HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260090 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/Wetlands Permit Public CommentRe: #20240614, 20260090, 20260091 Lexington Rd/BemisHeights subdivision
April 10, 2026
We are Julia Anderson and Wendy Gavert. We own and live at #8 and #4 Bemis Heights Drive, respectively,
in the neighborhood development of “Independence Square”. This neighborhood comprises 5 streets:
Lexington Rd, Concord Dr, Bunker Hill Dr, Champlain Dr and Bemis Heights Dr with a total of 68 homes that
utilize ONE entrance/exit from the neighborhood onto Lake Avenue.
We realize the City is at a crossroads between encouraging more single-family homes for purchase and
maintaining the flavor that makes Saratoga Springs the “City in the Country” that it is. This subdivision
proposal raises an extremely unique situation never before encountered by our Planning and Zoning Boards.
In this letter, I hope to bring your attention again to the following issues:
● Fire Code Appendix D107 - Two distinct entrance/exit routes must be included. The proposed project
does not include this. A waiver should not be granted to keep the single entrance/exit.
● Wetland Concerns - The applicant has not provided sufficient analysis, nor specific information from
the NYSDEC or ACOE. The City should take no actions on wetlands at this time due to the recent
court ruling staying NYSDEC jurisdictional regulations. The City should pause all local actions until the
court finalizes the DEC’s likely appeal. Furthermore, the City should not approve substandard lots to
literally “squeeze” lots into the minor area presently deemed non-wetland by the applicant.
● Traffic and Safety - The applicant has provided insufficient data to adequately address the potential
impacts of additional traffic at the lone entrance/exit point at Lexington Rd and Lake Ave.
● Misleading or inaccurate information from the applicant’s engineer - An example of this is the
depth of the water table. The predominant soil type in the area of development is Scarboro Mucky Fine
Sandy Loam (per the Saratoga County Soil Data found in the USDA Soil Mapper). A characteristic of
this soil is very shallow groundwater. Yet the applicant’s engineer has stated no groundwater or
evidence of seasonal high groundwater. This seems incongruous and should be validated by a
Geotechnical engineer. At a minimum, the City should witness new test pits at the property.
● Real Estate concerns - The style of lots and housing will not be consistent with the existing
neighborhood.
● City Planning Board decisions will set precedent for future planning and development within city
limits and the Greenbelt
A Bit of History -
When the Independence Square development was originally proposed by Irving Metzger (original property
owner, developer and applicant) back in the early/mid 1970s, the city of Saratoga Springs approved a total of 3
phases of development for approximately 100 homes. As Phase 2 was nearing completion in the late 1970s,
Mr. Metzger did not proceed with the prior approved Phase 3. Did he stop because he was encountering
greater and greater water issues in both the clearing of lots and digging of foundations? Was he told to stop
after Phase 2 by the City? The ‘why’ is unclear. It was around this same time that NY state and federal
environmental restrictions and state fire codes were updated. With the growing water and wetland concerns
and already 68 homes, the total project would exceed these new codes and restrictions and be very difficult
and costly to mitigate. It appears the 68 homes already built were “grandfathered” as an exception to the new
fire codes. Phase 3 was never done.
In the intervening years and decades, Mr. Metzger listed the remaining undeveloped acreage for sale
numerous times. NO developers, contractors, builders in the area purchased the property. It’s ‘prime’ acreage
within city limits, a stone’s throw from race track property - WHY would it remain unsold and undeveloped?
Because it's too wet and consistently deemed “wetlands” by the various surveyor outfits, and the increase in
the number of homes would exceed any ‘grandfather ’ status.
Why the city kept the Phase 3 lots as approved and ‘on the books’ in the intervening decades apparently
remains a mystery; any archival records of this would be on hard copy and not digitized and no one has gone
looking for these notes/records. Some Independence Square residents have offered to look, but to this point,
our offer has not been taken up.
