[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6553128,"mediaKeyId","5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1","parentId",5075257,"title","Votes at a glance: Saratoga Springs Design Review Board, June 26, 2025","audioSeconds",3373,"startMs",107000,"endMs",3480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1&start=107&end=3480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1/thumbnail_107000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6553128/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-Saratoga-Springs-Design-Review-Board-June-26-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553128-54a90acacfe5150a8ed0579d356bd403/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442852&Signature=j4YDzONim6sv8muEewHSX3S6F5PpkxYoVnb6gF9i9p-J6bcXPjAN71MC-FIYfIM2VIwJpiVsB8A8IOb~o-YRQtkKX1fU1W36wUe9rIMgb1Pps8M8Q~EtYRR6d05O8iEwCOHJ2k7tSQyYTMUAWedZvGTuSTZxm3tGF-jxFmDfD6JNvxqjTCzvzte~q8e4p1GvXGu0UbFJJGYVqxPfOvN7lMRzVOyzjta9bJPGLSjXil2L6E8Td~W0GJoTRU-UKqr3rrRkWZDrsucXLUdFS68wNfEsnCENPSZlccmMIugsngPvRAPzzQU1B2oWK3HQF7e3ZmCv7HDr37yicytwSuanNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-06-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Design Review Board took the following formal actions at its June 26, 2025 meeting (votes recorded on the meeting record; individual roll‑call tallies were not read into the audio for every motion):

- Consent agenda (approved):
- 48 Wright Street — Verizon utility pole (addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to replacement utility pole in public right of way).
- 20 Vanderbilt Avenue — Verizon utility pole (small cell antenna on replacement utility pole in ROW).
- 110 Lincoln Avenue — Verizon utility pole (small cell antenna on replacement utility pole in ROW).
- 110 Excelsior Avenue — wall‑mounted signage within the NC District.

- Historic significance determinations and project approvals:
- 624 North Broadway (Unitarian Universalist building): DRB determined the structure does not have architectural or historic significance (non‑contributing). This determination does not itself authorize demolition or redevelopment.
- 19 George Street: DRB approved the revised one‑and‑a‑half‑car garage and new driveway as submitted; approval included findings that the revised siting better protects a rear tree and is compatible with the neighborhood.
- 65 Fila Street: DRB gave a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the proposed area variance for a second‑floor bedroom addition and detached garage; the opinion focuses on mass, scale, height and neighborhood compatibility and is advisory — the ZBA will decide variances.
- 151 Van Damme Street: DRB determined the existing accessory garage is not architecturally or historically significant and approved demolition of that structure; the applicant proposes a new two‑car garage with a second‑floor home gym and a small powder room and will need ZBA variances for lot coverage and the accessory plumbing fixture.

Notes: Where the minutes or audio did not include a full roll‑call vote with names for each motion, the board’s record indicates motions passed or failed; where the DRB’s action was an advisory opinion, the final legal decision resides with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Several items under discussion referenced State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) correspondence or neighborhood letters; the DRB noted some referenced letters were not uploaded to the project portal at the time of the meeting.

Ending: Items that require zoning variances (65 Fila Street, 151 Van Damme Street) will return to the DRB for further review if and when the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the requested relief.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission - Jun 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken by the Design Review Board at its June 26 meeting, including consent approvals and the board's determinations on historical significance and advisory opinions to the ZBA.","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},6553133,"Design Review Board finds 624 North Broadway (Unitarian building) not architecturally or historically significant",346,214000,560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1&start=214&end=560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1/thumbnail_214000.jpg","/articles/6553133/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-finds-624-North-Broadway-Unitarian-building-not-architecturally-or-historically-significant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553133-e7398fba3b6f915dcc12d412de567b20/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442852&Signature=AFAhUDcGejGEjuGW-crOj5b337sOJq0CK9pQgPUeDrcrne2w1XpmGKBY6TdfSp4mRT20y18TkAIL2ciM-A~Fkig7YxEiMAvtCM~RHLNuHFLdwBhxAD1PVHWIRk6TxWiXSzHc2hfUoImbfkgmn6zYMQOtM9809hBWNcPbMw-v2jcZD~Ow1jw51rVrkF4J15dVBnDE3S7qafayyYSIXy44M6BodMihCaZcasGic~tgr-6rdXzaApwWpRHfKQCFy7FSNYBVaqxSEZJZZL0-EKs1CxMIKU7pdgrbT3UjH57sNyema5uw67mJpd5eE3DQ3D8Ftu8WIdKtWaZEN06qFG0EBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on June 26 determined that the one‑story building at 624 North Broadway, formerly occupied by the Unitarian congregation, does not possess architectural or historic significance and is non‑contributing to the Broadway Historic District.

