Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240614 Lexington Road Subdivision Public Comment (16)Outlook Submission for Distribution and Public Record – Appendix D107 Exception 2 / Lexington Road and Bemis Heights Subdivision From Independence Square <independencesquaressny@gmail.com> Date Tue 6/16/2026 5:07 PM To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratogaspringsny.gov> 1 attachment (2 MB) Appendix D107 Exception 2 Single Access Road Submission - Lexington Bemis 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 regarding Appendix D107, Exception 2 of the Fire Code, in connection with the proposed Lexington Road / Bemis Heights subdivision, including applications #20240614, #20260090, and #20260091. 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, Regina Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 independencesquaressny@gmail.com 6/17/26, 12:35 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQANpCJp9yTPVNll%2FQ0onxs8…1/1 Appendix D107, Exception 2 — Increase in Dwelling Units Accessed from a Single Fire Apparatus Access Road Dear Members of the Planning Board: I am submitting these comments regarding the June 8, 2026 memorandum from Assistant Fire Chief Aaron Dyer concerning Appendix D107.1 of the 2025 Fire Code of New York State and the proposed Bemis Point / Lexington Road / Bemis Heights subdivision modification. The June 8 memorandum concludes that the applicant is not required to construct a second fire apparatus access road because the pending application proposes 13 homes and therefore does not itself exceed the 30-dwelling-unit threshold in D107.1. This submission addresses a related but distinct issue not resolved by that memorandum: whether Appendix D107, Exception 2 has been applied to the increase in dwelling units that would result from adding the proposed homes to the existing single-access roadway system. D107.1 and Exception 2 Address Different Questions D107.1 provides: “Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.” The June 8 memorandum focuses on the word “development” in that provision and concludes that the “development being proposed” consists of 13 homes. Exception 2 provides: “The number of dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless the access road will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official.” That language is materially different. Exception 2 is written in terms of dwelling units “accessed from a single fire apparatus access road,” not the number of homes in the pending application. The word “development” appears in Exception 2 only in the phrase “future development”; it is not used as the grouping term for counting the dwelling units accessed from the single road. For that reason, the conclusion that the pending application proposes only 13 homes does not answer the Exception 2 question. The Relevant Condition Is the Actual Access System The June 8 memorandum states that the project is considered a modification of Phase 3 of the Independence Square subdivision under local zoning law. That may be relevant for subdivision or zoning purposes. Appendix D107, Exception 2, however, is a fire-access provision. It is written in terms of actual access, not subdivision phases, zoning history, or the number of lots in the pending phase. The proposed 13 homes would not be served by a separate fire apparatus access road system. They would rely on the existing Independence Square roadway system and the same single fire apparatus access road that presently serves the existing homes. For Fire Code access purposes, the relevant condition is therefore the combined access system: the existing homes and proposed homes would all depend on the same single means of fire apparatus access. If Exception 2 is interpreted to count only the dwelling units in the current application, its separate wording concerning “dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road” would have little independent effect. It would collapse into the same “development being proposed” analysis already used under D107.1. At minimum, the different wording of Exception 2 requires a separate determination applying that provision to the actual access system and the increase in dwelling units accessed from the same single road. The Question Is Not Who Must Build the Second Road The June 8 memorandum frames the issue as whether the applicant should be required to construct a second fire apparatus access road to serve approximately 81 homes. That framing does not fully address Exception 2. Exception 2 imposes a condition on increasing the number of dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road. It does not turn on whether the applicant presently before the Planning Board is the party responsible for constructing a second road. A second approved fire apparatus access road could potentially be constructed by the applicant, another developer, the City, or another responsible party. The identity of that party is separate from whether additional dwelling units may be approved while the existing single-access arrangement remains. The relevant question is not who must build the second road. The relevant question is whether the increase in dwelling units accessed from the existing single road is permitted under Exception 2, or whether the record contains a reasoned determination explaining why Exception 2 does not apply. The Current Record Does Not Contain an Exception 2 Determination The June 8 memorandum acknowledges that the first two phases of Independence Square contain approximately 68 existing single-family homes accessed from a single fire apparatus access road, and that the proposed project would add approximately 13 homes. It then concludes that D107.1 does not require the applicant to construct a second fire apparatus access road because the proposed development itself does not exceed 30 homes. The memorandum does not quote Exception 2, interpret the phrase “dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road,” determine whether approval would increase the number of dwelling units accessed from the same road, or state whether the existing access road “will connect with future development” within the meaning of Exception 2. The memorandum also states that the Fire Department reached its conclusion after consultation with the Building Inspector and the New York State Department of State Division of Building Standards and Codes “specifically relating to this issue.” However, the