HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260090 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/Wetlands Permit Public Comment (9)Outlook
Submission for Distribution and Public Record – Response to Applicant’s Claimed Deed Restriction
Precedents – Lexington Road / Bemis Heights
From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com>
Date Mon 6/15/2026 4:37 PM
To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov>
1 attachment (8 MB)
Public Comment - Response to Applicant Claimed Deed Restriction Precedents with Exhibits.pdf.pdf;
Warning: Unusual sender <independencesquaressny@gmail.com>
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any
actions.
Dear Mr. Graham,
I hope you are doing well.
Please find attached my public comment titled “Response to Applicant’s Claimed Deed Restriction
Precedents” regarding the proposed Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Road subdivision modification,
including applications #20240614, #20260090, and #20260091.
The submission responds to the applicant attorney’s reliance on prior Planning Board examples involving
deed restrictions, conservation easements, signage, and fencing. The attached PDF includes the memo
and supporting exhibits.
I respectfully request that this submission be distributed to all members of the Planning Board in advance
of the meeting and included as part of the official public record for these applications.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Reals
2 Bemis Heights Dr.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
independencesquaressny@gmail.com
6/15/26, 4:42 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQALGW6wgXwmhAiwelvQPPop…1/1
Response to Applicant’s Claimed Deed Restriction Precedents
Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Road Subdivision Modification
Applications #20240614, #20260090, and #20260091
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
I am submitting this comment to address the applicant attorney’s reliance on prior Planning
Board precedents as support for the claim that “markings and signage along with deed
restrictions or conservation easements represent the standard operating procedure” for
subdivisions involving wetlands or conservation areas.
The applicant attorney’s statement appears in the document listed on the Planning Board website
as “20260090 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/Wetlands Permit Saratoga
Law Response Letter to Planning Board 4.22.2026.” The letter is dated April 21, 2026, and
the relevant section is titled “Fencing and Permanent Signage to Denote the
Conservation/Deed Restricted Area.” The relevant excerpt is included as Exhibit A.
The applicant’s attorney cited three examples:
1. Kaydeross Avenue East Conservation Subdivision, Project #20200926;
2. 104 Old Schuylerville Road Subdivision, Project #20180786; and
3. 247 Kaydeross Avenue East, Project #20250089.
After reviewing the cited examples, the recorded deed restriction and conservation easement
documents, and the referenced sites, these examples do not support the applicant’s position. They
do not demonstrate that deed restrictions, conservation easements, markings, signage, fencing, or
homeowner enforcement are a proven or reliable substitute for avoiding an intensive residential
subdivision within a wetland-buffer setting.
The only cited example that is even remotely similar in size is the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East /
Riley Farm project. Supporting materials for this example are included as Exhibit C. However,
that project is still not comparable to the proposed Bemis Point subdivision.
The 227 Kaydeross Avenue East document is primarily a general residential declaration of
covenants and restrictions. It includes typical neighborhood restrictions concerning residential
use, minimum house size, pets, vehicles, satellite dishes, recreational vehicles, trash,
landscaping, fences, storage, pools, outbuildings, exterior materials, and maintenance. It does not
appear to be a deed restriction document designed to manage the same kind of wetland-buffer
subdivision layout now proposed at Bemis Point.
The 227 Kaydeross example also does not appear to place every building lot into a 50-foot No-
Cut Wetland Buffer. It does not appear to place at least a portion of each proposed house, and
most of the proposed roadway, inside a wetland buffer. Based on my site visit and review of
available project materials, only limited wetland/conservation areas appear to be associated with
the 227 subdivision in relation to the building lots, and the houses appear to be located away
from those areas. That is very different from Bemis Point, where at least a portion of each
proposed house and much of the roadway are located within the 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer,
and the proposed development is surrounded by wetlands.
The 227 Kaydeross example also does not show long-term enforcement success. At the time of
my site visit, the subdivision did not appear to be occupied. There was only one framed,
unfinished house observed, and the remaining lots appeared vacant. An unoccupied subdivision
cannot reasonably be used as proof that deed restrictions, signage, fencing, or homeowner
enforcement have worked successfully over time.