George Olsen of Olsen Associates Architects and applicant representatives cited a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) letter finding the building not eligible for state or national registers and not a contributing resource in the historic district. Samantha Bosshardt of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation confirmed in public comment that the structure is a mid‑century building and “not a particularly fine example or a unique example,” though she noted the foundation differentiates this case from other nearby buildings they would treat differently.

Board members discussed that the DRB’s current role was to determine significance only; any future demolition or redevelopment would be a separate matter requiring subsequent review and permits. After discussion the DRB voted that the structure does not contribute to the historic fabric of the city.

Ending: The applicant may pursue demolition and redevelopment steps in later hearings; the board’s finding relates solely to historic and architectural significance, not to any demolition permit or design approval.","The board determined the mid‑century Unitarian building at 624 North Broadway is non‑contributing to the Broadway Historic District after reviewing SHPO correspondence and a Preservation Foundation comment; the determination clears the way for the applicant to pursue demolition later in the process.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553137,"Design Review Board approves revised 1.5‑car garage at 19 George Street, citing tree protection compromise",533,629000,1162000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1&start=629&end=1162","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1/thumbnail_629000.jpg","/articles/6553137/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-revised-15car-garage-at-19-George-Street-citing-tree-protection-compromise","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553137-f4a41313b5db7f54c8474df467f81257/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442852&Signature=BhRBK70FXJQgBXM3lBI3fLJj2MR-MZzNSGCfhUeqFiYfs1LCJCgM1o6akf2oDQht3cEyy1VKXggaJ0lph0bBjy~qUxOwsEzu36At8olUVC0e6MNSsqoszPZ3DrE2PkgMpDc2ebhMws3LzQDip6dacVmPWk~Ts7qchCPoetVKglStyTxjKPAIZrDAyPtsjAJXJjsh53x7PG38FHJ1gqzepeiMTNZNp-kzQ2bBHgMSP9TnRwgDK5DEOH6zoQSZp2NVRKbVRpUB0M3TYQtY56Fdcwj1nM94Th7Ot3SMEVU~lGFrN9kWlbZqj82JbRfIYNbnRkNhs1uij5Y7yq1vN-azZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board approved a revised application for a one‑and‑a‑half‑car garage at 19 George Street on June 26, concluding the applicant’s adjustments reasonably addressed the board’s earlier concerns about siting and tree preservation.

Tonya Yasenchak of Y Engineering told the board the revised design reduces the garage footprint and pushes the structure further north than originally proposed, a change intended to preserve a sugar maple in the rear yard. She said the modified plan reduces excavation near tree roots by using a slab foundation and a smaller second‑story storage area.

Board members praised the applicant’s responsiveness. One member said, “Nobody wants to suggest that historic trees should be cut down to build a garage. And I think that this this is a pretty workable solution.” Several members said the proportions and materials proposed — standing‑seam metal roof, wood siding, wood windows and a barn‑style side door — were compatible with the neighborhood and with the historic district’s guidelines.

Samantha Bosshardt of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation had previously submitted a letter noting the building is “non‑contributing” to the Broadway Historic District but praising other buildings the foundation felt more worthy of preservation; she told the board the foundation differentiated the current structure from more significant examples on North Broadway.

The board approved the application as submitted and the motion passed. The applicant will proceed to finalize construction documents and follow standard permit steps; any required building permits and tree‑protection measures must meet city requirements.

