Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tammy Ehinger, Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Leslie DiCarlo, Chris Bennett, Geoff Wood, Jeff Gritsavage, Karen Cavotta ABSENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair STAFF: Julia Destino, City Planner, Tony Izzo, City Counsel. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Tabled the minutes from October 15th and 29, 2025. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #202500868 48 Henry St. Historic Review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC/T-f) District. 2. #20251000 172 Caroline St. Historic Review of mechanical installation within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. 3. #20250934 167 Spring St. Historic Review of exterior modifications to an existing two-car garage within the Urban Residential - 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the Board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 48 Henry St. Historic Review of wall mounted signage, 172 Caroline St. Historic Review of mechanical installation, and 167 Spring St. Historic Review of exterior modifications, all within the City of Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 4. #20250525 202 Lake Ave. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to an existing front porch within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tonya Yasenshak, Y Engineering said they were in front of board a few months ago and have made revisions based on DRB comments. The applicant has an existing porch that’s in disrepair that they would like to refinish. They had wanted to remove the cheek walls, put stone on the columns, add another column where the ghost column is and use a standing seam metal roof. The DRB said they would prefer to see shingles on the roof because it would be more in fitting with the original house. They removed the extra post so there will be a ghost column, and they are keeping the cheek wall and proposing an iron pipe handrail. The owners would like to put stone on the columns. Tonya noted that there is a house on Lake Ave. near the Armory that has stone on the pilasters, and she also referenced a page from a book of plans showing a house almost identical to the applicants with stone or block work on the outside of the pilasters. It’s relevant and not out of character in the neighborhood. Tamie said the submission from the Preservation Foundation noted that the “Virginia” from the 1919 Alladin Ready Cut Houses catalog provided in the recent submission does not show stone facing for the column bases, it shows rusticated cast concrete block. Tonya noted that this is in an architectural district, and they are not proposing to change anything with the historic character of the house. Tamie said it’s a beautiful home and she appreciates the investment and that the client was willing to make revisions suggested at the last meeting. There were comments at the workshop that the rock face on the pillars would change the dimensions of the pillars making them too wide, although it is not a concern of hers. In her opinion the addition of stone on the pillars completely changes the character of the house, so she won’t support the stone. If the other board members are ok with the stone, it should be a consistent color without variations in order to minimize the appearance of stone. Geoff said the type of stone facing being proposed is not consistent with the architectural style. He has seen cobbles being used around the city and he would be okay with that. Real stone would be fitting if they wanted stone. Jeff said the stone being proposed and the stone on the newly built house on Lake Ave. are not the same. What’s being proposed is rubble style masonry that was not used. He said there are instances of brick piers around the city – Ashlar masonry done with split face CMU. If it were to be the same color and had uniform courses it would be considered but this proposal is random rubble and not consistent or characteristic of the house. Karen said she would want more information about what stone is being proposed. She’s not opposed to the stone on the front of the porch. Leslie said what’s being proposed isn’t appropriate for the building but there may be one that is. Chris agreed with Karen - not opposed to stone but brick would be beautiful and not inappropriate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 2 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the Board or audience. There were none. Tamie summarized the board’s comments by saying the stone as presented is not appropriate and the board’s suggestions should be considered. The board will move forward with approval on the application with the exception of the pillars. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve modifications to the front porch at 202 Lake Ave, Saratoga Springs, NY with the following exception: the pillars for the porch need to be resubmitted and are not approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20250591 24 Fifth Ave. Façade Change. Historic Review of exterior modifications to an existing carriage house structure within the Urban Residential - 1 (UR-1) District. Dennis McGowen, Balzar and Tuck and Nathan Violette represented the applicants and returned with revisions based on board comments from previous DRB meetings. They will put the air conditioner condenser mechanical units on the west side of the house. It will be hidden by low shrubbery and taller arborvitae on Ludlow. They will have an all-electric heating system so no venting will be required. They will vent the kitchen exhaust through the roof on the east side behind the cupola. It’s a low-lying copper shrouded vent cap that will blend in with the tan/brown color roof over time. The bathroom will exhaust out the sidewall and match the shingle color. They will remove, restore and return