. They stated that most people know what shape a home is in before buying the home. The red home has a facade that might be able to be saved, but the rest of the home is in real need of repair. They were happy that attention was finally being given to these properties. Bob Rigano, of 64 Phila Street, stated that buying one home and then another and now thinking of buying a third to be put into the mix will only add more financial responsibility. He purchased his home in 1988 and took 10 years to work on. There also was no foundation under his home and after long and tiring hours was able to lift the home and build a foundation under it. There are plenty of buyers out there that would take the time and money to do the work, but felt that another house is not the solution, will only add more work to what they already needs to be done. Chuck Szableski at 77 Phila Street then addressed the problems at hand. He said that he owned the Greek revival and he could feel the frustration the Simpsons were going through. He had to put$100,000 into his home as it was right in the heart of the historic district. If you neglect something it turns uglier it will never get better, but with a vision you can make it beautiful. These homes can be renovated to be made beautiful and they can be preserved. Will the profit be as much as you put into the home, probably not, but you have to have an ultimate goal. Pam Funiciello living at 61 Phila Street noted that it was next door to 65 Phila Street and they owned the property since the early 80's. She stated she can relate to Mr. Signor's statement, because they too had to go through hoops and bounds to get to the point they are today. She was not at all unfamiliar with renovation work as they had to do it to their home. The house in the neighborhood all have potential to be brought back to the original gleam. She also stated that she did not think another building is going to be economical feasible. She said that a subdivision doesn't increase property value, and is concern of the mention of demolition as the other alternative, but there is a point in time to stop and fix what can be saved now, is the course that should be taken. Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals—October 27,2004 Page 7 of 12 Ron Kim stated that he felt there is no financial hardship due to a lack of a cost analysis and that demolition of the red building would have to go before the DRC before anything could be done. Mrs.Simpson said they have had numerous offers and have paid a lot of money to have plans drawn up, and it is not financially workable, besides there is enough room to have three buildings. Mr. Simpson stated that when they first went to repair the roof, he found it had been patched with pieces of carpet and tar, which is the reason why so much of the inside has deteriorated. Nancy Goldberg asked if there were denial letters from the City that substantiated this and, if so, the Board would like them to be brought to the Board. There being no further questions from the Board, Ron Kim closed the public hearing. Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals—October 27,2004 Page 8 of 12 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 65 Phila Street & 69 Phila Street Demolition Re.,west.-- - w tE ft -- -_ _� DEC 09 2020 From :Jason Thomas <jetson111@gmail.com> Tue, 9 08, 2020 05:38 PM Subject : 65 Phila Street & 69 Phila Street Demolition ':•uest 01 attachment To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saraoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. 12/08/2020 RE: 20200809 65 PHILA STREET & 20200852 69 PHILA STREET To Whom It May Concern: It is my position that the owners of 65 and 69 Phila Street have ignored the properties and chosen to ignore the market pricing where they have always been overly aggressive. The owners are trying to benefit from this self created situation and a strong real estate market. Please do not allow these properties to be demolished. At the right price they will be refurbished by others. Thank you for your time. Jason Thomas 368 Broadway, Apt 30 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-221-8920 jetson111@gmail.com PHILA.doc 19 KB https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114435&tz=America/New_York 1/1 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 65 & 69 Phila Street Proposed Demolition DSC ; ��, r From : Steve &Jerry <wanapun.dodds@gmail.corn> Tue, D 9 007 •+ 08:51 PM Subject : 65 & 69 Phila Street Proposed Demolition DEC 02020 To :Jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Hello- I am writing to state that I firmly oppose the demolition of 65 and 69 Phila Street. Allowing the owners to remove the existing historic structures on these two properties would endorse the strategy of "demolition by neglect" which they have been pursuing for decades. The owners seem to value the properties as a vacant development parcel, which it is not. Several offers to purchase the lots by parties who wish to restore the existing structures were stymied by this point of view. The owner instead, unwilling to sell yet unable to demolish the buildings, have left them to decay for years, creating a blight on the neighborhood and a drain on the tax rolls. Permitting demolition of 65 and 69 Phila would reward the property owners for gaming the system to the detriment of the community. Please do not condone this. Steven Dodds, AIA https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114440&tz=America/New_York 1/1 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Phila Street Letter From :dkerrl@nycap.rr.com Tue, Dec 08, 2020 09:22 PM Subject : Phila Street Letter f`l 1 attachment To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> Cc :Samantha Bosshart <sbosshart@saratogapreservation.