The 104 Old Schuylerville Road example is also not comparable. Supporting materials for this
example are included as Exhibit B. That project appears to involve only a 3-lot subdivision, not
a larger residential subdivision with at least a portion of each proposed house and much of the
roadway located within a 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer. The 104 example appears to involve a
large deed-restricted conservation area associated with a small number of lots. Based on my site
visit and review of available project materials, the only constructed house appears to be located
in the middle of an approximately 9.2-acre building lot, on top of a hill, and far from wetlands.
That is a fundamentally different planning condition from Bemis Point, where the proposed
residential development itself is embedded in and surrounded by wetland buffer constraints.
The 247 Kaydeross Avenue East example is likewise not comparable. Supporting materials for
this example are included as Exhibit D. It appears to involve a 3-lot conservation subdivision,
not a 13-lot subdivision surrounded by wetlands where at least a portion of each proposed house
and most of the roadway are located within a 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer. It also does not
demonstrate long-term enforcement success. Based on my site visit and review of available
project materials, the 247 subdivision does not yet appear to have any buildings, constructed
road, or occupied lots. Because the subdivision is not built or occupied, it cannot reasonably be
cited as evidence that conservation easements, deed restrictions, signage, fencing, or homeowner
enforcement have worked successfully over time.
The applicant’s attorney also states that “most often, the conservation areas were spread across
multiple lots and the property owners each had a right to enforce the restrictions along with the
City of Saratoga Springs.” However, the cited examples do not establish a single consistent
model that supports the Bemis Point proposal. The 227 Kaydeross declaration appears to give
enforcement rights to the lot owners collectively and individually, but it does not appear to
clearly give the City of Saratoga Springs an express enforcement right. By contrast, the 247
Kaydeross document is a conservation easement directly in favor of the City. The 104 example
appears to involve a materially different small-subdivision context. These differences matter
because the applicant is relying on enforcement as a central reason the Board should accept this
design.
A cited precedent is only meaningful if it is actually comparable. These three examples are not.
The 227 example is largely a general residential covenant document and has not demonstrated
long-term occupied enforcement success. The 104 example involves a small subdivision, a large
conservation area, and a house located far from wetlands. The 247 example is a small
conservation subdivision, and it is not yet built or occupied. None of these examples shows a
functioning, occupied 13-lot residential subdivision where at least a portion of each proposed
home, and most of the roadway, are located within a 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer and
surrounded by wetlands.
For these reasons, the applicant’s cited examples should not be treated as proof that the proposed
Bemis Point deed restrictions and conservation restrictions will work. The cited examples are not
comparable in scope, intensity, location, development context, enforcement structure, or risk.
I respectfully request that the Planning Board require the applicant to provide a clear, side-by-
side comparison of each cited project, including:
1. The number of lots;
2. The acreage of restricted land;
3. Whether restricted land is located within the building lots themselves;
4. Whether any houses are located inside a 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer;
5. Whether roads or driveways are located inside a 50-foot No-Cut Wetland Buffer;
6. Whether fencing and signage were required;
7. Whether the subdivision is currently occupied;
8. Whether there is any record of long-term successful enforcement;
9. Who has express enforcement authority under the recorded documents;
10. Whether the City of Saratoga Springs has a clear enforcement right;
11. Whether each cited project was a stand-alone subdivision or a modification tied to an
existing subdivision context; and
12. Whether each cited project involved the same level of residential activity, road
construction, yard use, and long-term homeowner pressure within or adjacent to protected
wetland-buffer areas.
Without that information, the attorney’s cited examples do not establish a meaningful precedent
for approving the Bemis Point proposal.
The risk of relying on non-comparable precedents is substantial. Once homes, roads, and long-
term residential use are approved and constructed, the failure of restrictions, signage, fencing, or
enforcement mechanisms may be difficult or impossible to fix. Wetland-buffer encroachments,
drainage changes, tree clearing, maintenance failures, homeowner conflicts, and enforcement
disputes could create long-term problems for the neighborhood, the environment, and the City.
These issues should be fully addressed in the review record before any approval is granted, rather
than deferred until after construction is complete and future homeowners, neighbors, City staff,
or courts are left to manage the consequences.
