The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Public Comment (17)Outlook Submission for Distribution and Public Record – Fence-Installation Conflict Memo – Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Subdivision From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com> Date Mon 6/15/2026 9:58 PM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov> 1 attachment (2 MB) Fence-Installation Conflict Along Mature Streambank Tree Line – Lexington Road Bemis Heights Subdivision.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 submission regarding the proposed Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Road subdivision modification, including applications #20240614, #20260090, and #20260091. This submission addresses the proposed split-rail fence alignment, mature streambank trees, fence-installation impacts, and streambank stability. 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 the relevant Lexington Road / Bemis Heights applications. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Caroline Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. 6/16/26, 8:11 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAOvJww0vkGpEvj6uVA9PlOM%3D 1/2 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 independencesquaressny@gmail.com 6/16/26, 8:11 AM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAOvJww0vkGpEvj6uVA9PlOM%3D 2/2 Fence-Installation Conflict Along Mature Streambank Tree Line Required Boundary Protection, Tree Preservation, and Streambank Stability Dear Members of the Planning Board: I am submitting these comments regarding the proposed split-rail fence along the stream corridor within the Lexington Road and Bemis Heights Road subdivision modification. This issue begins with the proposed lot configuration. The proposed residential lots are not cleanly separated from the wetland and stream corridor. Portions of the lots extend into the wetland/stream corridor, over the streambank, and beyond the opposite side of the stream. That configuration creates a foreseeable risk of future encroachment unless protected areas are clearly and permanently marked in the field. For that reason, the proposed fence is not optional, decorative, or incidental. It is necessary because mature trees, even where they form an important natural feature, do not provide legal or physical boundary protection against future mowing, clearing, dumping, lawn expansion, yard use, or other homeowner disturbance within wetland, buffer, no-cut, conservation, or restrictive- covenant areas. At the same time, the fence is not merely a line on a plan. It is a physical improvement that must be installed in the field, and its installation may create environmental impacts of its own. On the west side of the proposed development, the plans show the split-rail fence running along or near the top of the east bank of the stream. An approximately 900-foot-long row of mature trees occupies this same top-of-bank area. Photographs of this mature streambank tree line are attached as Attachment A. This mature tree line is also not optional or incidental. Mature streambank trees help protect the wetland and stream corridor from physical deterioration by stabilizing soils, reducing erosion, filtering sediment, protecting water quality, providing habitat, shading the stream corridor, and preserving the natural character of the site. The result is a direct design conflict. The proposed layout requires a permanent fence to prevent human encroachment, while also requiring preservation of the mature streambank tree line to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and bank instability. Both are needed because the lots are configured within and across the wetland and stream corridor. The unresolved problem is that the proposed fence alignment places the human-encroachment control in the same narrow streambank edge area occupied by mature trees and root systems that already provide natural erosion control and streambank protection. Given that location, fence installation cannot reasonably be treated as a no-impact activity. It is likely to require tree removal, trimming, root disturbance, post-hole excavation, equipment access, soil compaction, vegetation clearing, grading, staging, erosion controls, and worker access along the streambank. These are construction impacts, not incidental details. As shown in Attachment A, the proposed fence alignment runs near an established line of mature top-of-bank trees. The current record does not explain how this fence can be installed without cutting, clearing, excavation, root disturbance, equipment operation, soil compaction, or other disturbance in this sensitive area. This concern is consistent with issues raised during prior Planning Board discussions over the past several months. Board members have recognized the difficulty of placing residential use, wetland protection measures, steep grading, restricted yard areas, and long-term encroachment controls within the same constrained wetland and stream corridor. The proposed fence- installation issue is another example of that same underlying problem. The applicant’s Watercourse/Wetland Permit Narrative confirms that this is a highly constrained wetland and stream site. The narrative identifies 12.14± acres of federally regulated wetlands, 11.7± acres of wetlands proposed to remain undisturbed , 0.44± acres of wetland impacts, 69± linear feet of permanent perennial-stream impacts, and 18± linear feet of temporary perennial-stream impacts. The same narrative states that grading has been designed “as steep as possible” and that the lots have been designed with “minimal lawn area” to reduce impacts and tree clearing. Those statements confirm that this is not an ordinary fence-location issue. This is a constrained site involving wetlands, a perennial stream, stream impacts, steep grading, reduced lawn areas, tree-clearing concerns, and limited usable residential yard area. The fence should therefore be reviewed as part of the project’s watercourse, wetland, grading, erosion-control, and tree- protection analysis — not treated as a minor landscape feature. Before approval, the Board should determine whether the physical work required to install the fence is included within the project’s stated limits of disturbance. If fence installation requires disturbance outside the currently identified limits of disturbance, then the plans and impact calculations are incomplete. The applicant should be required to provide: 1. A fence-construction plan showing the installation method, equipment, access route, construction corridor, and anticipated width of disturbance; 2. A surveyed alignment plan showing the fence in relation to the stream, top of bank, mature trees, root zones, wetland boundaries, buffers, conservation areas, and limits of disturbance; 3. A tree inventory and tree-protection plan identifying trees that may be removed, trimmed, or otherwise affected; 4. A streambank-stability and erosion-control evaluation addressing the fence installation itself; 5. Confirmation that all fence-installation impacts are included within the limits of disturbance and the Watercourse/Wetland Permit review; and 6. A revised protection analysis demonstrating how the applicant can provide effective, permanent boundary protection without removing or damaging mature streambank trees, disturbing root systems, destabilizing the bank, or increasing erosion and sedimentation. The Planning Board should not assume that a fence intended to protect environmental resources is automatically environmentally beneficial in every location. Here, the fence is needed because the lots extend into and across the wetland and stream corridor. The mature streambank tree line is needed because it protects the same corridor from erosion, sedimentation, and bank instability. The current record does not show how both can be maintained within this constrained layout. That missing showing is not a small technical gap. It goes to whether residential lot areas can be introduced into this wetland and stream corridor without degrading the very resources the project is supposed to protect. Without supporting plans and qualified technical analysis demonstrating that the necessary boundary protection can be installed while preserving the mature streambank tree line, maintaining streambank stability, and avoiding expanded disturbance, the current design should not be approved. Respectfully submitted, Caroline Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 independencesquaressny@gmail.com Attachment A: Photographs of mature top-of-bank streambank tree line in the area of the proposed fence alignment