[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6560716,"mediaKeyId","3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491","parentId",3310304,"title","Design Review Board approves several facade and signage plans; defers Beagle School window decision","audioSeconds",2214,"startMs",1785000,"endMs",3999000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491&start=1785&end=3999","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491/thumbnail_1785000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6560716/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-several-facade-and-signage-plans-defers-Beagle-School-window-decision","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560716-1efc0d83457893684f2170d8b3691e3f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771212219&Signature=A~RqEiUrK0s9SzwcDf8HTCezEzXtPCEa7ut2ORlxobfHsTc1Mkkw4uFmmqqixIcEINCZRy82rOZUBBGqB1Tja5nzYswc-V0xWINaYk8HhiN4cFraSBLO7pp9Y3ACtGxzII2yez2XK8JsCk4jw6m0PJQqlxl2dE6EvScZR1DCk9UjyIrho7mM7g~bsCj7GPLVk5KNnT0viQEYVQ8B84KWT~uA-hK-uCHLaH6SC-lodwFhM4l1X8WhupNIvXLr4nQ~KsRUx22Zm-G8voinDMWna6s8Y6Z~H1hpn3N~lRfkg43ckjx5izTPjbhLIloXJE7qQZObsQICetHloSLeUzQ0~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-05-14T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board met May 14 and approved several routine and substantive agenda items while deferring or tabling two matters for further review.

The board approved the April 30 meeting minutes. On the consent agenda the board approved a signage application for 9 Hampstead / 60 Weibel Avenue (Springs Family Veterinarian Hospital).

On the regular agenda the board approved exterior alterations and a backlit, raised aluminum sign for Clancy's Tavern at 43 Caroline Street. The board also approved finishing details to a previously conditionally approved one-story side addition at 153 Van Dam Street with specific conditions (see below).

The board approved the project for 115 Regent Street (the Beagle School) in all respects except it postponed a final decision on all Second Floor windows so the applicant can return with additional information and options. The discussion focused on safety requirements for pre-K classrooms and whether historic wood windows can be altered or retrofitted to meet New York State Department of Education and building-code guidance on tempered glass, sash-limiters and emergency egress.

The application for driveway work at 115 Circular Street (Trimarche/115 Circular) was discussed at length after a state court (Judge Walsh) vacated the board’s earlier approval and remanded the matter to the board to explain two points: why color photographs were not required and whether permeability was within the board’s authority at the time of the original action. The board decided to table further action and said members would review the record and return with a focused written determination addressing the court’s two questions.

Votes and motions (as recorded in the public transcript):
- Approval of April 30 meeting minutes — motion made and seconded; minutes passed. (mover: unnamed in transcript; second: Mr. Wood.)
- Consent item: 9 Hampstead / 60 Weibel Avenue (Springs Family Veterinarian Hospital) — signage approved. (mover: Chair; second: Mr. DeBoeuf.)
- 43 Caroline Street, Clancy’s Tavern — approval of exterior modifications and signage as submitted. (motion seconded; outcome: approved.)
- 153 Van Dam Street — approved finishing details to a previously conditionally approved one-story side addition with the conditions that aluminum-clad wood windows be used and that a louvered vent be added on the east elevation addition; LP (composite) siding to be smooth per application. (mover: Mr. Duboff; second: Mr. Wood; outcome: approved with stated conditions.)
- 115 Regent Street (Beagle School) — board approved the application as submitted except that all Second Floor windows were excluded from the approval pending further study and a return to the board to resolve safety and preservation questions. (mover: Mr. Wood; second: Mr. Bennett; outcome: approved with exception.)
- 115 Circular Street (Trimarche driveway) — matter tabled; board to review the court decision, the record and whether additional information (property-line survey, prior photographs) is required before issuing a written determination addressing the two issues identified by the court (color photographs; permeability authority). (no formal final outcome reached; staff to assist.)