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114441&tz=America/New_York 1/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Ms. Merriman— Please find attached comments on the application for demolition of properties on Phila Street to be discussed at the meeting of the Design Review Commission on December 9, 2020. Would you please include our comments in the record of the proceeding,as well as provide copies of our comments to Ms. Ehinger, Chair, as well as other members of the Design Review Commission. Thank you very much. Douglas M. Kerr Joan Walter • • Phila Street Demolition Letter.docx 15 KB https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114441&tz=America/New_York 2/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Comments on the Demolition Proposition of 65 and 69 Phila Street From : Michelle Paquette-Deuel <czechdanska@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 08, 2020 10:01 PM Subject : Comments on the Demolition Proposition of 65 and 69 Phila Street To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Members of the Design Review Commission, I am writing this letter to request that the Design Review Commission reject the proposition of the owners of 65 and 69 Phila Street to demolish these historic buildings and construct new structures. I respectfully submit that these buildings should be reviewed under the architectural/historic significance criteria of the Historic Review Ordinance and that demolition should not be approved. The two buildings do indeed have architectural/historical significance within our City.They have been listed on the Preservation Foundation's "Ten to Save" list since the endangered property list's inception in 1998. 65 Phila Street, an Italianate-style house clad with wood clapboard, was constructed in 1851 by architect and builder Alexander A. Patterson.That same year 69 Phila Street, a brick Italianate, was constructed by mason Robert Hunter. Both houses are listed as contributing buildings to the East Side Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to SSPF, despite their poor condition,the buildings still retain their architectural integrity. The owners have failed for years to meet the NYS Property Maintenance Code requirements, nor have they provided a plan to rehabilitate and occupy the structures as required by the City of Saratoga Springs'Vacant Building Register, nor have they accepted numerous serious and reasonable offers by potential buyers willing to restore the properties. Instead,the owners have allowed the structures to notoriously deteriorate—it may be conjectured with willful intent to arrive at this very demolition proposal. According to SSPF, a recent structural assessment indicated that the structures were not beyond repair. I implore you not to erase these two contributing historic buildings from Saratoga Springs, and I implore you not to reward the homeowners' blatant pursuit of demolition-by-neglect, and by doing so set future precedents for more and more homeowners across the City to follow in their footsteps,actively destroying Saratoga's historic character in pursuit of new builds for exorbitant profits. I have lived in Saratoga Springs for 24 years and I recently served on the Board of the Preservation Foundation for 6 1/2 years. I have walked by these historic homes for over two decades, dreaming of the day they would be restored to their former beauty and craftsmanship. Today,they teeter on the brink of being forever lost.The very definition of Saratoga Springs is our architectural heritage, and far too much has already been lost. But we have the power to save these irreplaceable buildings through our collective voices. I hope you will listen—to us, and to the stories these buildings have to tell about who we are as a community. Thank you for your consideration, https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114442&tz=America/New_York 1/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Michelle Paquette-Deuel Saratoga Springs, NY https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114442&tz=America/New_York 2/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org NO. 65 & NO. 69 Phila Street DRC application From :Jim Martinez <martinezarchitecture@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 09, 2020 08:19 AM Subject : NO. 65 & NO. 69 Phila Street DRC application To :Jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> Cc : Samantha Bosshart <sbosshart@saratogapreservation.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Jennifer, Please distribute. Thanks. Re: No. 65& No. 69 Phila Street Members of the Design Review Commission. Tax generating parcels, Nos. 65 and 69 Phila Street within the Hillside Historic District are presently surviving uninhabited structures without services that can be renovated and improved. They are not unsafe. A historic district recognizes that a group of buildings may have a significance greater than the significance of any single building in the group.These surviving residential structures through their significance, integrity and age that initially determined their eligibility within The Hillside Historic District,should not be demolished to facilitate yet another suburban replacement that would further jeopardize the distinction of the entire district. The city has adopted the 2020 Property Maintenance Code of the NYS Uniform