In recent months, Saratoga Springs Mayor John Safford has pushed changes to zoning and land-use regulations in the historic city, but not without consistent pushback from residents and preservation organizations.
The Unified Development Ordinance is essentially the document that outlines all of the design practices followed by the city including zoning and land use.
It also outlines the power of various boards. The current public backlash to Safford’s changes center around his intended tweaks to the city’s Design Review Board.
Initially, Safford’s changes would have largely stripped the DRB of its decision-making power. He’s said the board’s unilateral decision-making ability has been ultimately hurting city residents.
However, the draft changes have settled on creating an appeals process for DRB determinations of historic significance.
Safford’s focus is primarily on eliminating what he calls confusion for homeowners within the city's architectural district. He said current rules have blindsided many residents when the DRB has determined their home to be historic.
"The main concern that I have is to make sure that the [DRB] and the [Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation] understand that there is a distinct difference between the architectural district and the historic district in terms of what they can apply for the average person," said Safford.
The Saratoga Preservation Foundation is one of a few organizations that have come out in opposition to the proposed UDO changes.
Safford has said the group has far too much influence over the DRB.
The foundation’s Executive Director Samantha Bosshart rejects the idea that her organization has such power over the DRB.
"We often comment on projects that go before the [DRB] and provide advisory opinions or comments that are based on the guidelines and standards that the city uses and best preservation practices," Bosshart said. "We often share context of when a building is built, when additions were made and we provide knowledge and expertise. Now, whether those board members chose to listen or agree with us is nothing I can control."
In its current iteration, changes to the nearly 300-page UDO would change the demolition process in the city’s architectural district.
As it stands, the UDO grants the DRB the power to determine whether or not a building in the architectural review district has architectural or historic significance. If it does, then they raise the standards required to get demolition approval.
Safford is considering transferring some of that power to the city council.
Bosshart warns against that change as well because she said the city’s architectural district is primarily in the gateways to the city and too many demolitions made piecemeal could fundamentally alter the city’s character.
"Current case law allows for a review board to review demolition," Bosshart said. "Our ordinance has worked well for decades and we agree that the city council should designate historic buildings and landmarks and districts, however it shouldn't be done in reaction to a demolition application. The state historic preservation office has recommended a building survey, we would encourage a building survey."