The central issue is not whether restrictions can be written into documents. The central issue is
whether the applicant has shown that the cited precedents are truly comparable to the proposed
Bemis Point layout. Based on the materials reviewed, they have not been shown to be
comparable and should not be relied upon as a basis for approving this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Nathaniel Reals
2 Bemis Heights Dr.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
independencesquaressny@gmail.com
Exhibit A – Applicant Attorney Excerpt – Claimed Precedents
Source: 20260090 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Watercourse/Wetlands Permit Saratoga
Law Response Letter to Planning Board 4.22.2026
Letter Date: April 21, 2026
Planning Board Website Listing Date: April 22, 2026
Section: “Fencing and Permanent Signage to Denote the Conservation/Deed Restricted Area”
“Prior precedent of the Planning Board shows that markings and signage along with
deed restrictions or conservation easements represent the standard operating
procedure for subdivisions that implicate wetlands or other designated conservation
areas. Examples include the Kaydeross Avenue East Conservation Subdivision –
Project #20200926 (15-lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board on April
19, 2021) and the 104 Old Schuylerville Road Subdivision – Project #20180786 (3-
lot subdivision approved by the Planning Board on March 7, 2019.) More recently,
the Planning Board approved the 3-lot conservation subdivision at 247 Kaydeross
Avenue East (Project #20250089) where a conservation easement was required but
a review of the approved plans shows no evidence of markings and signage to
denote conservation areas. Importantly, none of those projects called for the
developer to create an HOA to hold title to the conservation areas. Most often, the
conservation areas were spread across multiple lots and the property owners each
had a right to enforce the restrictions along with the City of Saratoga Springs,
exactly what is being proposed here.”
Exhibit B – 104 Old Schuylerville Road
Map, Site Image, and Full Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
This exhibit relates to the applicant attorney’s cited example of the 104 Old Schuylerville Road
Subdivision, Project #20180786, which was referenced as an alleged precedent for the proposed
Bemis Point subdivision.
This exhibit includes:
1. A site map showing the wetlands and conservation/restricted area associated with the 104
Old Schuylerville Road project;
2. A Google map/image showing the existing house located on a hill, far from the wetlands;
and
3. The full recorded Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the 104 Old Schuylerville
Road project.
These materials are provided to show that the 104 Old Schuylerville Road example is not
comparable to the proposed Bemis Point subdivision. The 104 example appears to involve a
small 3-lot subdivision with one existing house located in the middle of an approximately 9.2-
acre building lot, on top of a hill, and nowhere near the wetlands.
This is materially different from the proposed Bemis Point subdivision, where the proposed
residential lots, houses, roadway, and future homeowner activity are directly intertwined with the
50-foot wetland buffer and surrounding wetland system.
For these reasons, the 104 Old Schuylerville Road project should not be treated as proof that the
proposed Bemis Point deed restrictions, conservation restrictions, signage, fencing, or
enforcement mechanisms will work in the much more constrained Bemis Point setting.
Figures B-1 and B-2 – 104 Old Schuylerville Road Site Context
The following maps show the 104 Old Schuylerville Road example cited by the applicant’s
attorney. The cited project appears to involve a small 3-lot subdivision with one existing house
located on a hill, far from wetlands. This does not resemble Bemis Point, where proposed
residential lots, homes, and roadway are directly intertwined with the 50-foot wetland buffer.
Figure B-1 – Site map showing wetlands and conservation area.
Figure B-2 – Google map/image showing the existing house located on higher ground away from
wetlands.
Exhibit C – 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm
Site Map, Site Photographs, and Full Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
This exhibit relates to the applicant attorney’s cited example of the Kaydeross Avenue East
Conservation Subdivision, Project #20200926 , also referred to as 227 Kaydeross Avenue East
/ Riley Farm, which was referenced as an alleged precedent for the proposed Bemis Point
subdivision.
This exhibit includes:
1. A site map showing the layout of the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm
subdivision and the location of the limited wetland/conservation areas in relation to the
building lots;
2. A photograph showing one framed, unfinished house observed at the site;
3. Photographs showing vacant/empty lots observed at the site; and
4. The full recorded Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the 227 Kaydeross
Avenue East / Riley Farm project.
These materials are provided to show that the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East example is not
comparable to the proposed Bemis Point subdivision. Although it is the cited example closest in
size, the 227 example appears to be materially different in wetland proximity, relationship
between building lots and restricted lands, occupancy, and demonstrated long-term enforcement
history.
