[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6608557,"mediaKeyId","2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1","parentId",2939207,"title","Design Review Board approves consent agenda and several residential projects including new houses and additions","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",122000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1&start=122&end=122","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1/thumbnail_122000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608557/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-consent-agenda-and-several-residential-projects-including-new-houses-and-additions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608557-97258fc32b734c37ea45f0a02faa6b01/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157180&Signature=OtVx7w9C9n-iOfgEPoaOH9Zn3iaoJJF-5QNN7cmLKG8qYlZswF6pVhxMHiftH8fyDvb3Lg6tctlLi1p2pVrCcad34B~ab7EvrXPiAJG93fi52YEXH5JXq~djb74h0~gmwLfMSxNiEJiwfHZpcbZhSgV4CQz43D0i~XlWd0vQzBUZ2q5ceyURRiNulmcchUOw0U9468va3vKFuXytuLQnJwqwPdbVUWITjlanb7AKpUO~JmU2yn8SVN1TQ6NN8-YGQdEo3SjLE4AsEBwJT-LETiVGoqpqxeaZCnWKIdSUdKc-hHSynYvucWEBwwscHyXngjM8eBiOl7kwCNmHxJ3R1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-04-09T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board approved a nine‑item consent agenda and several standalone residential applications on April 9 after staff and applicants addressed prior board feedback.

Consent agenda: The board approved nine applications in a single motion, covering primarily historic or architectural reviews for signage, utility pole small‑cell equipment, sidewalk dining, roof replacement and an accessory structure. The addresses on the approved consent list were:
- 268 Broadway (wall signage, historic review)
- 130 Regent Street (Verizon utility pole small cell antenna, public right‑of‑way)
- 24 Underwood Drive (Verizon utility pole small cell antenna)
- 480 Broadway (sidewalk cafe, historic review)
- 102 Nelson Avenue (Verizon utility pole small cell antenna)
- 748 North Broadway (initially on consent but pulled for discussion; later handled on regular agenda)
- 551 Lake Avenue (accessory structure)
- 67 Putnam Street (door replacement and window addition)
- 80 Henry Street (wall‑mounted banner sign)

The chair moved approval of the consent items and the board seconded and passed the motion.

Individual approvals and actions:
- 21 Park Place (new single‑family residence and detached garage): The applicant revised the design after workshop feedback to add a deeper, neighborhood‑oriented front porch with bluestone hardscape and clarified materials. The board found the revision responsive and approved the plans as submitted.

- 178 Lake Avenue (rear addition to existing structure): The homeowner revised the proposal to maintain the original roofline, remove proposed windows on a sensitive elevation, and introduce a small 6‑inch step‑in between old and new construction. The board voted to approve the plans as submitted.

- 77 South Franklin (new single‑family residence): The applicant simplified massing, enlarged porch elements and adjusted fenestration after prior feedback. The board approved the plans as submitted.

- 81 Filus Street (new construction, multiple revisions since earlier hearings): The applicant reduced the overall ridge height by one foot after surveying neighboring building heights and provided refined porch and column details. Several board members said the revised height and details were consistent with street context and the board approved the plans as presented.

Each application approval was recorded as a motion on the record and carried by voice vote. Applicants were reminded to provide final construction details and material samples for staff review where applicable.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission - Apr 09, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board passed a nine‑item consent agenda and approved multiple residential applications — including new construction at 21 Park Place, an addition at 178 Lake Avenue, a new single‑family house at 77 South Franklin, and new construction at 81 Filus Street — after applicants incorporated board feedback.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6608560,"Design Review Board presses architect for changes to 30 Caroline project, citing scale and impact on historic Sperry’s",1378,1644000,3022000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1&start=1644&end=3022","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1/thumbnail_1644000.jpg","/articles/6608560/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-presses-architect-for-changes-to-30-Caroline-project-citing-scale-and-impact-on-historic-Sperrys","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608560-558b9dd9fd890756681958c940bdaa38/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157180&Signature=Vt10wCZw7GS4MmH~sJqcJs-ALvxjq94sepwTGx1-xRpRbshkGB4fry3zvkzdKjpUCvlKApMjajpWGC9TKJhxOSTjV1q2w09llvJ7FfEuNB0FXVNng8M9UmxnJ8pSiosBX1Kw6Rg6CqXRyJNA0KrdGuiY3KCcKGbhu~0ddPUNk7brjDt~-XX-EYoAeXniwhzWraIRFE6SjH-ft2LUbjG7SebmhkdhzynPUSA8iQz9zz1XP3k1akZn~tUzpKO6VM3FxI8VIHyFn5LiknaJ9kh7XdknG44ikZmBHonbbFD7ozaxYwISPfzQR9v~0bVx3GiYZfDkrTzNwT4entaP6I7bSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board spent an extended portion of its April 9 meeting debating a revised design for a mixed‑use project proposed for the Caroline Street block that would abut and partially overbuild the historic Sperry’s building.

Olsen Associates Architect George Olsen presented a set of changes made since the project’s previous hearing: the development reduces mass immediately behind Sperry’s by stepping upper floors back, drops one full floor in one portion of the plan and adds terraces to some units. Olsen said the team also removed a one‑story section and obtained a zoning variance for frontage rules where an easement constrained the build‑to line.

