Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board: 165 Fila Street slate roof has reached end of life; owner urged to pursue slate or slate‑like alternatives and tax incentives
Summary
Design Review Board members agreed the slate roof at 165 Fila Street is deteriorated and requires replacement. The board requested the applicant return with alternatives — preferably slate or slate‑look products that meet historic standards — and suggested state tax incentives and modern thin‑slate products to reduce cost and installation time.
The Design Review Board on Sept. 10 found that the slate roof at 165 Fila Street is deteriorated beyond repair and advised the property manager to return with replacement options consistent with the city’s historic‑district guidelines.
Contractor Matthew Fortier and property manager Mike Scuola presented images showing rows of slate that have shifted and whole courses that are failing. The board’s first preference was repair when feasible; here, members agreed replacement is necessary. Board members and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation recommended a slate or slate‑equivalent solution rather than conventional asphalt architectural shingles.
Board members and staff discussed a range of options the applicant should explore and bring back for approval: - Full natural slate replacement (the preferred historic‑accurate solution) — durable but costly due to labor and attachment methods. - Modern thin‑slate systems (sometimes called “thin slate” or factory‑cut slate) and proprietary products such as TrueSlate/ReadySlate that use lighter tiles and faster attachment methods, which can substantially lower labor cost while offering a real‑slate appearance. - High‑end designer asphalt shingles that mimic slate texture if slate/permitted slate alternatives are not financially feasible; the board said such options would be a lower priority and must be presented with high‑quality samples and trim details to be considered.
The board suggested the applicant document costs for the full slate option, investigate available state preservation incentives or tax credits that can offset cost, and return with physical samples and proposed flashing/valley/ridge materials (copper or other metals were discussed as appropriate finishes). No vote was taken; the board asked the applicant to return with samples and clearer cost comparisons.
Speakers included contractor Matthew Fortier and property manager Mike Scuola; board members discussed repair vs. replacement and suggested modern thin‑slate products (TrueSlate, ReadySlate) or slate where possible. Samantha Bossart of the Preservation Foundation reiterated that slate is a character‑defining feature and urged pursuing slate alternatives or tax incentives to maintain the historic appearance.