Where We Are Today -
The current applicant and his engineer are seeking approval for a 13 single-family home subdivision in the
Independence Square neighborhood. This would bring a total of 81 homes utilizing a single entry/exit point
between the neighborhood and Lake Avenue.
The original application stated the new lots and homes would be of ‘similar square footage and character’ to
the 68 homes currently here; this would be at least ⅓ acre with no deed restrictions, full basements and deep
setbacks. Since their original application, they have adjusted and modified their plan and now these proposed
lots will have significantly less setback and deed restrictions to reflect the wetland situation. Most of these
homes will be built, to varying degrees, on the now diminished Buffer. The deed restrictions severely limit the
usability of these lots, rendering a home of ‘similar size and character ’ virtually impossible on the majority of
the lots. In addition, most, if not all of these homes, would be built on a slab or a crawl space ‘basement’. New
property owners would be restricted from any clearing of the wetland buffer, use of pesticides, herbicides or
fertilizers. On paper, these lots may remain true to the original application, but in reality, are significantly
reduced in usage.
FIRE CODE
Appendix D107 of the Fire Code of New York State requires two separate fire apparatus access roads for
developments exceeding 30 homes, unless specific safety-based measures are met. While the original 68
homes of the Independence Square development are spread among the 5 existing streets (perhaps reducing
the # of homes to below 30 on each street), ALL 5 streets must be accessed by fire and emergency apparatus
via ONE entrance/exit with Lake Avenue. If this ONE entrance is blocked, as it was most recently last month
due to a vehicular accident on Lake Ave, the entire neighborhood is cut off from both entrance of emergency
personnel and evacuation of neighborhood residents.
If the original 68 houses are truly “grandfathered” under current fire code, that should mean any NEW
development/subdivision is not allowed to also be “grandfathered”; an already possible “tragedy in the making”
would only be exacerbated by an additional 13 homes. The spirit of this code should not be compromised.
WETLANDS
The Planning Board has already granted a variance to reduce the Wetlands Buffer from 100 to 50 feet. Even
with this variance reduction, 2 of the proposed 12 houses are completely within the Buffer, 2 additional houses
are almost completely within the Buffer and 7 other houses are partially within the Buffer. About 780 feet of the
proposed road extension is also within the Buffer. It is advisable to AVOID building on or near a wetland buffer
ENTIRELY to protect the wetland's health and functions. Wetland buffers are essential for reducing polluted
runoff, supporting wildlife habitats and flood control. Development and building can disrupt the natural
processes that buffers provide, leading directly to negative environmental impacts such as habitat loss,
increased pollution runoff and disruption of natural water flow. Additionally, construction activities can alter
hydrological processes, leading to changes in water quality and increased flooding risks. What use is a buffer,
regardless of size, if one can build on top of it???
The proposed lots are squeezed into the available property. Lots should be practically sized, particularly to
reflect the RR zoning standards the city adopted for this area . In this case, the applicant received variances
for smaller lots and then states they will “have minimal lawn area”. While that is their intent (completely due to
the deed restrictions of the wetlands issue), it is not uncommon for the ACOE to require a practical lot usage
area. They realize residents expect usage of their property and if not accommodated in the permit plans, may
fill wetlands after ownership. More information from the ACOE regarding the full potential impact should be
required by the Planning Board before any future city approval. The suggestion at the last Planning Board
meeting that fences and/or signage could be erected to indicate the boundary with the deed restricted areas is
not a reasonable solution in either the short or long term.
The question of who, exactly, will monitor the property owners’ adherence to the deed restrictions remains to
be seen. It does not fall under the jurisdiction of NYSDEC, federal ACOE or even the city, apparently. That
leaves it to “neighbors monitoring and policing neighbors”; definitely NOT a reasonable expectation or
responsibility of other neighborhood residents!
The applicants are planning to fill in 17,600 square feet of wetlands. That is about 30% more land than each of
the 13,600 square foot lots that our houses are built on. The city should not proceed with any further approvals
without more information from the ACOE and NYSDEC on the site wetlands. An impact of 0.44 acres exceeds
the nationwide permit requirement of 0.1 acres. The information in the applicant’s narrative appears to
downplay the regulatory procedures.
