HomeMy WebLinkAbout20260091 Lexington Rd & Bemis Heights Rd Subdivision Modification Public Comment (20)Outlook
Submission for Distribution and Public Record – Functional Residential Lot Area and Neighborhood Character – Lexington Road /
Bemis Heights Subdivision
From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com>
Date Tue 6/16/2026 11:26 AM
To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov>
1 attachment (524 KB)
Lexington Bemis Subdivision – Functional Residential Lot Area and Neighborhood Character.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 regarding the proposed Lexington Road / Bemis Heights Road subdivision modification, including
applications #20240614, #20260090, and #20260091.
This submission addresses functional residential lot area and neighborhood character, including Net Parcel Area, minimal lawn area, fencing,
signage, and Article 14 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
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,
Caroline Reals
2 Bemis Heights Dr.
Saratoga Springs, NY
6/16/26, 11:28 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAEvXTp0pXrVFianUVVG2WD4%3D 1/2
independencesquaressny@gmail.com
6/16/26, 11:28 AM Inbox - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAEvXTp0pXrVFianUVVG2WD4%3D 2/2
Functional Residential Lot Area and Neighborhood Character
Net Parcel Area, Minimal Lawn Area, Fencing, and Signage
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
I am submitting these comments regarding the functional residential lot pattern and
neighborhood character of the proposed Lexington Road and Bemis Heights Road subdivision
modification.
Article 14 of the Unified Development Ordinance provides the relevant framework for this
review. Its stated purposes include protecting public health, safety, and welfare; protecting
neighborhood character; encouraging orderly and beneficial development; protecting
environmentally critical areas; preserving natural beauty and topography; ensuring appropriate
development with regard to natural features; providing for open space through efficient design
and layout; and requiring that land to be subdivided be of such character that it can be used
safely for building purposes.
The core issue is that the proposed lots may appear comparable when measured by legal lot lines,
but they do not appear comparable when measured by functional residential use. The applicant’s
own design relies on minimal lawn areas, conservation restrictions, fencing, signage, and
constrained usable yard areas, creating a residential lot pattern materially different from the
existing neighborhood.
Article 14’s purposes require the Planning Board to evaluate the subdivision as it would actually
function, not merely as it appears from legal lot lines or gross acreage. Here, the applicant’s own
plans and narrative show that the proposed residential environment would be shaped by
conservation restrictions, wetland and stream buffers, no-cut areas, steep grading, split-rail
fencing, signage, and related environmental constraints.
The proposed subdivision should therefore not be evaluated as though gross lot acreage alone
establishes compatibility with the existing neighborhood. On paper, the proposed lots may
appear larger because restricted conservation and buffer areas remain within the legal lot lines. In
practical residential use, however, those areas may be physically and functionally separated from
the portions of the lots available for ordinary residential yard use.
The proposed split-rail fence is central to that issue. It appears to mark the practical edge of the
residential-use area by separating ordinary yard areas from land subject to conservation, wetland,
buffer, no-cut, or related restrictions.
For purposes of this submission, “Net Parcel Area” refers to the portion of each proposed lot
located on the residential-use side of the proposed split-rail fence, as calculated from the
applicant’s plans. This term is not offered as a substitute for the zoning definition of lot area. It is
offered as a practical measure of the portion of each lot that appears available for ordinary
residential use after the proposed fence and related restrictions are considered.
The following table summarizes the proposed Net Parcel Areas, based on the portion of each lot
located on the residential-use side of the proposed split-rail fence:
Proposed Lot Net Parcel Area
Lot 1 0.3296 acres
Lot 2 0.1828 acres
Lot 3 0.2046 acres
Lot 4 0.2152 acres
Lot 5 0.1202 acres
Lot 6 0.1720 acres
Lot 7 0.1836 acres
Lot 8 0.2194 acres
Lot 9 0.2181 acres
Lot 10 0.2309 acres
Lot 11 0.1974 acres
Lot 12 0.1769 acres
Lot 13 0.4645 acres
The average lot size in the existing neighborhood is approximately 0.33 acres, and the smallest
existing neighborhood lot is approximately 0.29 acres. By comparison, the average proposed Net
Parcel Area is approximately 0.224 acres. Eleven of the thirteen proposed Net Parcel Areas are
smaller than the smallest existing neighborhood lot, and twelve of the thirteen are smaller than
the existing neighborhood average.