both windows at the rear of the structure. The hayloft door opening will be switched from left to right in order to keep the existing knob and tube, and they will install a French casement window in the hayloft door opening. Tamie said she’s happy that the windows are being restored and she’s ok with moving the hayloft door. The windows being proposed are Marvin aluminum-clad with wood interior and she would prefer wood on the exterior and interior in the historic building. Dennis said the windows being proposed are consistent with the windows on the addition on the house. Tamie said while she appreciates the explanation, the city’s guidelines are straight forward when it pertains to replacing windows within a historic structure. Chris said it’s great that they are restoring windows and he’s okay with the aluminum- clad exterior window; he understands the symmetry between the windows. Leslie agreed with Chris about the hayloft window, primarily because there was no window just a hayloft opening. She likes the idea of relating to the windows on the house addition. Karen – appreciates that the historic windows are being restored and agreed with Leslie’s reasoning about the hayloft door. Jeff said French windows are easy to maintain – swing it in and paint it. He feels it should be all wood. Geoff said he’s in favor of the current project and appreciates the changes the applicant made based on DRB comments. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 3 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. The majority of the board agreed that aluminum clad versus wood is okay for the hayloft window. Jeff noted that the alley is a pedestrian way and the structures are close to one another which makes it character defining. He asked that they consider using all wood for the hayloft window. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the application for façade changes at 24 Fifth Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, C. Bennett-Y. 5- 1 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #20250972 33 Phila St. Herbie’s Burgers signage & Exhaust Fan. Historic Review of wall signage and exterior modifications within the Urban Core (UC) District. Aaron Wilson, owner represented the application. He is proposing to install a 72” by 30” internal LED sign facing Putnam St. The hood exhaust has been installed through the roof. Tamie said the board has not approved an internally lit LED in the Historic district, it’s not acceptable. A halo lit or gooseneck lighting would be more appropriate. The sign being placed above the awning seems too high. She suggested removing the awning and lowering the sign or placing the sign on an awning. She also noted that there’s currently a neon sign in the window that should be removed (Aaron said they were notified, and it will be removed) and the internal decals seem to cover up more than 30% of the window as allowed by code. Aaron said he measured today, and it is under the 30% for his side of the window. Tamie said it’s 30% for the entire window. Chris agreed with Tamie, the layout seems awkward and clumsy – the location and font are wrong. He suggested the applicant do something similar to what’s been done at his other stores. Leslie said the sign looked as big as the door. She suggested they move it to the side, next to the door. The applicant is willing to do that. Karen agreed that it’s more appropriate that the sign be on the side and not internally lit. Jeff said the lit box sign won’t work. Another option shows channel lighting that could be used. Julia said they can be halo lit but not channel lit. Geoff said the 48” round logo shown at the workshop seems better and it would look great on the wall next to the door. The board agreed that the exhaust fan through the roof was fine. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie summarized that the board would have no objection to the round sign versus the square. The location between the door and window is more appropriate. The applicant needs to look at other lighting options. The board can approve the exhaust, and the applicant can return with sign location and lighting options. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 4 of 10 Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the application for the roof vent only at 33 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0, in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20251001 139 Grand Ave. Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior modifications to a front porch within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Scott & Jackie Monroe, owners represented the application. Scott said they are proposing two small projects for the repair and prevention of further damage to the front porch. Scott showed photos of the existing conditions. Where the porch roofline and metal roof meet there’s no overhang and it’s creating wood rot. Scott offered a sample of a product he thinks could provide a temporary solution to the problem. The second project is to put gutters on the side of the house to avoid damaging the hardscape. The wood framing around the windows is already rotted out. He is proposing to add gutters and downspouts that won’t be visible to anyone except one neighbor. Tamie said she has no concerns about anything being proposed. If the roof eventually needs to be replaced they will have to return before Board. The gutter the applicant is proposing to use is a quality gutter and the right kind to use – metal, half-round. Downspouts along the trimline are where they should be. The façade on the front left corner of the house downspout should run down the back piece of trim work versus the front. Scott said that would pitch across the sidewalk causing ice, etc. Geoff thanked the applicant for coming before the board for input. He has no problem with the gutters and