Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Public Comment (8)Outlook Submission for Distribution and Public Record – April 23, 2026 Planning Board Meeting (#20240614, #20260090, #20260091 Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Subdivision) From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com> Date Wed 4/22/2026 12:42 AM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratoga-springs.org> 2 attachments (20 KB) Deed Statement.docx; Court Cases.docx; Caution: This is an external email and may have suspicious content or subject. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact IT. Dear Mr. Graham, I am writing to provide the attached document regarding the proposed 20240614 Lexington Road Subdivision, 20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification, and 20260090 Watercourse/Wetlands Permit in Saratoga Springs, which are currently before the Planning Board. The attachment includes a request, for the official record, that the Board defer final plat action pursuant to its obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to fully evaluate all reasonably foreseeable impacts and mitigation measures. As outlined in the submission, there are substantial and unresolved questions in the record regarding the feasibility, enforceability, and long-term compliance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. In particular, the document identifies gaps in how these restrictions would be communicated to, acknowledged by, and enforced against non-owner occupants, including renters and short-term users. The submission further highlights concerns regarding the practical implementation of several specific restrictions, including limitations on routine property maintenance activities, use of vehicles, vegetation management, and the prohibition of structures or pathways. It also raises questions about the absence of a defined local enforcement mechanism, monitoring process, or consistent compliance framework applicable to day-to-day use. In addition, the document addresses the lack of analysis in the record regarding foreseeable rental use, the allocation of responsibility to property owners for actions beyond their direct control, and the absence of identified comparable subdivisions demonstrating successful long-term enforcement of similar restrictions. Given these considerations, the submission concludes that the current record does not provide a sufficient basis to determine that the proposed restrictions are reasonably enforceable or that compliance can be 4/22/26, 8:09 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQANlhd3lr4pREska5af7%2BZTc…1/2 ensured over time. It therefore respectfully requests that final action be deferred until the record is complete and contains clear, supported findings on these issues. We respectfully request that this submission be distributed to all members of the Planning Board and included as part of the official public record for these applications. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Nathaniel Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 4/22/26, 8:09 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQANlhd3lr4pREska5af7%2BZTc…2/2 Dear Chairman Pingle and Planning Board members, For the record, and pursuant to the Board’s obligations under SEQRA to fully evaluate all reasonably foreseeable impacts and mitigation measures, I respectfully request that the Board defer final plat action on Project #20240614 (Lexington Road Subdivision), Project #20260091 (Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification), and Project #20260090 (Watercourse/Wetlands Permit). This request is based on substantial and unresolved questions in the record regarding the feasibility, enforceability, and long-term compliance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, as well as related concerns raised in my other written submissions and the attached supporting materials. As reflected in the submitted Declaration, the restrictions are intended to “run with the land and be binding on all heirs, successors, assigns, lessees, other occupants and users.” However, the record does not identify any mechanism by which these obligations will be communicated to, acknowledged by, or enforced against non-owner occupants. This omission raises several material issues that have not been addressed in the record: First, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating how these deed restrictions and responsibilities will be effectively transferred to renters, including both short-term and long- term occupants. Second, there is no indication that occupants will be required to receive formal notice of these restrictions or to acknowledge them in writing, despite the fact that such occupants are the primary users of the property and the individuals most likely to affect compliance. Third, in the absence of any requirement for occupant acknowledgment, the record does not demonstrate how compliance will be monitored or enforced in practice. While the Declaration references enforcement authority by federal agencies, it does not establish any local or practical enforcement mechanism, routine monitoring process, or defined penalty structure applicable to day-to-day use of the property. These concerns are not theoretical. In practice, similar deed-restricted properties frequently experience breakdowns in enforcement over time, particularly where there is no formal monitoring structure, no requirement for occupant acknowledgment, and where properties are used for rental or transient occupancy. In those circumstances, restrictions that exist on paper often become difficult to enforce in day-to-day use. The specific terms of the proposed Declaration further underscore these concerns, as several restrictions appear difficult to implement and enforce in routine, day-to-day use: ● The prohibition on pesticides and herbicides without prior approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers introduces a requirement for federal authorization for routine property management activities, raising questions as to how such approvals would realistically be obtained and complied with by homeowners or occupants. ● The prohibition on vehicle use and mechanical conveyances within the Restricted Property, with limited exceptions, would be difficult to monitor or enforce against renters, guests, and contractors, particularly in the absence of any defined