Attachment A, “Visual Comparison of Proposed Net Parcel Area and Nearby Existing
Neighborhood Lots,” illustrates this same functional-lot-area discrepancy visually. It shows a
proposed Net Parcel Area outlined in red in relation to a nearby existing neighborhood lot
outlined in green. This exhibit is not intended to compare legal lot boundaries. It illustrates, using
nearby lots, the difference between the proposed functional residential-use area and the
established neighborhood lot pattern.
The Net Parcel Area figures may still overstate the actual usable lawn or yard area because the
fenced residential-side area may include the dwelling footprint, driveway, utilities, grading,
slopes, drainage features, landscaping, and other improvements. The proposed lots may therefore
appear comparable to the existing neighborhood only when gross acreage is used. When
functional residential area is considered, the proposed lot pattern is materially different.
The applicant’s own Watercourse/Wetland Permit Narrative confirms that the lot design is being
driven by site constraints. The applicant states that grading has been designed “as steep as
possible” to minimize impacts and that, “[t]o further minimize impacts and tree clearing, the
proposed lots have been designed to have minimal lawn area.”
These are the applicant’s own descriptions. They show that the proposed subdivision depends on
minimal lawn areas to fit residential development into a constrained wetland and stream corridor
site. That is not a minor design detail; it is a defining feature of the proposed residential
environment.
If the applicant relies on “minimal lawn area” as part of its environmental-impact-reduction
strategy, that term must be defined in measurable and enforceable terms. The Board should not
credit “minimal lawn area” as a protective measure unless the proposed lawn area is quantified,
mapped, incorporated into the approved plans, and made enforceable on a lot-by-lot basis.
The applicant’s proposed “minimal lawn area” is also directly relevant to neighborhood
character. The existing neighborhood consists of ordinary residential lots with regular lawn and
yard areas. A subdivision intentionally designed around minimized lawn areas would not
function like the existing neighborhood and would not present the same residential character.
That difference is directly relevant to Article 14. The existing neighborhood is not characterized
by lots designed around minimal lawn areas, extensive conservation restrictions, no-cut buffers,
split-rail boundary fencing, and repeated regulatory signage.
The proposed split-rail fence appears to create a visible boundary along substantial portions of
the residential development footprint. Although the plans also appear to contain substantial gaps
in the proposed fence alignment, where the fence is proposed, it would visibly separate the
usable residential portions of the lots from restricted conservation and buffer areas. There is no
comparable split-rail boundary fencing along the road in the existing neighborhood.
The proposed signage reinforces this concern. The plans appear to call for a 12-inch by 18-inch
sign at the corner of Bemis Heights Drive and the proposed road stating:
“THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES IS PROHIBITED AT ALL
LOCATIONS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. MORE INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED
FROM THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 518-587-
3550 EXT. 2533 OR WWW.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG.”
This would be one of the first visible features encountered at the entrance to the proposed
subdivision. Its statement that restrictions apply “at all locations in this development”
reinforces the appearance and function of a separate, specially regulated development.
The plans also appear to require recurring environmental restriction signs along portions of the
conservation or no-cut boundary. The detailed adequacy, placement, continuity, and
enforceability of that signage and fencing are addressed in a separate submission concerning
boundary delineation and encroachment protection. For purposes of this submission, the relevant
point is that repeated regulatory signage, together with split-rail fencing, minimal lawn areas, and
conservation restrictions, would create a residential environment substantially different from the
existing neighborhood.
The current record does not adequately establish that the proposed functional lot pattern is
compatible with Article 14’s purposes. The applicant’s own narrative and plans show a
residential environment shaped by constrained lawn areas, fencing, signage, and conservation
controls, rather than a conventional lot pattern comparable to the existing neighborhood.
That distinction matters under Article 14. The proposed residential environment is directly
relevant to neighborhood character, orderly and beneficial development, appropriate
development with regard to natural features, preservation of topography, protection of
environmentally critical areas, open space design, and safe use of subdivided land for building
purposes.
The record should not treat this proposal as having a similar character to the existing
neighborhood when the functional lot-area analysis, proposed fencing and signage, and
applicant’s own statements show a materially different residential lot pattern. The issue is not
simply that the proposed lots are different on paper; it is that they would function differently in
ordinary residential use. On the current record, that functional lot pattern has not been shown to
be compatible with Article 14’s purposes. That deficiency supports a denial grounded in Article
14.
Respectfully submitted,
Caroline Reals
2 Bemis Heights Dr.
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
Attachment A, “Visual Comparison of Proposed Net Parcel Area and Nearby Existing
Neighborhood Lots