relates to the lack of drip edge on the front. He’s fine with what’s being proposed but the applicant will likely have to repair the woodwork, put a drip edge over that and eventually replace the porch roof. Jeff said the windows on the one side of the house are Greek revival frieze windows. There was a discussion about the correct placement of the gutters and downspouts to avoid covering them up. Karen said the house is beautiful! She’s curious how the gutter will get around the crown molding. Chris explained how it would work and it’s very detailed. Leslie said they did some work on the gutters at her house and suggested they could bring the gutter down into the ground, dig a small trough and place a pipe to pull it away from the building. Chris said the material on the porch roof is corrugated and should not have been on there to begin with. He said a new roof is inevitable and should be replaced with appropriate material - flat seem lock and solder (old school & expensive), rubber, TPO. Standing seam would have been an option but the roof pitch is too low. Another option would be epoxy. The gutters are fine but it’s important how they’re attached to the crown molding. They will make a mirror block and fasten the gutter to the crown molding. There could be issues down the road with snow load and ice that would take the crown off. The installation is really important. Should the roof need to be replaced, Chris recommended Intellideck from Canada. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 5 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve the application for exterior modifications at 139 Grand Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y, C. Bennett-Y. 6-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #20250943 171 Church St. Architectural Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Jeff Gritsavage disclosed that he lives outside of 100 ft. but within 500 ft. of this property. John Cannie, Attorney and Matt Fortier, Benson Contracting represented the applicant who is seeking to replace the current slate roof on the main structure and metal roof on the porch. Matt talked about the current condition of the roof. When he performed an inspection he noted several leaks within the valleys on the dormer and that the metal was rusted out. Several slates are missing and the installation of foam insulation without vapor barriers is causing rot. The nails are old and rusted out causing the slate to slide down. The porch roofs have been coated so many times you can’t see the flashing on the side walls. Matt said the condensation issues from no vapor barrier make the roof irreparable. The applicant is proposing to replace the entire roof with Slateline shingles such as approved on Phila St. in the historic district and a standing seam roof for the porch. Matt said it will keep the architectural aesthetic by adding metal valleys with caps on top. John talked about the evaluation criteria and how it applies to this project. The structure is in an architectural not historical district. He said the DRB is supposed to weigh in on the 12 criteria and compatibility with the structure, site, and neighboring properties. Three criteria apply to this project because most of the others apply to new construction: Treatment of major building elements (cannot be retained or rehabilitated), roofs, materials, and colors. 1. Treatment of major building elements: “features that give a roof its essential historic and architectural character must be retained and rehabilitated whenever possible”. This is a historic slate roof, but it cannot be retained or rehabilitated. The roof is at the end of life, also indicated by the Preservation Foundation. The architectural features can remain. The roof design won’t change in shape, form or function, the only thing that will change is the materials. 2. Materials – “materials used in new construction must be compatible with the neighborhood and contemporary materials may be acceptable provided the overall texture, color and details of the building are compatible with the neighboring buildings”. Slateline roofing is a contemporary material that is compatible with the neighbors (17 of the 22 roofs surveyed used asphalt roofing) and the historic character of the neighborhood because it looks and acts in the same way as a slate roof. John noted that the house is a contributing structure in a national historic district, but it has not been maintained in that regard since its construction. It has aluminum siding and the roof slates have been repaired and City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 6 of 10  replaced several times. The proposed shingles will be of a higher quality than any of the neighbors. 3. Colors – not considered by DRB. Tamie read from the Historic and Architectural Review Guidelines which apply to structures in an Architectural District and/or Historic District. “Roofs are an important character defining feature of a building. Roof shape, materials and details contribute to the historic character and significance. Roof form and the pattern, scale, color and texture of roofing materials are important visual features of historic buildings. Roofs should always be repaired versus replaced. Replacement is a last alternative in the event the structure is deteriorated beyond repair. If replacement is necessary the roof should match the original design, size, shape, material and texture, or should be based on historic evidence”. In this case the house has been compromised over the years, and this slate roof is one of the few defining features that remains on this gorgeous home. It’s important to save these essential details, especially when they’re the last ones. Tamie noted that replacing this roof can not be considered “new construction”. The applicant has demonstrated that the roof has met the end of its lifetime