Saratoga Design Review Board pushes back on UDO demolition changes, urges clearer appeals process

The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board spent the bulk of its July 8 meeting scrutinizing proposed amendments to the city's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), pressing the mayor's office for clearer demolition protections and a more transparent appeals path.

Board Chair (identified on the record as the meeting chair) told members the latest draft addressed two of the DRB's three core concerns by requiring a positive advisory opinion from the DRB before the Planning Board may grant a height bonus within historic districts and by routing economic‑hardship appeals first back to the DRB. "Those are very good things," the chair said, but added the demolition provisions for the Architectural Review District still "need work." The chair suggested that buildings already on—or eligible for—the National Register should automatically trigger the stricter historic‑district demolition review rather than rely on landmarking or ad‑hoc spot zoning.

Applicants, board members and members of the public tested multiple ways to preserve at‑risk structures without imposing an infeasible landmarking burden. Board member Rob DeBauf recommended a practical rule: if a building is a contributing resource on the National Register or eligible for listing, it should be treated as if it were in the Historic Review District for demolition review. "That would be helpful," the chair acknowledged, calling it one of several options the board would refine before issuing its advisory opinion.

Public commenters echoed preservation concerns. Robin Baxter said she feared the changes could erode Saratoga's character and tourism value if demolition rules were loosened. "I've seen these small losses eat away at a city's charm," Baxter said. Chris Armour, president of the Preservation Foundation, also asked the board to press for language aligned with SHPO (the State Historic Preservation Office) and to resist shifting final authority to a less‑qualified body. Several speakers urged the DRB to request that any public hearing on the UDO be scheduled after the summer and not combined with a final vote so the public has time to weigh in.

Board members identified several drafting flaws: inconsistent terminology, unclear appeal steps (the current text reads ambiguously about whether an "aggrieved person" may appeal an approval or whether only applicants may appeal a denial), and removal of a prior requirement to show attempts to market a property before demolition. The DRB asked staff to prepare a detailed advisory opinion listing specific edits, recommended procedural language, and suggested a mapping approach that would use National Register boundaries as an additional filter for demolition review.

The board did not take a vote on the UDO changes; the discussion will be summarized in a formal advisory opinion to the mayor's office and presented at the DRB workshop ahead of the July 22 advisory deadline. The chair said the board intends to be specific and practical in its recommendations rather than issue a short, general statement.