Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board pushes back on UDO amendments that would narrow preservation powers and change appeals
Summary
Board members and preservation advocates questioned proposed UDO amendments that would let "any person" appeal DRB decisions to the Zoning Board of Appeals, limit demolition review, and alter material standards. The board signaled recommendations to change 'any person' to 'applicant,' limit appeals to denials or hardship claims, and preserve demolition safeguards.
Design Review Board members spent the bulk of their May 20 meeting analyzing proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), focusing on language that would change who may appeal DRB decisions, where appeals would be heard, and how demolition and materials standards are applied.
Chair opened the review by calling attention to language in the draft that would allow "any person" to appeal a DRB decision to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Board members, staff and a legal advisor debated narrowing the right to appeal to the "applicant" and limiting appeals to "denials only" or to narrowly defined hardship claims. The board discussed whether the ZBA has the historic‑preservation expertise to adjudicate such cases; several members favored city council or a DRB re‑review for hardship and procedural appeals.
Legal context was discussed at length: a board advisor referenced Article 78 court review as an existing judicial path for challenging administrative decisions and warned that creating an additional administrative appeal could invite litigation or strategic appeals. The board debated whether a two‑step administrative review (DRB first, then city council for hardship) or an administrative hardship review built into one application would be less burdensome for applicants.
On demolition and classification, members criticized a proposed change that would restrict the board’s ability to deny demolition unless a structure is a local landmark; they suggested the DRB should retain the ability to review demolitions, and floated a 50‑year threshold as a possible trigger for DRB review. The board also discussed proposed classification tiers (landmark, architecturally/historically significant, non‑contributing) and largely found the table confusing without clearer definitions.
Materials language drew attention: rather than explicitly excluding "vinyl," staff and several members suggested requiring "natural or high‑quality composite materials" for primary facades, with examples like LP SmartSide, Boral and cement board provided in the discussion.
Two detailed public comments followed: Samantha Bosshardt of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the proposed UDO would remove critical preservation objectives, undermine mandatory preservation review steps required by state practice, and could risk the city's standing as a Certified Local Government; Robin Baxter urged slowing the process and recommended professional drafting, broad public input and care to avoid 'demolition creep.'
The board did not adopt formal amendments at the meeting but agreed on several advisory recommendations to forward with its advisory opinion to the mayor’s office and city council: change "any person" to "applicant," limit administrative appeals to denials or hardship with documented financial proof, retain strong demolition review for older structures, and clarify materials and height/scale standards.