Staff and board members asked applicants to provide clarifying materials where relevant (window specifications and hardware for the Beagle School; property survey and any pre‑work photos for the driveway matter). The board said it will prepare written language addressing the court’s remand and expects applicants to return with requested follow-up materials when available.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission - May 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board met May 14 and approved multiple façade and signage applications while deferring the final decision on Second Floor windows for the Beagle School and tabling a driveway matter remanded by a state court.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6560707,"State court remand sends 115 Circular Street driveway back to Design Review Board; neighbors raise permeability and drainage concerns",2715,4061000,6776000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491&start=4061&end=6776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491/thumbnail_4061000.jpg","/articles/6560707/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/State-court-remand-sends-115-Circular-Street-driveway-back-to-Design-Review-Board-neighbors-raise-permeability-and-drainage-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560707-7acceb3e0518fb72173e2f72f14f1002/orig.mp4?Expires=1771212219&Signature=IQykY7g2ihm0dQjpPg-wDuU66JLEBT5RMmI8S68EZoO44eDj-GsfQzPa2foa0K8bh-ZlMHEAONeLZexCx6yT7IwJnWjoAw6Y9cV8I3ZMyMXQmHlgF8Hhv170OuDomVVfblTHEfw5Js-eSZuRXFeAj9GjOS89w0ZiGr9EbG5jRtCuCmj2sWKwqctkVTW~TFvW5SK-HNfqszdYemjK23Qj9k0DpJOmikuU0S2DazXpK1dT4tvO87R0GsYG9fJEWaWJ0Nf-VF71uwO5SPOTPY~-Fb163~XlXRG60CDnz-s63MGiDpedkZYV7znkp6CbRJcYBK3nR16ZUWec9D3WGCd-oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A state-court decision has sent the design-review approval for driveway work at 115 Circular Street back to the Saratoga Springs Design Review Board for further action. At the May 14 meeting the board reviewed the judge’s order, heard public comment from an adjacent neighbor and decided to table the matter while members re-examine the record and prepare a written finding addressing the court’s two questions.

Judge Walsh’s order (quoted aloud to the board at the meeting) found the board’s earlier approval “arbitrary and capricious” because the application record submitted to the board did not include required color photographs showing the full area in question and did not show the shared nature of the driveway. The judge also noted questions in the record about permeability and whether the board had considered or waived applicable permeability limits when it issued the earlier approval; he remitted the matter to the board “for further action consistent with this decision and order.”

Owner/applicant representation said color photographs and a licensed survey documenting perimeter and permeability have since been submitted to the city. A neighbor, David Appel, urged the board to look more closely at permeability, drainage and the configuration of the two adjacent driveways, saying the paved surface has altered drainage, led to standing water on his property and that the survey submitted after the original approval contains mathematical errors. The applicant said a licensed survey is on file with the city showing compliance at the time of the application and noted that the city’s permeability standard has since changed.

Board members confirmed they would not introduce new evidence at the remand stage but must explain whether they considered color photographs and whether permeability fell within the board’s authority at the time of the original action. Several board members said they would review the record, refresh their recollections (many current members also served in 2021) and be prepared to make a written statement explaining their reasoning and whether they would have waived any requirements at the time. The board asked staff to assemble the original application materials, pre- and post-work photos if available, and the survey documents for review.

The board did not issue a new approval. Instead it tabled the item pending members’ review of the record and the preparation of language responding to the court. Board counsel offered to provide advice to members on the record and on drafting an appropriate written response; staff said it will prepare the prior application file and any supplemental materials for the board’s review.

Quotes:
\"Accordingly, as it is evident that the DRC did not follow its own regulations ... the decision to approve based on this application was arbitrary and capricious.\" — Judge Walsh (quoted to the board during the meeting).

\"Permeability is not in our wheelhouse. We merely look at the material and determine whether or not it's appropriate to the context of the neighborhood.\" — Tammy Inger, Chair, Design Review Board.

Next steps: The board requested staff assemble prior application materials (including pre-work photographs and surveys) and asked members to review the record so the board can prepare a focused written decision addressing the court’s two questions. The board expects to revisit the item after that work is completed.","A judge vacated the board’s earlier approval for driveway paving at 115 Circular Street and remanded the matter for the board to explain why color photographs were not required and whether permeability fell within its authority; the board tabled the item and asked members to review the record.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":44,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":50,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6560711,"Design Review Board defers final decision on Second Floor windows at Beagle School amid safety vs. preservation concerns",2197,3982000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3310304-afdbf2cf02821bd8e5eba6201ec16491&start=1785&end=3982","/articles/6560711/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-defers-final-decision-on-Second-Floor-windows-at-Beagle-School-amid-safety-vs-preservation-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560711-54f6d62f71863242d7ad10f5565ae69a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771212219&Signature=ZFw2C2lxAZG3sKM4VWjUPvMfiElV5BMii1F4XbZ4hwBELwno~7mEktrwRxaWNG1fXIBU0LBOf9J8r-~1sOu09HgbL74fDl1YuwSReHUhZe~jxtRdDCChUbr-L6adoIbwwFWkYwcqqADOc~qVN0ztrnmtbBdTq53RnXSAgBfTIjxVZ4KlVaKQBPzKytSRl01H2zeACWEMoTyYq49hpvd7vrOBmhujhcHKugLoKHHlHXGM1RY8-ROQBqlHvyRytEk3QVnHXRi78wYDmoyk8AGksXhWNX5avSNyGlw9RrvpO~Lod59zsq-SaqJrCtRz8ZjYOpVzJZELIrwpAch2HH~TNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board approved most elements of the renovation at 115 Regent Street — including siding strategy, roof materials and a general approach to window restoration and selective replacement — but halted a final decision on all Second Floor windows after a sustained discussion about child-safety rules and the practicalities of restoring historic wood windows.

