The Design Review Board on Sept. 24 determined that the front porch at 106 Van Dam Street contributes to the historic fabric of the city and approved a restoration plan with conditions.

Applicant Ryan Burke said the porch — added around 1900–1905 according to Sam Bosshardt of the Preservation Society — is dilapidated, sinking on a slope, and in need of repair. The applicant described proposed work including new wood decking, new porch ceiling, removal of non-original enclosed glazing and an open balustrade with columns. Preservation staff (messages exchanged with Sam Bosshardt) and the board discussed the porch’s age and surviving features such as shingled skirting and decorative drainage scuppers; the board concluded the porch retains architectural significance despite its compromised condition.

The board first moved to determine the porch historically and/or architecturally significant under Section 13 of the Unified Development Ordinance. That motion passed unanimously.

On the application to repair and restore the porch, board members and audience members (including a representative of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation) urged restoring rather than demolishing and replacing the porch. The board approved the applicant’s restoration plan with conditions: the porch must be restored in kind using natural wood materials; the applicant may use a wood square lattice skirting at owner’s discretion; the roof for the porch may be asphalt shingles or EPDM rubber based on contractor guidance and roof pitch; and the applicant must submit final material details administratively for staff review. The board emphasized salvage and repair rather than wholesale replacement where elements are salvageable.

Why it matters: The decision protects a character-defining feature of a house in the city’s architectural context and directs the applicant toward restoration-focused solutions rather than complete demolition and replacement.

Key technical details recorded at the meeting: Preservation review noted the main house dates to roughly 1880 and the porch to circa 1900–1905; the porch was described as dilapidated and partially sunken. Board members discussed choosing wood shingles and natural wood finishes, preserving as much original fabric as possible and alternatives for the low porch roof (EPDM or other low‑pitch alternatives where asphalt shingles may not be suitable due to pitch). The board noted that replacement “in-kind” of vinyl siding is treated differently depending on whether the property is inside the historic district; the applicant’s vinyl siding had existed historically, so wholesale replacement in kind was permitted and not subject to additional building permits in the same way as demo/repairs requiring permits.