At the time of my site visit, the subdivision did not appear to be occupied. There was only one
framed, unfinished house observed, and the remaining lots appeared vacant. Therefore, this
example should not be treated as proof that deed restrictions, conservation restrictions, signage,
fencing, or homeowner enforcement have worked successfully over time in an occupied
residential subdivision.
For these reasons, the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm project should not be treated as a
comparable precedent for the proposed Bemis Point subdivision.
Figure C-1 – 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm Site Map
This site map shows the layout of the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm subdivision and
the limited wetland/conservation areas in relation to the proposed building lots. The map is
included to show that this cited example is materially different from the proposed Bemis Point
subdivision.
Figure C-2 – 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm Site Photograph
This photograph shows the framed, unfinished house observed at the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East
/ Riley Farm site. The site did not appear to be an occupied subdivision at the time of
observation, and therefore does not demonstrate long-term enforcement success in an occupied
residential development.
Figures C-3 through C-__ – 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley Farm Vacant Lots
These photographs show vacant/empty lots observed at the 227 Kaydeross Avenue East / Riley
Farm site. Because the subdivision did not appear to be occupied at the time of observation, this
cited example does not demonstrate long-term enforcement success in an occupied residential
subdivision.
Exhibit D – 247 Kaydeross Avenue East
Site Map, Site Photographs, and Full Conservation Easement
This exhibit relates to the applicant attorney’s cited example of the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East
Conservation Subdivision, Project #20250089 , which was referenced as an alleged precedent
for the proposed Bemis Point subdivision.
This exhibit includes:
1. A site map showing the layout of the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East subdivision and the
location of the conservation easement areas in relation to the proposed building lots;
2. Photographs showing the undeveloped condition of the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East site
at the time of observation; and
3. The full Conservation Easement for the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East project.
These materials are provided to show that the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East example is not
comparable to the proposed Bemis Point subdivision. The 247 example appears to involve a
small 3-lot conservation subdivision, not a larger subdivision where proposed homes, roadway,
and future residential activity are directly intertwined with a 50-foot wetland buffer.
The 247 Kaydeross Avenue East document is also materially different because it is a
conservation easement in favor of the City of Saratoga Springs. It gives the City direct
enforcement rights, inspection rights, and remedies. That is different from relying on a cited
example as proof that private-lot restrictions, signage, fencing, or homeowner enforcement will
work in the more constrained Bemis Point setting.
At the time of my site visit, the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East subdivision did not appear to have
buildings, a constructed road, or occupied lots. Therefore, this example should not be treated as
proof that conservation easements, deed restrictions, signage, fencing, or homeowner
enforcement have worked successfully over time in an occupied residential subdivision.
For these reasons, the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East project should not be treated as a comparable
precedent for the proposed Bemis Point subdivision.
Figure D-1 – 247 Kaydeross Avenue East Site Map
This site map shows the layout of the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East subdivision and the
conservation easement areas in relation to the proposed building lots.
Figure D-2 – 247 Kaydeross Avenue East Site Photograph
This photograph shows the undeveloped condition of the 247 Kaydeross Avenue East site at the
time of observation.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT(the"Easement") is made this—day of , 2025,
by and between Frank Scarpinato & Diane Rademacher Scarpinato, having a principal
residence of 247 Kaydeross Avenue East, Saratoga Springs,New York 12866 (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the "Grantors") in favor of The City of Saratoga Springs, a
municipality located in the State of New York with an address of 474 Broadway, Saratoga
Springs,New York 12866 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Grantee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantors are the fee simple owner of a parcel of land situate in the City of
Saratoga Springs, County of Saratoga, and the State of New York(the "Property"), which parcel
was conveyed to the Grantors by Lester F. Ramsdill, Jr. deed dated December 9, 1994 and
recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office on December 14, 1994 as Instrument Number
199502769; and
WHEREAS,the property, currently at 13.35 acres, was depicted as Lot#2 on a map
entitled Kaydeross Springs Subdivision, Phase 3, Dated October 12, 2000 made by Jason F.
Bowman Associates and filed on April 5, 2001 as Map#K282A: and
WHEREAS,the property was further subdivided into Three lots by application# of
the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board with a final subdivision plat recorded with the
Saratoga County Clerk's Office on 202 as Instrument No.hereinafter the
Subdivision Plat").
