Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Narrative1 PROJECT NARRATIVE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION BEMIS POINT SUBDIVISION At the conclusion of its review of the project for purposes of SEQRA, the Planning Board identified specific items it wanted the applicant to address in the context of the applicant’s request for subdivision approval. Those items are specifically itemized and addressed below. i. Sidewalks. The applicant considered including one or more sidewalks as part of its proposal. However, the whole of the applicant’s proposal for the site has been focused on minimizing potential disturbances to wetlands to the greatest extent possible. Including a sidewalk on either side of the new proposed roadway would result in all site elements being pushed further back on the respective lots and thus closer to the wetlands located at the rear of the lots. More specifically, to include adequate separation so that vehicles would not be parking in very close proximity to the sidewalks, the proposed homes would need to be sited further back to allow room for an appropriate driveway. In the final analysis, the applicant does not believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to sidewalks, which are not present in the existing Independence Square development. ii. Deed Restrictions/Conversation Easement. Enclosed herewith for review is a draft proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants which will effectively place 17.18± acres of the property into conservation. The draft remains subject to review and comment from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACOE”) in addition to the Planning Board. With the application, the applicant has included the form of Declaration of Restrictive Covenants typically required by USACOE and a “redline” version to identify the changes proposed by the applicant in an effort to address concerns previously raised by the Planning Board. iii. Beaver Dams. At the request of the Planning Board, an exception to the standard restrictive covenants required by USACOE has been included to provide for the mandatory removal of beaver dams to the extent that the same becomes necessary to prevent damage to property or to control water levels within the wetland. The City would have the express right to enforce this requirement in the event of non-compliance by the applicable owner(s) for the protection of surrounding properties. This language remains subject to review and approval by USACOE. iv. Ownership of the Deed Restricted Area. At the request of the Planning Board, the applicant’s counsel reached out to Saratoga PLAN via its executive director, Mr. Rob Davies, regarding the potential for Saratoga PLAN to either hold title to the deed restricted area or to hold a conservation easement/deed restrictions. The applicant’s counsel was informed by Mr. Davies that Saratoga PLAN does not aim to conserve areas it views as being protected by deed restrictions 2 which in the view of Saratoga PLAN, are most appropriately maintained and monitored by the local community. In this case, it was Saratoga PLAN’s suggestion that the City hold the restrictive covenants on terms and conditions it deems appropriate. Of course, in this case, there will be an additional layer of protection in that USACOE will also have the ability to enforce the restrictive covenants. v. Pesticides/Herbicides. Within the proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, there is a prohibition against the application of pesticides or herbicides to control vegetation within the restricted area (17.18± acres) which is consistent with USACOE requirements. The applicant has also included language not typically required by USACOE, which prevents the application of pesticides or herbicides outside of the deed restricted area to the extent that it will adversely impact the deed restricted area. This would prohibit homeowners from using pesticides or herbicides on their lawns (which fall outside of the deed restricted area) to the extent that there will be an adverse impact to the deed restricted area. vi. Stop Signs. The applicant agrees to provide stop signs so to create a 3-way stop at the intersection of Bemis Heights Road, Lexington Road and the new proposed roadway. vii. Noise Mitigation Plantings. It was suggested by the Planning Board that the applicant should consider plantings (perhaps arborvitaes) as a means of noise attenuation. The applicant submitted a comprehensive noise analysis as part of the Planning Board’s SEQRA review for the project which showed that there would be no discernable increase in noise levels as a result of the applicant’s project from receptors within the existing neighborhood. Importantly, the noise analysis was conducted when the applicant’s proposal contained 14-lots (instead of 13) including former Lot 1, which would have involved clearing at a point adjacent to (but still approximately 300 feet away from) the Northway. The maintenance of existing vegetation on Lot 1 only serves to further bolster the applicant’s position that noise is not a concern. Moreover, there is little room for additional plantings and their effect is dubious. The tree line behind lots 2, 3 and 4 is already in close proximity to the rear of the homes, leaving only a modest rear yard as currently proposed. As noted below, the applicant has inquired of the Saratoga Springs Fire Department (“SSFD”) as to whether the mid-point turnaround adjacent to Lot 2 is required. If the SSFD does not require this turnaround, it can be removed, thus allowing existing vegetation to remain in this area. Lastly, the applicant included stormwater water quality basins on proposed Lot 2 at the request of the Board, although these basins, in the opinion of the applicant, are not necessary. Should the Board agree and want to remove or reduce the size of one or both of these basins, it would allow for additional existing vegetation to remain in place. viii. Stormwater Water Quality Basins. Three stormwater water quality basins are shown on the applicant’s proposed plan (two of which are located on Lot 2 and one of which is located on Lot 13). Based on a prior meeting with the City Engineer’s office, it was the applicant’s 3 understanding that these basins would be maintained by the City and that an appropriate maintenance and easement agreement should be provided to allow the City access to perform any required maintenance, which is not anticipated to be significant. The applicant has reached out to the City Engineer’s Officer to confirm the above and will provide a draft maintenance/easement agreement upon confirmation of the City Engineer’s position on how these areas should be maintained. ix. Fire Apparatus Access. The SSFD has confirmed on multiple occasions that no secondary means of access to the proposed development is required so long as the turning radius of the proposed turnaround(s) meet the minimum required turning radius for the SSFD’s fire apparatus. The SSFD has sent the applicant the minimum turning radius for each of its fire engines and the applicant is in the process of confirming that the minimums will be met. The applicant is waiting on a response from SSFD as to the specific question of whether the mid-point turnaround needs to remain.