oversight mechanism. ● The restriction against clearing or altering vegetation, while containing limited exceptions, relies on interpretation by individual property owners and occupants, increasing the likelihood of inconsistent application and unintentional violations. ● The prohibition on any structures, trails, or walkways presents practical challenges over time, as informal paths and minor encroachments are common in residential settings and are unlikely to be consistently prevented or enforced. ● The inclusion of a broad prohibition on “any activity… inconsistent with the purposes” of the Declaration introduces a level of subjectivity that may be difficult for typical occupants to understand and comply with in practice. ● The requirement to mark and maintain the boundaries of the Restricted Property does not identify a long-term responsible party or maintenance mechanism, raising additional concerns regarding ongoing compliance. Taken together, these provisions further highlight the gap between the stated restrictions and the practical ability to ensure consistent compliance over time. Fourth, the record does not include any analysis of the foreseeable use of these homes as short-term rentals, nor does it address how compliance with deed restrictions would be ensured in those circumstances. Fifth, the proposed framework appears to place primary responsibility for compliance on individual property owners, including in situations where those owners may not have direct control over the actions of renters or transient occupants, raising additional questions about the practical enforceability of these restrictions. Sixth, based on Planning Board discussion, there appears to be a question as to whether comparable subdivisions exist within Saratoga Springs that impose a similar scope and intensity of deed restrictions. At a recent workshop, a Board member requested that the Applicant provide examples of such subdivisions and demonstrate that they are functioning successfully. It remains unclear from the record whether any such examples have been provided. New York courts have consistently recognized that restrictive covenants require clear standards, consistent enforcement, and practical oversight, and that in the absence of those elements, enforcement often becomes difficult, inconsistent, and dependent on private legal action. Taken together, these omissions leave the record without a demonstrated basis to conclude that the proposed deed restrictions are reasonably enforceable or that compliance can be ensured over time. Without this information, any determination that the proposed framework is adequate would lack substantial evidence in the record. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board defer final plat approval until the record is complete with respect to: ● A defined and enforceable mechanism for notifying all occupants, including renters, of applicable deed restrictions ● Consideration of whether occupant acknowledgment is required to ensure compliance ● A clear explanation of how compliance will be monitored and enforced at the local level ● Analysis of short-term rental use and its impact on enforceability ● Identification of comparable subdivisions within Saratoga Springs, if any, and evidence of their successful operation under similar restrictions A complete and fully developed record on these issues is necessary to support any final determination Examples of Enforcement Challenges with Restrictive Covenants (New York Context) Purpose This summary is provided to illustrate that concerns regarding the long-term enforceability of restrictive covenants are not theoretical, but reflect commonly recognized challenges in practice. Observed Enforcement Challenges ● Lack of Monitoring and Oversight ○ Restrictive covenants often rely on property owners or outside agencies for enforcement ○ Without a defined monitoring structure, violations frequently go undetected ● Reliance on Complaint-Driven Enforcement ○ Enforcement typically occurs only after complaints are made ○ This results in inconsistent application and delayed response ● Private Enforcement Through Courts ○ In many cases, enforcement ultimately depends on private legal action between parties ○ This creates barriers to consistent and timely compliance Rental and Transient Occupancy Issues ● Short-Term Rentals ○ Occupants are often not informed of deed restrictions ○ High turnover makes consistent compliance difficult ● Long-Term Tenants ○ Tenants are primary users of the property but may not be parties to recorded instruments ○ Owners remain responsible but may not have direct control over day-to-day use Long-Term Compliance Patterns ● Diminished Enforcement Over Time ○ Restrictions tend to weaken as properties change ownership ○ New owners and occupants may be less aware of obligations ● Selective or Inconsistent Enforcement ○ Some violations are addressed while others are not ○ This can undermine the overall effectiveness of the restrictions Relevant New York Legal Context New York courts have addressed the enforcement of restrictive covenants in subdivision settings and have recognized that such restrictions can lead to disputes where they are unclear, inconsistently applied, or difficult to implement in practice. Examples include: ● Huggins v. Castle Estates, Inc. ○ involved disputes among property owners regarding the enforcement of subdivision restrictions ○ highlighted how inconsistent enforcement can lead to conflict and litigation ● Witter v. Taggart ○ addressed situations where restrictions had not been consistently followed over time ○ required the court to determine whether the covenants remained enforceable due to changed conditions and patterns of noncompliance ● Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates ○ involved disputes over the interpretation and enforceability of land use restrictions ○ demonstrated how lack of clarity and practical enforceability can result in legal challenges These cases illustrate that restrictive covenants, particularly in residential subdivisions, can give rise to disputes and litigation where enforcement is unclear, inconsistent, or impractical in real-world conditions. Conclusion These commonly observed conditions demonstrate that restrictive covenants, without clearly defined enforcement, monitoring, and occupant accountability mechanisms, may be difficult to implement effectively in practice.