Fire Protection and Building Code (Chapter 3) and has the authority to prevent transient entry onto these properties and to protect the neighborhood from visible blight. Much can be done at the direction of or by the city(at the expense of the owner)to properly assure the protection and proper mothballing of these two buildings and parcels beyond chicken wire and a marginal barrier,that would greatly improve the appearances and appeal of these properties. Preservation has been a fundamental movement in Saratoga Springs that demands uncompromising nonpolitical advocacy, protection and education through its organizations and its municipal land board decisions. It was a principal basis for the formation of our city's Historic Review Commission.The present request for demolition by the owner(s) of these two said properties should be denied. Respectfully, Jim Martinez https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114446&tz=America/New_York 1/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra self-serving buil https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114446&tz=America/New_York 2/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 65 & 69 Phila Street Demolition Proposal From : Marketa Halova <marketa.halova@yahoo.com> Wed, Dec 09, 2020 08:44 AM Subject : 65 & 69 Phila Street Demolition Proposal To :Jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org <jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Jennifer, I am writing about the 65 and 69 Phila Street properties that the Design Review Commission is scheduled to discuss today. I agree with the position and recommendations of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation regarding these two properties. I strongly oppose demolition of these properties. The owners have owned the properties for many years (while purchasing other properties at the same time) and intentionally neglected these properties during the entire time. They should not be rewarded for their intentional neglect. Our City should not lose beautifully properties in the historic district for this reason. Best regards, Marketa Wolfe 37 Park PI, Saratoga Springs https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114448&tz=America/New_York 1/1 12/9/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Comments on the Demolition Proposition of 65 and 69 Phila Street From : Michelle Paquette-Deuel <czechdanska@gmail.com> Tue, Dec 08, 2020 10:01 PM Subject : Comments on the Demolition Proposition of 65 and 69 Phila Street To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Members of the Design Review Commission, I am writing this letter to request that the Design Review Commission reject the proposition of the owners of 65 and 69 Phila Street to demolish these historic buildings and construct new structures. I respectfully submit that these buildings should be reviewed under the architectural/historic significance criteria of the Historic Review Ordinance and that demolition should not be approved. • The two buildings do indeed have architectural/historical significance within our City.They have been listed on the Preservation Foundation's "Ten to Save" list since the endangered property list's inception in 1998. 65 Phila Street, an ltalianate-style house clad with wood clapboard, was constructed in 1851 by architect and builder Alexander A. Patterson.That same year 69 Phila Street, a brick Italianate,was constructed by mason Robert Hunter. Both houses are listed as contributing buildings to the East Side Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to SSPF, despite their poor condition,the buildings still retain their architectural integrity. The owners have failed for years to meet the NYS Property Maintenance Code requirements, nor have they provided a plan to rehabilitate and occupy the structures as required by the City of Saratoga Springs'Vacant Building Register, nor have they accepted numerous serious and reasonable offers by potential buyers willing to restore the properties. Instead,the owners have allowed the structures to notoriously deteriorate—it may be conjectured with willful intent to arrive at this very demolition proposal. According to SSPF, a recent structural assessment indicated that the structures were not beyond repair. I implore you not to erase these two contributing historic buildings from Saratoga Springs, and I implore you not to reward the homeowners' blatant pursuit of demolition-by-neglect, and by doing so set future precedents for more and more homeowners across the City to follow in their footsteps, actively destroying Saratoga's historic character in pursuit of new builds for exorbitant profits. I have lived in Saratoga Springs for 24 years and I recently served on the Board of the Preservation Foundation for 6 1/2 years. I have walked by these historic homes for over two decades, dreaming of the day they would be restored to their former beauty and craftsmanship.Today,they teeter on the brink of being forever lost.The very definition of Saratoga Springs is our architectural heritage, and far too much has already been lost. But we have the power to save these irreplaceable buildings through our collective voices. I hope you will listen—to us, and to the stories these buildings have to tell about who we are as a community. Thank you for your consideration, https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114442&tz=America/New_York 1/2 12/9/2020 Zimbra Michelle Paquette-Deuel Saratoga Springs, NY https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=114442&tz=America/New_York 2/2