By Wendy Liberatore, Staff Writer
Aug 3, 2026
SARATOGA SPRINGS — Despite advisory opinions against changing the city’s historic preservation model, the mayor says he’s “adamant” on amending the city’s unified development ordinance, which critics say will make it easier to demolish buildings in the city’s historic and architectural districts and override the authority of the Design Review Board, the city’s preservation gatekeeper.
On Thursday, Mayor John Safford said that the DRB and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, which often advises the DRB, has “too much power” and “are totally biased” when it comes to protecting historic buildings.
“People are trying to say that Safford wants to destroy preservation,” Safford said. “That is not the case. These regulations are not fair to the people. People come into the DRB and they are creamed. It’s arbitrary and they are overly influenced by (the Preservation Foundation that) manipulates the DRB. It can’t function that way.”
When asked if he plans to adopt the changes to the unified development ordinance regardless of the amount of public opposition, he said yes.
“We are going to do the right thing, regardless,” Safford said.
A public hearing is set to be scheduled soon, the mayor said.
When asked if he plans to adopt the changes to the UDO regardless of the amount of public opposition, [Mayor Safford] said yes.
In two citizen-organized, standing-room-only meetings in May, about 200 people came out to hear about these changes. At the microphone, Safford argued owners of historically and architecturally significant buildings often have a financial burden of maintaining their homes. At this meeting and others, he mentioned a couple who can’t afford to replace a leaky slate roof with another slate roof.
“My big argument is we are subjecting them to historical preservation standards,” Safford said.
Safford’s proposed amendments, however, got a cool reception from state Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and the Preservation League of New York. The mayor was cautioned that these revisions in the initial draft conflict with state and federal program standards on historic preservation.
“Many aspects of Saratoga’s local preservation program are seen as a model for other communities in New York State,” the May 22 letter, signed by the state’s Local Government Coordinator Frances Stern, reads. “The city’s motto of ‘Health, History, Horses’ speaks directly to its wealth of historic cultural resources and distinct architectural fabric that gives the community its appeal. Preservation of these tangible aspects of history is important and should not be taken lightly.”
Stern also wrote that the agency does not “encourage the promotion of building demolition, regardless of a structure’s historic status.”
“Demolition contributes to environmental waste, is not sustainable, and comes with a significant cost,” Stern wrote. “While demolition of structures may be advisable in specific scenarios due to building safety/cases of economic hardship or redevelopment purposes, it should be pursued cautiously.”
The Preservation League of New York’s June 2 letter from President Jay DiLorenzo also noted that the proposed changes “are not in the best interest of the general public.”
He urged the city to “pause the amendment process to provide sufficient time to seek professional feedback and engage the public and key stakeholders.”
These letters, particularly from the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, did prompt changes to the proposal. Initially, the city wanted to relegate the DRB to an advisory role only, which the state Office of Parks said it “does not approve.” That provision has been dropped. The mayor’s office also restored height bonus approvals to the DRB, which it had wanted to hand off to the Planning Board.
The city kept the proposal’s appeals process through the DRB in which homeowners, like those with a leaky slate roof, can argue for reversal of a decision if they show hardship.
But the city’s Preservation Foundation believes the changes still threaten the city’s historic character. A July 21 letter from its President Chris Armer and Executive Director Samantha Bosshart emphasized that Safford’s proposed changes “pose the most significant threat to preservation in decades, as they seek to undermine and remove the Design Review Board’s authority, which could result in irreparable loss of historic resources that define our city; attract visitors, residents, and businesses; and provide economic benefits.”
The letter also stated its “gravest concern is over demolition.” Currently, the DRB approves demolition in the historic and architectural districts. The proposal will eliminate the current criteria for demolition, the Preservation Foundation leaders say, including a requirement for the applicant to try to find a buyer who will preserve the property.
The proposal will also require City Council approval to designate historic or architectural status. If a designation fails to be approved by the City Council, a building can be demolished, the Preservation Foundation argues.
“The Foundation is concerned Mayor Safford’s proposed changes will leave critical preservation decisions to politics, and historic buildings that define the character of our city will be lost forever,” the letter stated.
Safford said on Thursday that these are “scare tactics,” adding, “I’m happy with everything to do with preservation. It’s just unfair to people.”