CALL TO ACTION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6 AT 7:00 PM
We need your voices heard!
On Tuesday, October 6 the City Council will consider significant changes to the rules that protect Saratoga Springs’ historic buildings, including how decisions about demolition are made. We have closely reviewed the final draft of Mayor Safford’s proposed changes, with the assistance of our attorney. We consider his proposed changes the biggest threat to the preservation that our city has seen in decades.
We are asking our members, supporters, and friends to make their voices heard. Please attend the City Council public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, at 7 p.m., submit comments to the Council, and consider contacting individual Council members directly.
Some of these changes may sound technical, but they could have serious consequences. They affect what happens when a historic building is threatened with demolition, what protections are in place before that can happen, and the role of the Design Review Board in those decisions.
Saratoga Springs will continue to grow and change. Preservation is not about stopping that. It is about having a careful process before decisions are made that could permanently change buildings and the historic character of our downtown and neighborhoods that give Saratoga Springs its unique character.
Before the City Council acts, we want you to understand what is being proposed and why we have raised these concerns.
What happens when City Council misses a deadline?
Under the proposal, there is a 90-day deadline. The Design Review Board could find that a building that is proposed to be demolished in an Architectural Review District is historically important and recommend landmark designation. The City Council then has 90 days to act. If it does not, the proposal treats that inaction as a decision not to designate the building, and the demolition process moves forward.
Ninety days can pass quickly. Meetings get postponed, agendas fill up, and sometimes the Council simply needs more time. A building should never be lost because an arbitrary deadline has passed.
We will ask the City Council to take a different approach. Protection against demolition should remain in place until the City Council votes to designate or not and provides written reasons for their decision. Once a building is demolished, it is gone forever. Our approach will prevent passive demolition by default.
How does the demolition standard change?
The current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that five criteria be met before a landmark or contributing building in a Historic District can be demolished. The applicant must provide documentation of good faith efforts to find an alternative to demolition, efforts to find a buyer, show that the building cannot be adapted to another permitted use with a reasonable return, provide financial proof that the property cannot earn a reasonable return, and submit acceptable plans for the site after demolition.
The final draft of the proposed changes would change that standard. The applicant would no longer have to meet all five criteria. It would allow demolition if reasonable alternatives do not exist, because of structural failure, or other “compelling circumstances.” The proposal does not define “compelling circumstances.”
The current UDO limits this health and safety exception to an imminent threat. The current draft removes the word “imminent.” That means demolition could be sought based on the applicant’s claim of any danger to health and safety. If this were the case, 65 and 69 Phila Street would have been lost.
We are not saying every old building must be saved. Sometimes demolition is necessary. However, before a historic building is demolished, there should be a strong reason and a careful, consistent process to determine it is necessary.
We should know what is historically important before demolition is proposed.
Under the proposal, the Design Review Board may have to decide whether a building is historically significant after a demolition application has already been filed, and without the benefit of a professional survey to guide in its decision making.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to complete an updated survey of historic resources first, so the Design Review Board and the City Council already know which buildings may be significant before a demolition request is made? As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City qualifies for federal funding to complete such a survey and have a qualified professional to evaluate the buildings that meet the criteria. What is more, the City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for ongoing surveys of historic resources, and the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has recommended an updated survey and inventory.
We support a survey and evaluation taking place before significant changes are made to the demolition provisions in the UDO. A survey does not create restrictions. It simply gives owners, potential buyers, the Design Review Board (DRB), and the City Council better information before a demolition request is filed, not after the process has already begun.
The role of the Design Review Board should not be diminished.
Under the current UDO, the DRB decides whether a project may receive up to 15 additional feet of height in areas where that bonus is available. The proposal would give that decision to the Planning Board. Inside the Historic District, the Planning Board would still need a positive opinion from the DRB. But for an individually designated landmark outside the Historic District, the DRB’s opinion would only be advisory.
For example, the DRB could conclude that adding 15 feet to a project involving a designated historic building would not be appropriate. The Planning Board could still approve the additional height.
The SHPO has told the City that review of locally designated historic properties must be regulatory and binding to meet Certified Local Government standards. An individually designated landmark is still a locally designated historic property, even if it is outside the Historic District.
When a designated historic property is involved, the DRB’s review and determination should be required.
The Mayor’s proposed changes will create more legal uncertainty.
Concerns about litigation have been raised by those who are proposing these changes, but inconsistencies within the changes, poorly conceived definitions, and the addition of vague, subjective elements mean these changes are highly likely to increase, not decrease, litigation against the City in the future.
If the goal is to reduce legal challenges, the rules should be clearer, not less certain.
Now is the time to act!
The Foundation has reviewed the two prior drafts and offered recommendations to the Mayor’s Office, some concerns were addressed, but many of which have been ignored. Please review the summary of the Foundation’s concerns and recommended changes that will safeguard the preservation of our city HERE.
For those who want to review the complete letter the Foundation provided to the City Council, CLICK HERE.
You do not need to address every issue. We hope this information will help you identify the concerns that are most important to you and give you a clear basis for your comments.
SPEAK at the Public Hearing at 7PM on Tuesday, October 6 at City Hall. We need our voice and presence at the meeting!
WRITE comments to public.comment@saratogaspringsny.gov or submit through the online portal to become part of the public record and contact each City Council member.
Mayor John Safford – john.safford@saratogaspringsny.gov
Commissioner of Accounts Jessica Troisi – jessica.troisi@saratogaspringsny.gov
Commissioner of Finance JoAnne Kiernan – joanne.kiernan@saratogaspringsny.gov
Commissioner of Public Safety Tim Coll – tim.coll@saratogaspringsny.gov
Commissioner of Public Works BK Keramati – bk.keramati@saratogaspringsny.gov
Saratoga Springs’ historic buildings are part of what makes our city special. The City has a long history of preservation being a core value and an economic policy as identified in the City of Saratoga Springs 2015 Comprehensive Plan, because that’s what it is!
Our historic character is why people come here, choose to live here, and locate their businesses here. Once an important historic building is lost, it is gone forever. These issues are too important to be addressed haphazardly, as the proposed changes do. We need a better approach, and the Foundation stands ready to help.
