By Wendy Liberatore, Staff Writer
April 24, 2026
SARATOGA SPRINGS — Saying the city’s Design Review Board and Planning Board hold “a tremendous amount of power,” Mayor John Safford said he wants to change the Unified Development Ordinance that protects the city’s historic character.
“I hear the stories from the people who have been abused (by the Design Review Board),” Safford said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. “We will see videos as to the way some people are treated, especially in the architectural district. … They need a voice. They want a voice. … We’re doing this for them.”
But the people who spoke at Tuesday’s City Council meeting are solidly against the mayor’s proposal, including the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation.
“The current UDO, which was adopted about four years ago, … involved significant public engagement and review,” Foundation President Chris Armer said. “This process seems a little bit rushed. A rushed process often results in unintended consequences, which, in this case, could result in irreversible damage to the historic character of our community. Carefully reviewing the considered view of all stakeholders and examining a range of potential pitfalls would be beneficial to ensuring we continue to honor and uphold the history that makes this such a great city.”
Safford is taking particular aim at the architectural district — the city’s gateway that includes the area of South Broadway, Lake Avenue, Van Dam Street, Excelsior Avenue, Washington Avenue, Union Avenue and West Avenue. Now, changes in these areas must be approved by the Design Review Board. Those protections could be removed.
At Tuesday’s meeting, a member of the board, Jeffrey Gritsavage, said that if the changes go through, the board would not be able to stop demolition of historic homes.
“That’s a little bit problematic,” Gritsavage told City Council.
He said that would include areas of the city’s historically Black neighborhood that were already “decimated by redlining and urban renewal.”
“It will be demolition as a right,” Gritsavage said. “Now anybody who buys a property on Beekman Street, if this is to pass, they will be able to demolish something in the African-American working-class traditional neighborhood as a right. And naturally, I’m opposed to that and I would hope that you would be as well.”
Though not mentioned at the meeting, the proposed changes coincide with Stewart’s Shops’ effort to raze a home in the architectural district, which the Design Review Board opposed. After one meeting, Gritsavage said city attorney Tony Izzo told the board members that if they didn’t vote in favor of Stewart’s demolition, the mayor would seek a change in the UDO “so we don’t have purview over that decision.”
Izzo could not be immediately reached on Friday, but the mayor denied it happened, saying, “I have never interfered with a DRB vote.” But he did say he thinks the board decisions were arbitrary and that the Stewart’s decision was “a tipping point when they (Stewart’s) sued the city and won.”
A spokesperson for Stewart’s did not return a call for comment.
Patty Morrison, a former member of the city’s Planning Board, also spoke out against the change on Tuesday. She questioned who was shaping the changes, why they were needed now and what guardrails would be put in place to protect the character of the neighborhoods.
“It is reasonable for the public to ask these questions at the beginning of this process, not at the end,” Morrison said. “When the current UDO was adopted in 2021, the city retained a professional planning consultant who drafted the language and held public workshops explaining what the changes meant. That educational component mattered.”
The city does not currently have any informational sessions planned. There will be a public hearing, but no date has been set.
Commissioner of Public Works BK Keramati also wanted to know why the city was attempting to change the UDO that was designed by land use professionals and was the subject of public debate for years.
Commissioner of Public Works BK Keramati also wanted to know why the city was attempting to change the UDO that was designed by land use professionals and was the subject of public debate for years.
“I’d like to see a statement that lists the reasons or concerns that people have with the current UDO so everyone understands why we’re doing it,” Keramati said. “I’m not saying don’t revise it, but I think I’d like a clear statement … that says these are the concerns with the current UDO. I haven’t seen that.”
Bill Baxter, who said he has 60 years of experience in historic preservation, including at the Smithsonian, said the proposed changes to the ordinance would reduce the Design Review Board’s authority.
“It makes no sense, and seems to be trying to eliminate the protections afforded the Saratoga Springs environment that is a legacy of our forbears,” Baxter said. “The damage to the DRB would have long-term and negative consequences on our beloved city.”
When asked on Friday if developers or Stewart’s were pushing this change, Safford said no. He said ordinary people buy homes in the architectural district, but then can’t afford to renovate them.
“When they go to fix them up and they go to the DRB with plans that maintain the look and feel of the historic (house), but are using modern materials, the DRB assigns historic status,” Safford said. “Their expenses can triple.”
Only one person at Tuesday’s meeting said he didn’t care if the historic buildings were torn down. Earl Wallace, who grew up in Saratoga Springs, said the home he grew up in was demolished.
“I don’t really feel the need to preserve that,” Wallace said. “The homeowner (should) have an affordable way to improve their property in a way that keeps up the quaintness of the city, whether that is absolutely historical or whether it’s historic-esque.”
After the meeting, Morrison organized two community conversations about the proposed changes with land-use professionals at the Saratoga Springs Public Library on May 5 and 11.