Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board begins review of major UDO revisions; members seek author presentation and time to compile comments
Summary
Board members opened a detailed review of proposed Unified Development Ordinance changes, flagged major rewrites to landmark and DRB sections, debated shifting height/height‑bonus authority to the Planning Board, and requested the ordinance author or deputy mayor appear at a workshop; members agreed to compile written comments.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Board began a section‑by‑section review of city council‑sponsored amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), raising concerns about the scope of the rewrites, the motivations behind them and how they would change the roles of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Board.
The Chair and several members traced the amendments’ origins to a recent court challenge and consistent complaints brought to the mayor’s office about DRB decisions and the city’s development review process. Members noted that the proposed text replaces large portions of the landmark and DRB sections and appears to shift some responsibilities—particularly the application of height bonuses and some mass/scale trade‑offs—away from the DRB toward the Planning Board. That shift prompted extended debate: some members argued the Planning Board is charged with land‑use tradeoffs (affordable housing, bonuses and site plan criteria) and should control bonus outcomes, while others said the DRB has professional design and architectural expertise and should retain authority over mass, scale and aesthetic compatibility.
Board members asked for the ordinance author or deputy mayor Lisa Shields to give a presentation at the next workshop and for staff to compile a draft comment outline that members can annotate. Members agreed to provide written comments within two weeks so staff can consolidate them before the next workshop; the board discussed the possibility of requesting a council extension of the advisory‑opinion deadline if more technical information is required.
Several participants emphasized the need to keep advisory comments focused on the planning board's direct responsibilities (procedural impacts, height bonus rules, and how advisory opinions will be used) while also noting the broader citywide implications for preservation, demolition policy and administrative fairness.
No advisory opinion was finalized; the board set a timeline for written comments, requested the author’s presentation, and signaled they may recommend third‑party review or legal counsel if needed to evaluate wholesale rewrites.