record does not identify what question was presented to the State, what response was received, whether Exception 2 was specifically addressed, or whether the State considered the increase from approximately 68 to approximately 81 dwelling units accessed from the same road. As a result, the record contains a D107.1 conclusion, but not an Exception 2 determination applying the Fire Code to the actual access system and resulting dwelling-unit increase. Effect of the Proposed Approval The attached map is provided to illustrate the existing and proposed access configuration. The map shows approximately 68 existing dwelling units currently accessed from the existing single fire apparatus access road, approximately 13 additional dwelling units proposed to be connected to the same roadway system, continued reliance on the same single access road, and an increase from approximately 68 to approximately 81 dwelling units accessed from that road. Approval of the proposed subdivision would therefore increase the number of dwelling units accessed from the existing single fire apparatus access road. That is the condition addressed by Exception 2. Requested Record Determination Before final action is taken, I respectfully request that the Planning Board obtain a supplemental written determination from the Fire Code Official addressing Appendix D107, Exception 2 directly. At a minimum, the record should contain a reasoned determination addressing the increase in dwelling units accessed from the existing single fire apparatus access road; the applicability of Exception 2 to that increase; whether the existing 68 homes are included or excluded in that analysis; any determination that the existing access road will “connect with future development”; and whether the State consultation specifically addressed Exception 2. Conclusion The June 8 memorandum addresses whether the pending 13-home application triggers D107.1. It does not contain a determination applying Appendix D107, Exception 2 to the actual access system. That distinction matters. The applicant’s obligation to construct a second fire apparatus access road is one issue. Whether the increase in dwelling units accessed from the existing single road is permitted under Exception 2, or whether the record contains a reasoned determination explaining why Exception 2 does not apply, is a separate issue. Because those questions are not interchangeable, the Planning Board should not rely on the June 8 memorandum as resolving the Appendix D107 access issue unless and until Exception 2 is expressly addressed in the record. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Regina Reals 2 Bemis Heights Dr. Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Attachments: ● June 8, 2026 Fire Department Memorandum ● Appendix D107 Fire Code Excerpt ● Map Showing Existing and Proposed Dwelling Units Accessed from the Single Fire Apparatus Access Road Saratoga Springs Fire Department Office of the Fire Chief 60 Lake Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Phone: 518 587 3599 Joseph J. Dolan, Chief Aaron Dyer, Asst. Chief June 8, 2026 Susan Barden Administrator of OPED City Hall 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Re: Proposed Bemis Point Subdivision Dear Susan: I am writing to you in connection with the Planning Board’s ongoing review of the above referenced project. It has come to my attention that the Planning Board is seeking a further explanation of the conclusion reached by the SSFD that the most recent project plans are compliant with the provisions of the 2025 Fire Code of New York State (Fire Code). Specifically, I understand that the Board requires an explanation as to why Fire Code Section D107.1 does not apply to this project. Section D107.1 states as follows: “Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.” The project before the Planning Board proposes 13 homes and has a fire apparatus access road that has two turnarounds which meet with the requirements of the Fire Code. The SSFD has concluded that because the development being proposed does not exceed 30 single family homes, that the requirements of Section D107.1 do not apply. I reached this conclusion with the understanding that this project is considered a modification of an existing subdivision under local zoning law, specifically Phase 3 of the Independence Square subdivision which currently contains 39 building lots. I am also aware that the first two phases of the subdivision have been constructed for some time and contain 68 single -family homes which are serviced by a single fire apparatus access road. It has been suggested to me that the word “development,” which is not defined in the 2025 Fire Code, should be taken to mean the existing 68 homes on Lexington Road, Concord Drive, Bunker Hill Drive, Champlain Drive and Bemis Heights Drive along with the 13 proposed homes. It is suggested that under such a reading of Section D107.1, the applicant, who is proposing to reduce the number of approved building lots from 39 to 13, should be required to construct a second fire apparatus road to serve 81 homes. The SSFD does not read the Fire Code to require as much. This conclusion has been reached following my consultation with the Building Inspector and the New York State Department of State Division of Building Standards and Codes specifically relating to this issue. I hope that the above clarifies the SSFD’s position regarding this matter. Type here] Thank you Aaron Dyer Assistant Chief Saratoga Springs Fire Dept. 60 Lake Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 aadyer@ssfdny.org O) 518-587-3599 x3023 C) 518-925-0609 Cc: File SECTION D107—ONE- OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS [NY] D107.1 One- or two-family dwelling residenƟal developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. ExcepƟons: 1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units accessed from a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automaƟc sprinkler system in accordance with SecƟon 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, access from two direcƟons shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units accessed from a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. 3. ConstrucƟon of dwellings on premises which have had local site plan approval prior to January 1, 2011, with no modificaƟon to approved site plan. D107.2 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.