Brett Balzer of Balzer & Tuck Architecture presented the updated plans, saying the project will retain original wood siding on the Regent Street frontage and use wood siding where feasible, with wood siding retained or replaced by new wood elsewhere rather than fiber-cement. The application distinguishes the historic front volume (to keep or restore wood elements) from new additions where composite materials will be used. Balzer showed areas proposed for restoration and the locations where new, aluminum-clad wood windows would replace non-historic units.

School board members and the school’s executive director raised concerns about safety standards that apply to voluntary registered nursery schools and kindergartens (VRNS). Matt Neringer, a Beagle School board member, and Garrett Gray, president of the school board, told the board parents and the school’s directors are concerned that restored historic windows might not be able to meet New York State Department of Education guidance and building-code requirements for tempered glass, sash-limiter devices and emergency egress for preschool classrooms. Balzer and the project team said they had consulted a historic-window restorer and a contractor; they also said the contractor and preservation specialists raised questions about whether sash-limiters or other limiter hardware could be retrofitted to older double-hung and casement units and whether tempered glass could be used without causing balance/weight or sash-fit problems.

Board members asked technical questions about whether tempered-glass panes of the required safety rating could be fitted into existing muntins and sashes, how changes to glass weight would affect counterweights in historic double-hung windows, whether sash-limiter devices (which can limit openings to 4 inches and have an override for emergency egress) can be retrofitted to the specific window types on site, and how storm windows affect egress and emergency-release rules. Members also noted that some sill heights on the Second Floor exceed 36 inches but said the Department of Education guidance treats operability and safe egress as a broad requirement for Second Floor classroom windows.

After discussion the board approved the overall project but excluded all Second Floor windows from the approval and asked the applicant to return with specific retrofit or replacement options. The applicant was asked to: provide product spec sheets for proposed aluminum-clad wood windows; investigate sash-limiter devices and their retrofit feasibility for both double-hung and in-swing casement windows; consider tempered-glass test panes (one pane reglazed as a sample) to demonstrate fit and operation; and confirm whether storms must be removed to meet egress requirements. The board indicated it would be open to solutions that retain historic character where possible (for example, preserving muntins and sash profiles while changing glazing) but stressed that it would not shortcut safety considerations.

Motion and next steps: Mr. Wood moved to approve the project as submitted while excluding Second Floor windows; Mr. Bennett seconded the motion. The board approved the motion and asked the applicant to return with the requested technical information and, if feasible, a single test pane swap so members could observe the practical result before a final decision on the windows.

Quotes:
\"If there's any doubt that a newer window is safer than an older window, then why is this even a conversation with children ages 2 to 5?\" — Matt Neringer, board member, Beagle School.

\"We're happy to work with you on that, but we are not going to rush this through. This is actually a big deal.\" — Tammy Inger, Chair, Design Review Board.

Context: The debate reflects a recurring tension in local preservation reviews: maintaining historic exterior character versus meeting modern occupant-safety requirements. The board said it will weigh preservation values alongside building-code and state education standards and expects the applicant to provide concrete test data or demonstrable retrofit paths before it approves the Second Floor windows.","The board approved most work proposed for the Beagle School at 115 Regent Street but excluded all Second Floor windows from the approval so the applicant can return with technical options to meet state safety guidance while preserving historic character where possible.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board approves several facade and signage plans; defers Beagle School window decision

State court remand sends 115 Circular Street driveway back to Design Review Board; neighbors raise permeability and drainage concerns

Design Review Board defers final decision on Second Floor windows at Beagle School amid safety vs. preservation concerns