and does need to be replaced. Her opinion is that the roof is an original slate roof and it needs to be replaced with slate. Chris said the spray foam has caused a real problem because it creates air space for condensation and rot. The replacement material should be slate, but he understands a replica would be cost effective. Chris said he’s considering the Slateline product as long as they also use metal valleys and caps. Leslie asked for clarification as to whether the whole roof was failing or just the slate. The whole roof is failing because of the spray foam insulation and lack of vapor barriers. Karen – agreed that there’s a good argument for replacing the roof and noted that the neighborhood has more asphalt shingles than slate. She asked if the pitch on the porches would accommodate a standing seam roof. Matt said they are 12-pitch and that works. She said Slateline looks like a good product, and the board has approved it before. If the roof replacement is approved she would like to see the details that make it special, like metal valleys and caps. What makes it look more historic versus new construction. Jeff made the argument that the existing aluminum siding and shutters are reversible. There’s a wood door and diamond muttons in the transoms. His barn is located nearby and has a slate roof that was not considered in the applicant’s survey. Making a case that the neighborhood houses have primarily asphalt roofs should not make a case for this. The roofing should be slate. Jeff asked what color they’re considering for the valleys and ridge caps. Matt said likely black. Jeff said no anodized copper – too fake looking and there should not be any variation in the color. Geoff agreed that they need to replace the roof. He’s not looking at the historical aspect and is focused on the architectural character and if there’s a product that’s essentially the same as slate when it comes to texture and detail; he doesn’t believe that there is. The guidelines say it should be replaced in-kind. Geoff noted that the structure referred to earlier that was approved for this product was not visible to passersby – it was on smaller roofs in the back that were less visible. The main roof was replaced in-kind with slate. He’s leaning toward it being replaced with slate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 7 of 10 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. Jill Masetti, applicant & homeowner – said the roof is massive and it would cost them approximately 100,000 plus repairs to replace it with a slate roof. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked Matt about the other products on the market that are actual slate but lighter. Matt said the Ready Slate was discontinued and the other company is in a legal battle where the manufacturer of the slate is going after the company that manufactured the underlayment for the material. It was supposed to be a high temperature underlayment, and it was not. Production is about three months out and because it's not a tried product, Matt said they don’t feel comfortable warrantying it or putting it on a roof. Tamie said board comments show 3 members are in favor and 3 are not in favor. If they were to vote tonight the project would be denied. The applicant can wait for a full board at the upcoming December 10th meeting and table tonight or the board can vote and deny tonight. John said they’ll wait for a full board and provide additional information about the other elements – capping and valleys to retain the historic character in the interim. John asked to get the information from the code that Tamie spoke about. Tamie said they are guidelines that appear on the website which were created in a joint project between the Preservation Foundation and the City about 10 years ago. John noted for the record that the DRB is supposed to be applying what’s in the UDO, not guidelines that are not a portion of that code. Tabled 9. #20250449 9 Spa Circle Construction. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to an existing structure within the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. Mike and Melissa King, homeowners returned with revisions to their project based on previous DRB comments. Melissa said they are focusing their efforts on the front of the house. The overall alignment of the windows is now more traditional, three across approach. The third-floor window will be a traditional double-hung window. They are proposing to keep the window opening across the second floor historic in size but use a panel below and have the overall ratio of the window be 3 to 4 as opposed to square windows in the last proposal. The “wood” door questioned at the last meeting is a wood door. The steps on the front have been simplified with the curve being removed and there will be planters on the side. Melissa presented a slide showing the detail for the windows that will have a panel below. The panels will not have siding within them and will likely be painted the same color as the house. The trim will be a different color than the house. Melissa presented a window detail/schedule. On the second floor on the south side, they will gang two windows instead of three and they’ll be full height. The west side (the original front) will be maintained with the historical look, no changes. On the north side they propose to use the shorter window with the panel below. Using the same dimension for the window openings that currently exist but with the shorter window and panel below. The steps will be a precut natural bluestone to match the roof color, and they will have a metal handrail fabricated. They are adding solar panels and the conduit will be minimized in the valleys and be the same color as the roof. