[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",6482035,"mediaKeyId","5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149","parentId",5545844,"title","DRB finds SB Manufacturing’s 233 Ballston Ave building historically significant; demolition review next step","audioSeconds",1094,"startMs",6284000,"endMs",7378000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149&start=6284&end=7378","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149/thumbnail_6284000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6482035/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/DRB-finds-SB-Manufacturings-233-Ballston-Ave-building-historically-significant-demolition-review-next-step","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482035-c2f8703fb18c99fde6375095c8e3c575/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416275&Signature=XG9whtMLpEF0CkzXm8wZTbD7OJRjHF7g3gA4K5BwX6dBzr2fI0ymNZ7cKI92YW7oViduksWQYs72EiXVdPRsrnDHL9B-Zh~DU1qML6tNknRmyUdU3hixujZoCXYXVC8qg94mIur4NPifB96m-wgZ4Gv~C8lYxDo4edcnreIeV-E5wkDxHNgtH~-IsvHo0uC6aERB0XUpeRNhE58LeCwY6DQ3tleKZb9iTbzOISXyRRXjSiKlv3R0BLZ9MalvOT4xpnYr~oLK8jdEBJZZiA0ZUdtgvYfO5LAMTyPDYiUl0f0bTDYR5KDsZ8Qi6ssVIeXjM9-~aVAN~giDh-e7gw2LmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-08-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Development Review Board voted 4–1 on Aug. 6 that the structure known as the plating (pattern‑storage) building at 233 Ballston Ave, owned by SB Manufacturing, has historic and/or architectural significance.

Applicant James Davis told the board the building has not been used for plating in about 15 years and has most recently been used for cold storage. The applicant said the building “has served its life and is starting to degrade” and proposed demolishing the structure and converting the footprint to green space. Several board members and the Preservation Foundation (letter received the day of the meeting) noted that the building dates from the late 19th century, is one of a small number of mill/industrial-era structures remaining in the city, and contains distinctive masonry and a historic truss form internally.

After hearing about the building’s age, historical industrial use (pattern storage, casting and components for earlier manufacturing), and the applicant’s statement that parts of the interior were cleaned of plating debris and are now used for transformer and power-supply manufacture, the DRB concluded the building contributes to Saratoga Springs’ historic fabric. The board’s determination triggers the DRB’s demolition-review procedure: if the owner seeks a demolition permit, the applicant must demonstrate that the structure cannot be adapted for a reasonable return, document good‑faith efforts to find a purchaser, address relocation as an alternative where feasible, and provide acceptable post-demolition plans. The board staff explained that SECRA (City staff so referenced) and related environmental review must be completed prior to approving any demolition permit.

Board members emphasized that deterioration is largely due to water and paving adjacent to the exterior walls, and that some damage could be addressed by changing drainage and repaving; others pointed to the building’s notable brickwork and internal truss as reasons to consider adaptive reuse. Several board members said preservation precedent exists locally, citing similar industrial structures that have been retained and repurposed.

The board approved the significance finding 4–1 (vote tally recorded by chair), with staff to advise the applicant on required documentation for any subsequent demolition application. The applicant was told how to proceed with the five-step demolition justification packet (efforts to find alternatives/purchasers, cost/repair analyses, inability to adapt to permitted uses yielding a reasonable return, and proposed post-demolition plan) and that demolition cannot proceed until required environmental and code reviews are complete.

Public comment included observations about how runoff and roof drainage have accelerated exterior brick deterioration and a suggestion that repaving and drainage correction would reduce masonry failure. The applicant acknowledged these site conditions and said the paving and adjacent roof runoff will be considered as part of further project planning.

