Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Architectural Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner and contractor press for composite slate alternative; board urges retaining visible slate on 171 Church Street
Summary
Homeowners seeking to replace a failing slate roof at 171 Church Street proposed a slate‑line designer shingle and standing‑seam porch roof to cut cost; the Design Review Board and preservation advocates said the principal visible roof should remain real slate or employ a more complex partial‑slate solution. The board encouraged the applicant to return with specific options (partial slate, standing seam on dormers, snow slides, or a mix) to address leaks while preserving architectural character.
At 171 Church St., homeowners presented a roof‑replacement plan after documenting a failing slate roof and leaks in the house. The applicant’s representative argued a slate‑line designer shingle (GAF slate‑line) with standing‑seam porch roofing would meet Architectural Review District compatibility standards and be more affordable than full Vermont slate. He also said he had researched alternative slate products (including Slate Tech and composite slates) and would explore options further.
Board members and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation emphasized the architectural importance of the primary visible slate roof under the UDO. The chair read UDO 13.9 (architectural review approval standards) and said “features that give a roof its essential historic and architectural character must be retained,” arguing the primary roof should be slate when feasible.
Several board members suggested compromises: using real slate on the most visible primary plane, installing standing‑seam on dormers or porch elements, adding metal snow slides and ridge caps to reduce the square footage of slate needed, or employing the slate‑line product only on less visible rear areas. Homeowners said a full slate roof would cost in excess of $100,000 and posed a financial hardship; the board advised the applicants to return with concrete, illustrated options showing combinations (e.g., slate on primary face + slate‑line or standing seam on rear/dormers) and cost estimates.
The board did not take a final vote; it directed the applicant to return with specific alternative schemes and supporting documentation (photos, examples, and cost info) so the board could act to allow repairs without unnecessarily sacrificing character.
