Neighbors challenge upstairs bathroom request as ZBA calls for comparables and clarification

The Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing May 12 on an application to allow indoor bathing facilities on the second floor of a preexisting two-story detached garage at 36 Hyde Street.

Libby Clark, counsel for the applicants, told the board the garage was permitted and built in 2019 under the prior zoning rules and later issued a certificate of occupancy. Clark said the upstairs was constructed with the intent that it could be finished and that the structure was plumbed during original construction. "The garage was designed to be finished — there is no bedroom and there is no kitchen. It is solely an office area with a dividing wall for a TV for an office and a conference area and a wet bar with a mini fridge," Clark said, and noted that the only feature now at issue is a bathroom on the second floor.

Under the current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), accessory structures are not allowed to contain indoor bathing facilities above the first floor. Zoning staff confirmed that the issue before the board is the presence of plumbing fixtures above the first floor and that a denial would be required for that relief; overnight stays remain prohibited in accessory structures. City staff said the application originally indicated the intent to create a separate dwelling unit but that the applicants' presentation at the hearing described finished office space with a bathroom. The board asked the applicants to provide written clarification of the intended use and a revised denial to reflect the narrower relief sought.

Several nearby residents spoke in objection, citing proximity, shading and neighborhood character. Eden and Richard Clay, owners of 17 Birch Street directly behind 36 Hyde, said the garage sits about 5.3 feet from their fence; they and other neighbors said earlier representations indicated the garage would not be occupied. "When I saw that it had 7 windows on the second story, I called again and I said this is not a storage unit, this is an apartment," Eden Clay said. Other neighbors raised concerns about precedent and enforcement.

Builder John Witt said the garage was designed and permitted under earlier zoning and that rough plumbing was run to the garage at the time of construction as a cost-saving measure; he said connecting the garage to the main house now would trigger greater coverage and setback variances and noted architectural reasons for keeping a detached garage. "It was conceived as a later thing because in 2012, you had no idea what the UDO was gonna look like," Witt said.

Board members requested the applicants submit: (1) a written clarification of the intended use upstairs and, if applicable, an amended application; (2) comparables showing similar finished detached garage space in the vicinity; and (3) documentation explaining why a first-floor bathroom is impractical, or why plumbing cannot be removed from the second floor. Patrick (city staff) said a new denial will be issued that limits relief to the UDO accessory-structure plumbing restriction if the applicants confirm finished office space with a bathroom is their intent. The public hearing remained open and the matter will return to the board; the next scheduled meeting was noted as June 2.