Next steps: DRB staff will send the applicant guidance on the demolition-review submittal requirements and the Preservation Foundation letter; if the applicant pursues demolition, submission of the five-step justification and SECRA/SEQR documentation will be required before the DRB will consider demolition approval.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Saratoga Springs DRB determined that the former plating/pattern-storage building at 233 Ballston Ave has architectural or historic significance. The board voted 4–1 and instructed the applicant on the next steps required for any demolition request, including SECRA/SEQR review and evidence of alternatives.","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},6482040,"DRB approves motel mini‑splits; proposed Victorian building units approved pending license and building-department sign-off",1344,4890000,6234000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149&start=4890&end=6234","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149/thumbnail_4890000.jpg","/articles/6482040/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/DRB-approves-motel-minisplits-proposed-Victorian-building-units-approved-pending-license-and-building-department-sign-off","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482040-c1a60575e8049973e9a36bdb2c6ed159/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416275&Signature=BV0BD485AFaEA~8ks7nngZBZTTjzVErCjcUYH-1GJy5G5Zio8fyZV65rtj34RkZr5-KRbL4w7KjXxUJ3hoOrehf20f6VQ-4L~msM0dv0P-V70Sk855zpY5vcDuTfUhWAXBJQwUw-OtOVxrGjYKI5CMjykIImiTBiOMZXSkCvYyZxuROLW6MQSIrpw1YA-wmfR7Uscpu4pevtrOs9~7SWGjXu~4E3RBPjPziTpVnX0fju60kX9FJLadqB1AGQUO3YxHImR3wqa5sq4LtvIylAx5pIFAaAnC0zI8nJGyjVns2sbllIeCMQxn6IvCPiEMorty1S7DZ9qaiziIdAuG-7Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Development Review Board on Aug. 6 approved the exterior HVAC mini‑split units already installed on the motel at 198 South Broadway and conditionally approved a proposed installation of additional mini‑split condensers on a nearby Victorian building, contingent on a signed license agreement (or equivalent easement) with the adjacent property owner and a building-department sign‑off.

Applicant (owner) Chindamo (spelled in the record) presented documentation and a draft license agreement dated July 16 that would authorize hotel equipment and improvements within a courtyard that technically sits on the neighboring parcel. City staff reviewed the draft agreement and said the document appears to be an appropriate form of license to allow the equipment to be maintained on the adjacent parcel, but the building department asked that the license be explicit about the new equipment to be installed and include a marked schedule showing exact locations and items.

The board’s approval included explicit conditions: (1) the license/easement authorizing the proposed units on the Victorian building must be finalized and acceptable to the city; (2) conduit and any vertical runs for the condensers must be routed inside the building rather than exposed on the exterior; and (3) exterior units should be painted to match the building where appropriate. Board members noted that the courtyard location is not publicly visible and that, as proposed, the motel units already installed are preferable to exterior conduit runs.

Board members and city counsel emphasized that the DRB’s approval does not supersede New York State building or fire-code requirements; the applicant must obtain required building permits and the license or easement must be finalized before building-department permits can issue. The building department also requested an addendum or schedule to the license agreement listing the proposed new equipment and precise locations rather than relying only on language about previously installed features.

The DRB chair made a motion to approve the Victorian-building installation pending building-department approval of an appropriate license/easement, and the board recorded that the motel-mounted units already installed were approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously on the record; the board added a condition that all conduit be run on the interior of the building. The DRB chair said administrative staff could finalize details and that the approved items could be moved to a future consent or administrative approval once the legal documentation is complete.

Public comment: none specific to the motel mini‑splits at the time of the motion. The board asked the applicant to provide the finalized legal document to staff; staff said the draft will need a schedule describing which items are included so the building department can verify compliance.

Next steps: applicant to finalize and submit the license/easement addendum (with a labeled equipment schedule and locations) and then obtain building‑department permits confirming interior conduit runs and compliance with applicable codes.","The Development Review Board approved mini‑split units already installed on a motel at 198 South Broadway and conditionally approved proposed mini‑split installations on an adjacent Victorian building, subject to a license agreement with the neighboring property owner and building‑department approval that conduit be run inside the structure.",{"_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},6482043,"Saratoga DRB tables determination on historic status of 172 Caroline garage; reviews proposed house design",435,136000,571000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149&start=136&end=571","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545844-40d8e8120a50e97168e3772d9e6aa149/thumbnail_136000.jpg","/articles/6482043/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Saratoga-DRB-tables-determination-on-historic-status-of-172-Caroline-garage-reviews-proposed-house-design","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482043-18be58ef8ebadc344954dba1a0143c15/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416275&Signature=GSeTtm-KED4qLXs5DphevEpk3D2LBmX3bwyufRRl6qELP~8QoGgnJ4mJBi-78-8QgijYwV9TyFKf3owkYt1wEqTiTN-9ObExNn8mqTPc5FTzeKn6H3dCKiOuyAj4k7EFDrESW3Q0ewXw6u3WqFSJx09WhCt~QKzJp2KBSkGKmB9JVtjNnRYfA39TnoLVdwiK-ax7nKYSFMXsw0AvN7aSsSRrxfuEVTYj~rRNT55x6G1oqUM0DFpDhMsrkb~GjsaqW2sPyIi3gdNHH28ejMpRoByzJnJodxUu356Y5K-x6avuxlKf7UDytXEu7FoHic5M7sS-UjitOFldyRdaJfEoyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Development Review Board on Aug. 6 tabled a determination on whether a detached garage at 172 Caroline St., Lot 2, is historically or architecturally significant and discussed, at length, the applicant’s proposed single-family house and detached two-car garage.

