Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board asks for site visit, urges saving primary facades on Pitney Meadows farmhouse
Summary
Design Review Board members praised the applicants’ proposed wood windows and siding but urged a site visit to verify underlying historic materials before approving wholesale replacement. The board signaled willingness to allow selective replacement off primary elevations and requested clarity on energy-code triggers.
The Design Review Board on May 20 asked Saratoga Associates to schedule a board site visit for 223 West Avenue (Pitney Meadows) before resolving a proposal to replace vinyl siding and install new wood windows.
The board heard from Tony Martini of Saratoga Associates and Chris, the project architect, who said they plan to remove the existing vinyl and install clapboard and new wood windows "in kind" and undertake a rear roof modification to meet headroom and to change occupancy from R‑3 to R‑2. Chris told the board the work is intended to "bring this building up to energy codes" and to make it "a very efficient building."
Board members expressed support for preserving the house’s visible historic character while recognizing the applicant’s energy‑efficiency goals. The Chair read the secretary of the interior standards for windows and noted "every effort should be made to maintain and preserve these important features," and recommended preserving the primary facade and possibly the secondary facade while allowing replacement on less visible elevations. Mr. Bennett (committee member) said he "hasn't seen a window that can't be restored" and offered to do a site inspection.
Samantha Bosshardt of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation urged the board to preserve critical porch details and warned that wholesale removal of original siding and windows could affect future National Register eligibility and access to preservation tax credits. She recommended additional documentation of the porch column and trim.
The board discussed when energy‑code requirements apply (the applicants and board cited the 51% renovation threshold that can trigger interior upgrades) and asked staff to confirm whether historic windows remain grandfathered for code purposes. The applicant said a portion of the vinyl was already pulled back to expose the underlying trim; the board said a site visit by board members prior to the next meeting would allow them to see the underlying material and produce a more specific action plan.
Next steps: the board asked staff to coordinate potential workshop dates for a site visit and to clarify building‑department guidance on the energy code so the board can craft precise conditions at the next public meeting.