Ending: The board’s approval is for the DRB‑level architectural review as presented; any changes in siting or materials will require board review or administrative approval per city rules.","After feedback at a previous meeting, the applicant revised the design for a one‑and‑a‑half‑car garage at 19 George Street and the board approved the project; applicant moved the building back to try to preserve a sugar maple in the rear yard.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553140,"Design Review Board approves demolition at 151 Van Damme; owner seeks lot‑coverage and plumbing variances for new two‑car garage",1256,6001000,7257000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1&start=6001&end=7257","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1/thumbnail_6001000.jpg","/articles/6553140/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-demolition-at-151-Van-Damme-owner-seeks-lotcoverage-and-plumbing-variances-for-new-twocar-garage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553140-72e9819f2e9fdf17f705f04503446e3f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442852&Signature=boTVADh~QT8SMX~FucoQHLbsNJcqMZ~41cewxGKH1i~CB5QctQ6kt6ZsOjhtTV4TRU2UkIQRNf26S5mnLBGY27QIU3s9tUU2gSgBTSo9biVVCntkJ1HgWlU9LvZCwW1vjnjUF8A-8JDXQ8r~BTJgnjlJqmd5sK2EqFXwRKCTUILG6yzDI0ohyaQoz4Y3RoJB0KPHy-0VN2MuxxktEMtVt3-yV-kONMlHbv4eSiJlf49vmBlE~oGTzm9Ga2egknIkYoJ5oHEyQP-P8PsDVIPVRSfqJzNdV0xLf-uh1-cVm722~TVUGBoeewlRoQGQMaQLfjHhHIZ6N24~mcQogWD4pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board voted June 26 that the existing detached garage behind 151 Van Damme Street does not contribute to the historic fabric of the UR3 district and approved its demolition. The owner proposes to replace the structure with a new two‑car garage with a second‑floor home gym and a small powder room.

Shawn Corp of Reveal Architecture Design presented photos and a site plan showing the deteriorated existing garage, evidence of spalling concrete, warped framing and a damaged overhead door. Corp told the board the property has experienced sheet‑flow from adjacent higher ground and that the applicant had installed a French drain to reduce backyard ponding. He said the proposed replacement would raise the slab slightly, pitch the new driveway back to the alley, and include a small covered entry and a centered shed dormer on the garage roof.

Corp said the project seeks two zoning variances: one for lot coverage (the submission shows approximately 42% impervious or lot coverage where 40% is permitted) and one for a second‑floor powder room in an accessory structure (city rules restrict plumbing fixtures on upper floors of secondary structures). The design includes two garage doors on the alley, storage and a stair to the second floor; the applicant described the second floor as a home gym with a small powder room and minimal built‑in storage.

The DRB discussion focused on compatibility, visibility from the alley and the architectural character of the proposed building. Several members said the new building’s ridgeline and eaves would be lower than the main house and that the design read as subservient to the primary structure. The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation submitted comments suggesting the dormer and certain brackets pull toward a more craftsman expression than the main house; the Foundation described the rear elevation as having “a split personality.” The applicant noted the dormer and bracket choices were intended to provide daylight and to create visual interest on a rear elevation that faces the alley.

After deliberation the board approved the demolition of the existing garage and provided preliminary, favorable commentary on the proposed replacement design while reserving final review and any detailed conditions until after the Zoning Board of Appeals addresses the requested variances.

Ending: Because the variances are required before final construction approval, the proposal will return to the DRB for full design review and any conditions the board chooses to attach after the ZBA acts.","The Design Review Board found the existing rear garage at 151 Van Damme Street not historically significant and approved its demolition. The applicant proposes a new two‑car garage with a second‑floor home gym and a small powder room; the plan will require zoning relief for lot coverage and a second‑floor plumbing fixture.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":46,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6553146,"Design Review Board gives favorable advisory opinion on 65 Fila Street area-variance request amid tree and lot-coverage concerns",2209,1271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1&start=1271&end=3480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5075257-3744b7d4a56d35b2d7537a35e77860a1/thumbnail_1271000.jpg","/articles/6553146/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-gives-favorable-advisory-opinion-on-65-Fila-Street-area-variance-request-amid-tree-and-lot-coverage-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6553146-a74899642097913a3cfd1426ae9d3c5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442852&Signature=e67zRPZjl1PnTah3Dgm79w5Bx5QYc9HRO8uUMl6ROo~iPcje1bxgKm4EesZ8O28py35aA9MJotfp9XzwVDVUdD7tmJ2C2PEiYQTqOijQ8nauYxyTOrPVNGpe8ZVN~CfRZ4WLHhBpIZ02af-0pLZeedgHjGwF1bzYvk~MihKUq-iBmUV8B78OaHBbvOfhtgiuGXKqnWRQmxStAF1q5-I9AsE-mAhg77am~iPw0P6G3SJP7ldp7pt2mj9dN~wJJ9mNOqxNUQgvc8JSUX8YrC3pKe0-EeFE16BRoRkvPRxiHWNg8KHDsLrXidJvc9lYqAuJDI4BJNN1k9D0medXg3D~Nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on June 26 offered a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals on an application for an area variance at 65 Fila Street that would allow a second‑story bedroom addition to the main house and a detached two‑story garage with a small office above.

