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

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.