But public commenters and multiple board members, citing more than three dozen public letters, said the addition still “overwhelms” and “dwarfs” Sperry’s. The State Historic Preservation Office and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation were cited by board members as having expressed concern about the project’s massing and the potential impact to the historic streetscape. Several residents spoke against the application during public comment.

Board members acknowledged the applicant had responded to feedback, and some members praised the stepped‑back revisions; others said the project still visually “swallows” Sperry’s because a new mass wraps above and around the older building. Members suggested several approaches to reduce the perceived impact: create a clearer visual distinction between the approved building at 30 Caroline and the new addition (for example, darker materials that recede and/or a glass connector), consider additional setbacks (even if it requires a zoning strategy), or rework the portion of the new structure that sits directly above Sperry’s to appear as a separate building rather than a single continuous mass.

The applicant said work so far had reduced unit counts and that construction costs and returns are sensitive to further reductions; he asked for clear direction on whether to proceed. Board members encouraged the applicant to keep working on alternative schemes and return with refined drawings; the board did not grant final approval and did not vote on the project at this meeting.

The board’s discussion emphasized that the street wall requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and an existing sewer easement constrained options; staff and board members identified the 0–12 foot build‑to line and an 80% frontage requirement as factors shaping allowable setbacks. Members and preservation advocates urged the applicant to pursue creative massing and material strategies that allow Sperry’s façade to “stand proud” while still allowing infill on the adjacent parcel.

The applicant said he will review additional setback and material options, consider separating the volumes more distinctly (for example, darker cladding that recedes), and return to the board for another review.","The board asked the team for more alternatives after residents and preservation officials said the mixed‑use project still overwhelms the historic Sperry’s building; the applicant showed stepped‑back revisions but was asked to return with further options to reduce perceived ‘‘swallowing’’ of the historic façade.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6608566,"Design Review Board approves composite slate roof at 748 North Broadway after debate over authenticity and longevity",1310,299000,1609000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1&start=299&end=1609","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939207-80b35052c2444a8ef68cc85e368c51c1/thumbnail_299000.jpg","/articles/6608566/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-composite-slate-roof-at-748-North-Broadway-after-debate-over-authenticity-and-longevity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608566-a02642a964ccfe601216ab3eb19f1e89/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157180&Signature=iemULxmcPFe79g7mTdb7OD29rL2yDAcwrr1gHsECOggoX0X9Hey2u7hJahVL75ofl13oXmJLnFJL-qJCddxWA7pU05yvKKXdlSw5Uq80IA6z6EWUgijyGJ3PCWOLUe6WISd4SS7BSyRG8EIYEclRhFHEQBPuzmw46NFQRBgnGEEIsmOewVJlwU3vOnRhV4CeWKD00TT6QczTBK0pc8mBMQZKm5kS0HiDnixiQ9gvga2l-3ni2Bxg9Pmza3ok0M~zlN~nqGMIdHvfgE8LVx4VFKmNxe3mbr3dgqKjoxu2UvwU5zni6yjm~AbUXtbEs56e2e~qGuUBT871c0qQe3H0lQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on April 9 approved a roof replacement at 748 North Broadway, allowing a composite slate product paired with standing‑seam copper elements, while recording board concerns about the long‑term performance of synthetic slate.

The homeowner presented photographs and samples and said the existing asphalt roof was deteriorated and leaking and that real slate would be prohibitively expensive and high‑maintenance. The applicant said she preferred a DaVinci composite slate that, in her view and experience, “looks identical” to real slate from the street and would reduce long‑term maintenance and repair. She said she had samples on her porch and had inspected installations at other local properties.

Board members pressed the applicant on performance and precedent. Member Rob Duboff said he opposed the synthetic product for use in the North Broadway historic area, citing examples elsewhere where composite slates had warped or faded. Other members noted prior approvals of the same product at 385 Broadway and at a church conversion at Van Dam and Woodlawn; one board member said approving the product here but denying it elsewhere would require a strong argument. Several members said they prefer genuine slate where feasible, and one suggested the homeowner explore New York State tax credits to offset slate costs.

After discussion, the board approved the application “as presented,” with a notation that if the applicant later chose to install true slate the Design Review Board would approve that change simultaneously. The motion was made by the presiding chair and seconded by Jeff Wood; the board recorded the motion as approved.

Members who spoke on this item included the homeowner (applicant), Rob Duboff (opposed to synthetic slate), Jeff Wood, Leslie DeCarlo, Chris Bennett, and board members who questioned long‑term performance. Samantha Bossart of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation advised the applicant to explore New York State tax credits for historic rehabilitation to offset the cost of real slate installation.

The board’s decision preserves the homeowner’s ability to choose an upgraded roof appearance now while leaving open the option for a later change to true slate without returning to the board.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve application for 748 North Broadway roof replacement — motion made by the chair; seconded by Jeff Wood; outcome: approved (voice vote).","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board approved a roof replacement at 748 North Broadway, allowing a composite (DaVinci) slate product with copper accents despite concerns from some board members about durability and material integrity; the board noted that a later switch to true slate would also be acceptable.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board approves consent agenda and several residential projects including new houses and additions

Design Review Board presses architect for changes to 30 Caroline project, citing scale and impact on historic Sperry’s

Design Review Board approves composite slate roof at 748 North Broadway after debate over authenticity and longevity