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 8 of 10 Tamie said she appreciates the window schedule. The project has come a long way, and she appreciates that they responded to the feedback provided by the board. The west elevation was originally the front of the house and the most important façade; retaining its original integrity is very important. The front façade on Spa Circle is not original to the house so she’s okay with what’s being proposed. The bottom panels on the windows allow them to present as they would have historically. It’s an appropriate and creative solution. The ganging of the two windows on the south side works and presents a lot better and symmetrically works with some other changes being made. The proposed bluestone and metal pipe rail are not inappropriate. She would support the application as presented. Chris said he’s comfortable moving the application forward. Leslie said the Spa Circle façade is almost its own separate entity and doesn’t need to be held to historic standards. She doesn’t agree with blocking in part of the windows on all facades but would move the project forward. Karen agrees with the changes, and some are even more appropriate. She has some concern about the two small square windows on the front of the house because it leaves a lot of blank siding. She really likes that they brought a lot of the rhythm back to the building in terms of where the openings are and how they’re placed. Jeff said he’s okay with south and west elevations. He isn’t sure that the panel under the awning window will pay homage to the double hung window on the east elevation. The double hung window in the attic is too squatty for a Victorian home; the aspect ratio needs to be higher – sashes maybe square? Or portrait as opposed to landscape. Geoff said it’s a great project and he would approve it as it stands. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve exterior modification at 9 Spa Circle as submitted. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo- Y, G. Wood-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-N, C. Bennett-Y. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie asked the applicant to submit a detail on the garage door to Julia for the file. 10. #20250944 66 White Farm Road Construction and Façade Change. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to an existing single-family structure and construction of a pool house within the Rural Residential (RR) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded the board that work was done on this house without DRB or Building Department (no permits) approval. For that reason, the application has to be considered in two steps; The code violations need to be cleared up prior to the DRB looking at new construction. They will look at the changes that were made to determine whether or not they meet design standards. Tamie said the Design Review Board will not accept any applications for review that includes a lot for which there is an outstanding, unresolved written violation from the city. Julia clarified for the applicant that the outstanding violation is that all of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 9 of 10 exterior modifications were made without building permits or DRB approval. The porch modifications need to be reviewed first before the pool house can be considered. Jeremey VanWormer, owner, showed photos of the property when he first purchased it. The deck on the porch was falling down. It was his understanding that he was not in the architectural district. He’s about 500 ft. from the road on a keyhole lot. There are no neighbors who can see his house. Code enforcement came to his home and told him to keep working. He was issued a deck permit and did the work. At one point “Julian” came up with different information about this process. According to the building department the applicant’s home is in the architectural district but according to the language in the code he is not. He’s received conflicting information. The site plan shows a corner of the property is in the Architectural District. Tamie said if the applicant applied for a permit he would have been told that a portion of his property was in the architectural review district, and he would be required to go before the DRB. It is a historic home and the DRB’s job is to ensure that character- defining features are retained when exterior work is being done to historic homes. Even though the work has already been done, the DRB has to look at it as if it were being presented today. She said she would not have approved of the changes that had been made had they been presented in a timely fashion. The magnitude of change that’s occurred here has completely changed the character of this farmhouse. It’s gone from a traditional New England farmhouse to having a southern plantation vibe. The number of columns has increased, and all of the original columns have been replaced. It’s not approvable. She suggested that the applicant submit new plans that speak to the time period of the historic home. The board members agreed that if the application had gone through the proper channels it would not have been approved as submitted. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie said this is an unfortunate situation but it’s the DRB’s job to make sure the standards are met. It’s clear that the DRB members would not have approved this project. The DRB would require the applicant to submit plans that are approvable. Tony said there’s an obligation on the part of the board to discuss how to put the house back to the way it was originally and it needs to be, by law, part of the application going forward. Tamie suggested that the applicant contact the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation for assistance in decision making regarding historic homes. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON DECEMBER 10, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – November 19, 2025 - Page 10 of 10