The board’s recommendation came after a lengthy public discussion about lot coverage, drainage, on‑site parking and the potential impact of construction on mature trees behind the property. The application asks for relief from the city’s lot‑coverage standard; the applicant’s presentation said the lot would exceed the 40% coverage limit, reaching about 42%.

The advisory opinion matters because the Zoning Board of Appeals must decide whether to grant the variance that would allow the applicant to build the proposed garage and second‑floor addition. The DRB’s role was limited to advising the ZBA about mass, scale, compatibility with neighboring properties and feasible alternatives for the addition.

Architect Matthew Herff of Frost Herff Architects described the project and the history of the property, saying the rear addition had always been part of a phased plan for the house and that the proposed location for the garage sits down a slope and “we've really maximized it. We've pushed as far back as it possibly can go.” He also told the board the applicant plans to raise the slab slightly to reduce stormwater intrusion and is exploring permeable driveway options.

Neighbors and members of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation spoke at length. Lesley Labon, who identified herself as a homeowner immediately behind the site, summarized her concern simply: “It's excessive lot coverage.” Andy Williams, another immediate neighbor, said he supported renovating the main house but opposed the proposed 24‑by‑24 two‑story garage, saying: “It's not 24 by 24 with a second story and an office.” Preservation Foundation representatives and nearby owners provided letters supporting the house’s rehabilitation and noting the dense historic pattern of rear‑lot development in the neighborhood.

Board members repeatedly returned to three themes: (1) whether the addition could be located over an existing east‑wing portion of the house (board members generally said no, that would harm historic fabric), (2) whether the detached garage’s mass and height were compatible with the downtown core (several members said it is, given the site’s slope and nearby examples), and (3) the tree and drainage impacts on adjoining property (neighbors said some important trees are on adjacent parcels and could be harmed by grading and a foundation placed close to the property line).

After discussion the DRB voted to forward a favorable advisory opinion to the ZBA on mass, scale, height and compatibility. The board emphasized the advisory nature of the opinion and noted that final approvals and any further architectural review would be contingent on whatever variances the ZBA ultimately grants; if the ZBA approves the variance, the project would return to the DRB for formal design review.

The ZBA will now consider the variance for lot coverage and the DRB’s advisory comments. If the ZBA grants relief, the applicant must still supply survey‑level siting information and detailed construction documentation to the DRB and, at that time, the board said it would expect to review any modified siting intended to protect adjacent trees or reduce lot coverage.

Votes at the meeting on 65 Fila Street were recorded as an advisory favorable opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals; the DRB’s motion language described attention to mass, scale, height and neighborhood character and noted the procedural correction that the form called the recipient the \"planning board\" but the correct recipient is the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ending: The ZBA’s decision on the requested variances will determine whether the project returns to the Design Review Board for final architectural review and detailed conditions.","Saratoga Springs Design Review Board voted to give a favorable advisory opinion to the Zoning Board of Appeals on a proposed second‑floor addition and two‑story garage at 65 Fila Street, after neighbors raised concerns about lot coverage, precedent and potential loss of mature trees.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Saratoga Springs Design Review Board, June 26, 2025

Design Review Board finds 624 North Broadway (Unitarian building) not architecturally or historically significant

Design Review Board approves revised 1.5‑car garage at 19 George Street, citing tree protection compromise

Design Review Board approves demolition at 151 Van Damme; owner seeks lot‑coverage and plumbing variances for new two‑car garage

Design Review Board gives favorable advisory opinion on 65 Fila Street area-variance request amid tree and lot-coverage concerns