Saratoga Springs design board approves demolition of small outbuilding at 19 George St., continues debate over proposed garage

The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Wednesday approved demolition of a small, non‑historic structure at 19 George Street but left the proposed detached garage and driveway plan unresolved.

Board chair (Design Review Board) moved to approve the demolition and the board classified the project as a SEQR Type II action; the motion was seconded by Mr. Bennett and the chair announced, "All in favor? Any opposed? Alright. That motion passes." The board made clear the demolition was treated as separate from the larger construction proposal.

Why it matters: Neighbors and board members urged preservation of mature trees on the property and debated whether the proposed garage location — placed forward to avoid the dripline of a large sugar maple — is consistent with the neighborhood’s historic patterns. Several board members said they prefer garages to be sited to the rear or accessed by an alley when feasible.

Board discussion and public input Board members repeatedly emphasized that demolition review (a determination of significance) is a distinct step from design review for new construction. The chair said the process is three steps: determine significance, demolish if allowed, then review the new project. Mr. Bennett and other board members reviewed zoning compliance for the proposed driveway placement and highlighted that driveway location is a zoning question separate from DRB design review.

Neighbors and preservation advocates raised concerns about the new garage’s location relative to two large sugar maples on the lot. Tom Denny, who identified himself as having chaired the city’s urban forestry project and the open space advisory committee, warned of construction impacts on mature tree root systems and said, "No amount of replanting small trees ever replaces that." Several neighbors and neighbors’ representatives urged the board to prioritize the trees and to require clearer evidence — such as an arborist survey — before approving a garage footprint that would encroach on the tree canopy.

The applicants and supporters said the design team relocated the garage forward specifically to avoid root disturbance, and the owner’s representatives said they would use construction techniques intended to reduce root damage (for example, using an above‑grade slab). Owner Linda Whittle, who said she and her husband are planning a "tasteful building compatible" with the neighborhood, asked the board to consider the full context of nearby homes that already have garages.

Outcome and next steps The board’s formal action at the meeting was approval of demolition only. The motion (chair moved; Mr. Bennett seconded) referenced SEQR (6 NYCRR part 617) and the Unified Development Ordinance; the board concluded the demolition was exempt from further SEQR review and approved it as presented. The board did not take a final vote on the garage location or the broader construction plans and directed the applicants to return with revisions and additional documentation addressing the board’s comments — especially the tree protection approach, driveway delineation and clearer site plans showing how the driveway and lot coverage will be managed.

The chair closed the item by asking the applicants to "take the feedback you've heard, go back, sort of think about whether or not there's creative ways you might be able to change your plans to accommodate some of what historic guidelines are for your neighborhood," and said the board would continue to work with the applicants in future meetings.

Ending The demolition approval allows the applicant to remove the small, non‑historic shed; the larger questions about where and how a new garage can be built — and how to protect the sugar maple trees — remain open and will return to the board in a later hearing.