The question of significance will return to the DRB’s Sept. 10 agenda after members asked for a site visit and additional time to review documentary evidence. Board Chair (staff) Susan and multiple board members said the application lacked a clear conclusion about whether the garage contributes to the National Register district and that a site visit would help clarify the structure’s relationship to 172 Caroline and to the streetscape.

The applicant, Charles Pritchard (owner/representative), and project representative Bob Flansberg of Dreamscapes presented the existing garage and the proposed house design. Pritchard said the subdivision approval required “the removal of the apartment from the existing garage,” and that the garage footprint currently encroaches over an adjacent property line; he also described structural and asbestos concerns inside the garage. Flansberg summarized the building’s altered condition, noting multiple additions and his view that the structure “no longer contributes to the neighborhood.” Preservation consultant comments circulated to the board said the garage may represent a kit-house-era form; one board member noted the garage was not specifically itemized as noncontributing in the National Register nomination and therefore could be considered part of the contributing property at 172 Caroline.

Board members disagreed about whether the garage retains significance after the property subdivision separated it from the main house. Board member Rob DeVaugh and others noted the garage’s visual separation from the corner house and substantial later additions; board member Jeff (last name not specified in public record) argued the building is salvageable and said he would vote against demolition because the style is “a rare Cape Ann style and it needs to be preserved.” Several members urged removal of nonhistoric additions if preservation were pursued. The DRB said members were split: some found architectural features consistent with early 20th-century kit-house styles, while others concluded the alterations and separation from the main house weaken a preservation case.

Because the DRB did not reach consensus, the board unanimously agreed to postpone a formal determination of significance to allow: (1) a site visit by board members, (2) additional review of submitted materials (including a late-arriving letter from the Preservation Foundation), and (3) possible clarifying documentation from the applicant. The board noted that if the garage is later found to be historically significant, demolition review will require a five-part justification showing alternatives, efforts to find a purchaser, inability to adapt the structure to a reasonable return, documented cost/repair analysis, and acceptable post-demolition plans.

Separately, the board provided substantial feedback on the proposed new house for Lot 2. Project architect/designer described changes since initial submission: 10-foot first-floor ceilings to increase verticality, revised porch proportions with standing-seam porch roof, LP SmartSide siding, aluminum-clad Anderson E-series windows with simulated divided lights, enlarged gable window and added aprons above second-floor windows, and a detached angled garage. Board members requested material samples (clapboard vs. SmartSide, and trim), clarified expectations for true exterior sills and trim profiles, asked for refined fenestration on east/west elevations, suggested adding shingle texture to the front gable as a compatible detail, and recommended the applicant consider a double front door rather than sidelights to better match the selected stylistic emphasis. The applicant indicated the house would be roughly 3,300 square feet and about 36 feet 10 inches tall.

The board directed the applicant to: bring material samples and revised drawings to the DRB’s next meeting, coordinate a mutually convenient site-visit time (the board discussed meeting on Sept. 3 workshop day to walk the site), and return with any documentation needed to complete a significance determination for the garage. No demolition or construction permit approvals were issued at the Aug. 6 meeting.

Members of the public who spoke during the hearing generally supported a compatible new house design while expressing concern about parking pressures in the alley and the loss of the garage’s historic fabric if demolished. Several neighbors emphasized the tight parking on Talford Place and Telford Place and noted the corner properties’ visual relationship to the garage.

Next steps: the DRB will revisit the garage significance determination at its Sept. 10 meeting after a site visit; the applicant will supply material samples and revised elevations in advance.","The Saratoga Springs Development Review Board deferred a decision on whether a detached garage at 172 Caroline St. is historically significant and discussed proposed new house plans for a subdivided lot. The board requested a site visit and will revisit the significance determination on Sept. 10.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

DRB finds SB Manufacturing’s 233 Ballston Ave building historically significant; demolition review next step

DRB approves motel mini‑splits; proposed Victorian building units approved pending license and building-department sign-off

Saratoga DRB tables determination on historic status of 172 Caroline garage; reviews proposed house design