Saratoga zoning board questions whether carriage house at 190 Fifth Lake Ave should be treated as second dwelling

An applicant representative told the Saratoga Springs Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 10 that friends who bought 190 Fifth Lake Ave in July intend to replace an existing carriage house with a new, code‑compliant two‑story structure to provide an office upstairs, living space downstairs and “ideally … a shower in it.” The representative said the owners do not intend to add a kitchen or rent the unit.

The dispute before the board centered on classification: zoning staff recently concluded the finished two‑story space with bathing facilities was closer to a principal (second) dwelling than an accessory structure, which would change what relief is required. “When we looked at this with the zoning and building inspector recently … it was closer to a principal structure than an accessory structure,” a city staff member said, citing finished space throughout and a full first‑floor bath.

Why it matters: if the city treats the carriage house as a second dwelling it triggers additional dimensional relief — including lot width and rear‑setback standards — that the property at 190 Fifth Lake Ave likely cannot meet without further variance requests. If it remains an accessory structure, the board generally can condition approval to prohibit kitchens, overnight stays or other features that would make it a principal dwelling in practice.

Board members asked for neighborhood comparables and alternative plans. Shaffer Gaston (board member) said he would need “to see some comparable properties in the vicinity” showing similar rear setbacks and lot widths to find the proposal “in keeping with it.” Otis Maxwell (board member) recommended the applicants consider altering the footprint to create space for a parking stall and reduce the need for a large rear setback variance. Christopher LaPointe (board member) and others suggested the owners could instead install a half‑bath, which in their reading might avoid the variance process entirely. LaPointe asked how “married” the applicants were to a full bath and noted a half bath could change the classification.

City staff described specific relief that would be required if the structure is treated as a second dwelling — including additional parking and larger lot‑size minimums — and flagged that the property is in the UR‑3 district and is undersized for a two‑family use. “For the accessory dwelling unit, there’s one additional parking space that’s required,” a staff member said.

The board repeatedly asked the applicants to provide: (1) neighborhood comparables showing other properties with similar setbacks or dual dwellings; (2) alternate site plans showing a modest forward shift of the carriage‑house footprint to reduce rear setback variance; and (3) confirmation of parking arrangements. The applicant representative said the proposal could be shifted forward a few feet and that removing an existing unsafe exterior staircase would increase clearance from the rear lot line.

No formal action or vote was taken. The board left the public hearing open and asked the applicants to return with comparables and revised plans; the board suggested submitting materials about one week before the next hearing (scheduled for March 3).