Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Design Review Board refuses to approve unpermitted exterior work at 66 White Farm Road

Design Review Board · November 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board found extensive unpermitted alterations at 66 White Farm Road changed the home's historic/architectural character and asked the owner to submit restoration plans; no approvals were granted for the unpermitted work.

At its Nov. 19 session the Design Review Board reviewed extensive exterior work done without prior DRB approval or building permits at 66 White Farm Road and concluded the scope of changes could not be approved as presented.

Homeowner Jeremy Van Wormer told the board he had repaired a failing porch and replaced decking and railings; staff noted the properties’ parcel edge places the property inside the architectural review overlay. Board members reviewed before-and-after images and said the work—replacement of round columns with new square columns, increased column spacing/number, and installation of modern aluminum railings—had materially altered the building’s architectural character. The chair said the changes were so substantial that, if proposed in advance, the application would not have been approved.

Board members repeatedly advised the homeowner that the board must consider restoring character-defining elements and that the proper path forward is a documented plan to return the building toward its historic appearance. Staff and the board recommended that Van Wormer work with city staff and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation to develop a remediation/restoration plan and submit corrected permit applications. The board did not approve the existing unpermitted changes and did not move to accept the new-construction items on the same application in this meeting.

The board’s legal adviser and several members noted the city’s obligation to require a discussion of how the house can be returned to its earlier appearance as part of any remedial application. The owner was told that submitting accurate plans to show how to restore or mitigate the changes is the next step; the board offered guidance but took no further action at this meeting.