Additionally, the last 2 homes in the original Independence Square neighborhood were built in the early 2000s,
they had to be elevated (thanks to many additional yards of fill) to accommodate full basements because when
the initial foundation holes were dug, ground water filled the holes. Were these builders required to submit test
pits of water tables with their building permits? Will test pits of the water table be required to be submitted by
the builder of any of the proposed 13 lots? How will the likely addition of more fill required under these new
homes affect the wetland restrictions and requirements? Will there be any measuring and monitoring of this by
ACOE or city officials at the crucial time of construction?
Proper storm management concerns were raised during the Public Hearing period at the 4/6/26 Planning
Board meeting. This continues to be of concern due to the proposed plan to utilize a 6” drainage pipe within
the new subdivision. It is believed this is severely undersized, given ALL surface water from Independence
Square drains to the back corner where Lexington Rd and Bemis Heights Dr meet. Add to that, the closer
proximity to the wetlands, high water table and underground springs, a 6” drainage pipe will not be sufficient.
This proposed subdivision also compromises the city’s Greenbelt. According to the Sustainable Saratoga web
page, the city’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan declares that there is legitimate public interest in protecting the
city’s Greenbelt. “The ecological integrity of the city’s natural resources, including groundwater, streams and
wetlands, trees and woodlands, steep slopes, vegetated wildlife habitat and areas rich in biodiversity must be
maintained and protected, even as development occurs. With conservation being the core development
principle in this area, the community is assured that development in this area works alongside conservation
values.”
There is a stream that runs east behind #2, 4, 6, and 8 Bemis Heights Dr then turns in a southerly direction
before running under the Northway. From there, it feeds into the Spring Run stream, which runs into Lake
Lonely, which in turn feeds into the Kayderosserras, then Saratoga Lake, then Fish Creek, and finally into the
Hudson River. This waterway is not indicated on any map currently located through NYSDEC, ACOE or the
proposed subdivision map (Figure 1). Why is that?
Figure 1: Lexington-Bemis Stream - Hydrologic Connectivity Map, Red outlines the proposed subdivision
TRAFFIC & SAFETY
Was a gap analysis conducted by the city traffic engineer at the intersection of Lexington Rd and Lake Ave
during peak AM and PM commuting periods? This existing intersection is already difficult and, at times,
dangerous for turning in and out of the Independence Square neighborhood, especially during peak travel
periods. It is further exacerbated by the seasonal track population explosion. Allowing for only 1 car per
household is not a reasonable expectation, so 13-25+ additional cars would absolutely impact congestion at
this only existing intersection.
The charter of the city’s Planning Board states one of the board’s responsibilities is “to provide the most
beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the City,
having particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the streets and highways…” Our 28’ wide streets do
not accommodate 2-way traffic when cars are parked along both sides of the street during peak track periods;
at times, what's left is barely wide enough for a single car to traverse, let alone a larger/wider emergency
vehicle. Pedestrian traffic also is at risk, being that there are no sidewalks in Independence Square. Cars
parked in the street force pedestrians further into the middle of the vehicular traffic path.
APPLICANT’S ENGINEER
It has been observed throughout the application and approval process (that involved both Planning and Zoning
Board meetings, public hearings) that the applicant’s engineer has provided misleading or inaccurate
information to the city on numerous occasions. He has stated he had unofficial approval of the plan from
numerous city officials outside the Planning and Zoning Boards as well as the ACOE. When letters of concern
were delivered to Mayor Stafford, Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll, Code Enforcement Officer John
Donnelly, DPW Commissioner BK Keramati and Fire Chief Joseph Dolan prior to the 4/6/26 Planning Board
meeting, every response was one of surprise and concern as none were aware of this proposed sub-division in
any way. As of April 1, 2026, the ACOE stated jurisdictional determination has not been issued.
