Between heated discussions about the state of finances in Spa City government, a debate of a different sort has taken center stage at City Council meetings, and on the blogosphere and opinion pages.
The council is expected to act on a demolition moratorium at its Tuesday, July 7, meeting, which would apply to individual or contribution structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If passed, the city would hold off on granting any demolition permits for such buildings until February of next year.
The city already has its own historic zoning district roughly bordering Broadway, Union Street and the surrounding neighborhoods. Buildings in this district are protected by city law that states any owner seeking to make any exterior changes, erect a sign, build or demolish a property must receive approval from the Design Review Commission, a seven-member panel that meets twice a month.
Buildings designated on the National Register of Historic Places are not privy to such review. Proponents of the moratorium would like to see contributing structures ` defined as contributing significantly to the character of the area through architectural or historical means ` placed in the city’s historic zoning district. Opponents, however, say the moratorium is abridging the property rights of the homeowner who kicked the discussion off in the first place.
A tale of one home
The impetus for the moratorium is a building at 23 Greenfield Ave. The 1865 brick home is not in the city’s historic district, but is listed as a contributing structure to one of the several National Register of Historic Places districts in the city.
The building was sold on May 4 to a limited liability company for an undisclosed amount. The principal of the 23 Greenfield LLC was later identified as Ronald Riggi, who owns the neighboring property, along with his wife, Michele. The couple is prominent in the city’s social scene. Later that month, they filed for a demolition permit with the city’s building department.
According to city’s assessment database, the house has full market value of $1.1 million. Its total assessed value is $891,000.
While the Riggi’s intent remains uncertain, news of the possible demolition of the 1865 home sparked a public outcry, which was brought to the City Council at its Tuesday, June 2, meeting.
There, residents speaking during a public hearing on the demolition moratorium urged the city to take measures to halt the destruction of the building. One went so far as to suggest the city force the Riggis to tear down their own home.
The council tabled the moratorium that evening. Commissioner of Public Safety Ron Kim brought it to a vote on Tuessay, June 16, but it failed 3-to-2 because additional changes had been suggested earlier in the meeting that would necessitate a vote be put on hold until Tuesday, July 7.
The City Council did place an administrative hold on the issuance of a demolition permit for 23 Greenfield Ave. that will stand until July 7.
John Carusone, attorney for the Riggis, said that the moratorium is illegal. He argued a moratorium should only be enacted when `there is a threat to the community as a whole,` and said the legislation is clearly intended to affect his client’s property.
`This is targeted at one property. It doesn’t affect the general welfare of the community,` he continued.
According to the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, however, this movement is not based on a single case.
`We’re probably starting to see the early trends of a tear down,` said Samantha Bosshart, executive director of the foundation. `Twenty-three Greenfield is a building that most of the public can identify with, but there are other buildings that are at risk.`
There is a list of `10 buildings worth saving` on the foundation’s Web site. Bosshart named a home at 12 Vermont St. as an example of a historic building that has been demolished.
Carusone said he had not ruled out the possibility of a lawsuit on the grounds that his client’s property rights are being violated should the city pass the moratorium.
`We would argue that the rights of the owner of the property had become vested, and those rights cannot be taken away,` he said.
But Bosshart argued that all zoning laws are, in essence, a mechanism to enforce the greater good. They keep manufacturers from building factories in the middle of residential neighborhoods, for example.
`It provides for the safe and orderly development of property,` said Bosshart. `It’s really a decision for the elected officials. If they feel it is in their best interests to preserve buildings, then it may supersede property rights.`
Collateral damage?
It is clear there is another historic building that would be immediately affected by the demolition moratorium, though. Joseph Boff purchased 66 Franklin St. in September and started the process of seeking a demolition permit last month.
Unlike 23 Greenfield Ave., Boff’s property is within the city’s historic district. Process demands that he seek approval from the Design Review Commission before applying for a demolition permit with the building department. The process is under way, and the DRC is expected to move on the application at its Wednesday, July 1, meeting.
According to Patrick Kane, chairman of the DRC, when seeking demolition approval, the burden of proof is on the applicant. It must be proved that restoring the building to its original condition is unreasonable ` either for lack of materials or the cost involved ` or that the structure is unsafe and poses a danger.
When considering historic structures, the commission must also think of the area as a whole, said Kane.
`We aren’t just a board that looks at preservation, though that’s certainly a component of it. Part of our charge is to the economic vitality of the community around it,` he said.
The timing of the proposed moratorium could prevent Boff from getting his permit even if the DRC signs off on it, though. His legal counsel, the law firm of Jones Ferradino, is asking the city to exclude from the moratorium structures approved for demolition.
Boff wants to build a smaller single family home on the property, according to Jones Ferradino Attorney Mariesa Coppola, who said the cost of renovating the building would be at least $1.6 million and as much as $2 million. According to the city’s assessment database, the home’s full market value is $185,200.
`Our argument is that it’s financially not feasible for anyone to go in and repair or renovate the structure,` said Coppola.
The Preservation Foundation maintains that renovating the home would be far less costly.
Building for tomorrow
If the City Council does approve the moratorium at its next meeting, it will do so with the objective of reexamining its historic zoning legislation and boundaries in mind. Many say the current boundary is insufficient.
`My personal feeling is that our district should expand,` said Kane. `We should restructure our historic districts so that the rules are applicable to everyone.`
Bosshart said that the Preservation Foundation would ideally like to see the borders of the city’s historic district match those of the National Register of Historic Places.
Before any changes are made, though, the City Council will likely solicit the opinions of the Planning Board and DRC, said the city’s Administrator of the Office of Planning and Economic Development Bradley Birge. The council would approve changes by vote.
`Ultimately, it’s a legislative issue,` he said.
The city has been granted a $13,000 grant from the state Historic Preservation Office for the purpose of updating its historic review ordinance.
Anyone who would protest having their property added to the local historic district would have the opportunity to do so at a public hearing. However, there would ultimately be no opting out for individuals, said Birge.
Proponents of historic preservation might argue that there exists little reason to resist historic classification. Historic structures do not pay higher taxes and can possibly benefit from an increased value. Interior renovations do not have to be approved by the city, and the approval process for exterior renovations is less intrusive and onerous than some might think, said Kane.
`No one’s going to come around and tell you how to paint your house,` he said.
Exactly how the city would change its historic zoning remains to be seen. One option would be to include the entirety of the area listed in the National Register of Historic Places, which encompasses thousands of acres and hundreds of buildings. Another is to only include those contributing structures which, by definition, are of the utmost importance to those areas.
Expanding the city’s historic zoning district would almost certainly create more cases for the DRC to consider, said Kane.
`It’s not a worry of ours,` he added. `Are we capable of handling it? Of course.`
During his nine years on the DRC, Kane said that 15 to 20 demolitions have been approved, six or seven of which were controversial.
If the city embarks on the process, the final word will be some months down the road. The proposed demolition moratorium would run until February of next year, the amount of time expected to be needed for a review.
“