1
WHEREAS,the Saratoga Springs Planning Board conditioned approval of the
subdivision on the recording of a conservation easement, held by the City of Saratoga Springs, to
create a perpetual restriction on the use of land for the purpose of preserving tracts of
environmentally significant underdeveloped land on the Property.
WHEREAS, Grantors, in furtherance of the subdivision approval condition, desire to
grant to the City of Saratoga Springs, its successors or assigns, a conservation easement covering
the portions of Areas 1, 2, 3 & 4 as denoted"Conservation Easement on the subdivision map in
the City of Saratoga Springs".
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, and in
consideration of One Dollar($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Easement: Grantors hereby grant and convey to Grantee a conservation easement over
property shown on the subdivided map entitled Kaydeross Springs Conservation Subdivision dated
July 24,2024 prepared by Thompson Fleming Land Surveyors,P.C. and recorded in the Saratoga
County Clerk's Office on , 202_as Instrument# as"Conservation Easement"
hereinafter referred to as"Conservation Area").
2. Ownership: Grantors warrant and represent that they are the owners of the Property,and that they
have full authority to grant this Easement.
3. Benefits and Burdens: The benefit of this Easement shall run with the land and insure to the benefit
of the heirs, successors, assigns, invitees,tenants, employees,and personal representatives of the
Grantee.The burden of this easement shall run with the land and be binding upon the heirs,
successors, assigns, invitees, employees, and personal representatives of the Grantors.
4. Purpose: It is the purpose of this Easement to protect and preserve in perpetuity important natural,
scenic, ecological, environmental, and passive recreational resources of the Conservation Area;to
2
maintain and conserve its wetlands and riparian areas,natural areas,and habitats; and to prevent any
use of the property that will impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Conservation Area
hereinafter the"Purpose").
5. Grantors and Grantee Remedies:All successive owners of a portion of the Conservation Area shall
be considered Grantors entitled to enforce the terms of this easement on the entirety of the
Conservation Area. In the event that Grantors or Grantee becomes aware of a violation of the terms of
this Easement,notice shall be given to the property owner in a violation(hereinafter the"Violator"),
at the Violator's last known post office address,of such violation via certified mail,return receipt
requested,with a request for corrective action sufficient to abate such violation and restore the
Conservation Area to its previous condition. Failure by the Violator to cause discontinuance,
abatement or other corrective action within thirty(30)days after receipt of such notice shall entitle
Grantors and or Grantee to bring an action at law or equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of this Easement; to require the restoration of the Conservation Area to its previous
condition; to enjoin such non-compliance by ex parte temporary injunction in a court of competent
jurisdiction; and/or to recover damages arising from such non-compliances.If such court determines
that the Violator has failed to comply with this Easement,Violator shall reimburse Grantors and/or
Grantee for any reasonable costs of enforcement, including costs of restoration, court costs, and
reasonable attorneys'fees, in addition to any other payments ordered by such court.All remedies
hereunder shall be in addition to any and all remedies at law or in equity.Any forbearance,delay or
omission to exercise rights under this instrument in the event of a breach of any term of this
instrument shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or of any of the rights under this
instrument.
6. Emergency Enforcement: If Grantee,in its sole discretion,determines that circumstances require
immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the conservation values of the
Conservation Area, Grantee may pursue its remedies without prior notice to Violator or to any other
party without waiting for the period for cure to expire.
7. Right of Entry: Grantee shall have the right to enter the property at all reasonable times with prior
notice for the purpose of(i)inspection the Property to determine if the Grantors are complying with
the covenants,restrictions,and Purpose of this Easement, (ii)monitoring status,condition,location or
wetlands and natural resources.*(iii) enforcing the terms of this Easement and(iv)taking any and all
3
It is important for the Grantee to access the conservation area on a periodic basis to better understand how
the natural ecosystem is influenced by the impacts of climate change over the long term.
actions with respect to the Property as may be necessary or appropriate, with or without order of
court, to remedy or abate violations thereof.
8. Use Restrictions: As a conservation easement the following use restrictions shall apply to the
Conservation Area:
a. No principal or accessory structures are to be permitted.
b. Pedestrian access only(no bikes,motorized vehicles, etc.)
c. No fires,camping,hunting or firearm use.
d. No soil disturbances except those caused by the permitted uses of 9(b).
e. No cutting,removing or otherwise destroying vegetation or mature trees over 6 inches(6")
except as provided for in sections 9, 10(b), and 10(c)below.
f. No dumping of debris.
9. Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the Conservation Area:
a. Private passive recreational use.
b. Underground septic systems,leach fields and above ground stormwater management
facilities including the construction and maintenance thereof.
c. Area four(4)will continue to be actively farmed by Grantors and/or their assigns.
10. Management Plan: The following Management Plan shall apply:
a. Forestry activities on this site shall require an amended subdivision approval from the
City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board and be in accordance with all state and federal
requirements.
b. Cutting,removing,or otherwise destroying vegetation or mature trees is permitted only
for purposes of the removal of vegetation that is dead, diseased, or otherwise creating
unsafe conditions as determined by the City Arborist, and for driveways and utilities
clearance.
4
11. Legal Construction Easement: the rule of strict construction does not apply to the Easement.The
Easement shall be given a reasonable construction, so that the intention of the parties is carried out,
subject to the reservations and obligations set forth herein.
12. Reserved Rights of Grantors: Grantors hereby reserve unto itself, its successors, and assigns, all
rights and privileges in and to the Property which are not incompatible with the restrictions,rights,
covenants, and easements granted herein.
13. Grantee Obligations:Nothing in this Easement shall be constructed to create any obligations on the
part of the city of Saratoga Springs,nor to reduce any obligations otherwise possessed by the City of
Saratoga Springs.
14. Subsequent Transfers: The Grantors agree that any subsequent conveyance, including,without
limitation, transfer,lease or mortgage of the Property, shall be subject to this Easement and its terms,
conditions, and restrictions and Purpose.Any deed or other instrument evidencing or effecting such
conveyance shall contain language substantially as follows: "This {conveyance, lease,mortgage,
easement etc.{ is subject to a conservation Easement which runs with the land and which was granted
to the City of Saratoga Springs by instrument dated 202 and recorded in the office of the
Clerk of Saratoga County as Instrument Number Grantors shall notify Grantee
in writing at least thirty(30) days before conveying the Conservation Area, or any part thereof or
interest therein,to any party. The failure to notify Grantee or to include said language in any deed or
instrument shall not,however, affect the validity or applicability of this Easement to the Property or
limit its enforceability in any way.
15. Certain Rights not Limited to Easement: The rights incurred under this easement are in addition to
all right possessed by the City of Saratoga Springs through the powers granted to them to i.) enforce
local laws and ordinances pertaining to the development of the parcels referred to in the Subdivision
Plat,and ii.) enforce all conditions,limitations,restrictions and requirements imposed upon the
Grantors Pursuant to the subdivision approval of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board as the
foregoing are set forth on the Subdivision Plat.
16. Notices:All notices shall be in writing and be sent by certified mail,return receipt requested,
addressed to the appropriate party or successor-in-interest.
5
17. Merger: The Grantors and Grantee agree that the terms of this Easement shall survive any merger of
the fee and easement interest in the Property.
18. Modifications: This Easement may be amended, altered,released or revoked only by written
agreement between the parties hereto or their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest,which shall be
filed in the public records in Saratoga County,New York.
19. Successors and Assigns:As used herein the term"Grantors" shall include any and all heirs,
successors or assigns of the Grantors including all subsequent owners of the"Property";the term
Grantee" shall include any successor or assignee of Grantee.Any use of the terms"Grantors"or
Grantee" shall also mean the masculine, feminine,corporate, singular or plural form of the word as
needed in the context of its use.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors and Grantee have executed this instrument on the day first
written above.
GRANTORS GRANTEE
THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
FRANK SCARPINATO
By:
DIANE RADEMACHER SCARPINATO
6
STATE OF NEW YORK :
SS.:
COUNTY OF SARATOGA:
On the day of 2025 before me,a Notary Public in and for the said State,personally
appeared Frank Scarpinato&Diane Rademacher Scarpinato personally known to me or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the
instrument,the individual or the person on behalf of which the individual acted,executed the instrument.
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK
SS:
COUNY OF SARATOGA :
On the day of 202 before me, a Notary Public in and for the said State,personally
appeared personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he
executed the same in his capacity,and that by his signature on the instrument,the individual or the person
on behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
Notary Public
RECORD&RETURN:
7