This engineer provided narrative stating the deep hole test pits were dug to a depth of 6 feet and no ground
water or mottling were observed. This is highly suspect given the extent of wetlands on the property and the
identification of clay soils. Why were the pits only dug to 6 feet and not deeper, when industry standard is
between 10 - 16 feet? Where and at what time of year were these test pits conducted; did anyone other than
this engineer witness the test pits? These pits are essential for assessing subsurface conditions including
seasonal ground-water table and soil characteristics, which can directly impact construction and environmental
assessments. Regardless of foundation type (slab, crawlspace, full basement), groundwater will likely affect
these homes and therefore must be accurately depicted. Slab foundations can actually raise groundwater
levels because they create a barrier that prevents water from draining away, leading to increased moisture
accumulation beneath the slab. If no witness or city engineer were present, the city should reject the current
test pit results and require the test pits to be conducted again with the City Engineer present as an additional
witness.
REAL ESTATE CONCERNS
How will significantly smaller lots, smaller homes on questionable foundations affect the price point of these
newly constructed homes? Part of the charter of the city’s Planning Board is “To protect the character and the
social and economic stability of all parts of the City…” Smaller homes on smaller lots squeezed between
wetlands and a major highway equals lower sale price which will affect the property values of the current 68
homes in the neighborhood.
Lower sale prices also invites the ‘investment’ buyer who is looking for owner-absent rental opportunities. We
already have myriad rental properties available throughout the city. Wouldn't everyone be better served with
family, owner-occupied properties within city limits? Adding 13 more homes in a similar price range as the
existing 68 homes should be a serious factor to consider. All the compromised factors of wetland Buffers,
filling in wetlands, insufficient data related to groundwater levels, significant deed restrictions and variances
decreasing lot usage contribute to a subdivision that will unlikely be of ‘similar character ’ to the existing
Independence Square.
Realtors have expressed surprise and concern when told of this proposed subdivision. Some have stated they
wouldn't even LIST a property with such deed restrictions and all expressed concerns of the presence of
wetlands and how that would absolutely affect future water issues in the new construction (water seepage,
mold, flooding). Professional ethics was raised as a concern for a realtor to attach their name/agency to a
property “that looks flashy but has a vital flaw that cannot be fixed.”; “New construction always looks nice on
plans and in sketches, etc. and it would be sad when buyers get the house they love but the land they hate.”
Additional Concerns
With the front yard setback variances bringing the houses significantly closer to the street, snow removal will
be challenging during a winter such as we had this year. The Planning Board should have the DPW further
evaluate this possible condition with respect to emergency access.
Why has no city official sought archived records relating to the discontinuation of the original Phase 3 of
Independence Square? Why has no other area developer tried to develop this land throughout the many years
of intense development occurring in the City?
I feel as though we are at risk of falling victim to a “bait and switch”. We were originally told this proposed
subdivision would continue the character of what's already here; similar sized lots, similar homes on similar
setbacks. Now, with all the compromises, restrictions and changes, we have lots with severe deed restrictions
and wetland buffers that are being ignored, and considerably reduced setbacks that lead to significantly smaller
lot usage, home size and style; nothing like what's already here in Independence Square.
Again, we realize the City must carefully weigh the balance between encouraging more single-family homes for
purchase and maintaining the ‘flavor ’ that makes Saratoga Springs the ”City in the Country” that it is. But at
what cost? This subdivision proposal raises serious issues that put the Planning and Zoning Boards in an
extremely unique situation. Groundbreaking and transformative decisions by the City relating to NYS Fire
Code and wetlands restrictions will set precedent for future planning and development within both the city limits
and the Greenbelt areas. It is because of this that we cannot urge strongly enough to PROCEED WITH
CAUTION with this approval process. The trust and the safety of your residents and the environmental
conditions, now and in the future, demand your careful consideration in this matter.
Thank you for your continued time and attention to this application.
Sincerely,
Julia Anderson Wendy Gavert
Julia Anderson Wendy Gavert