Planning board approves Bemis Point subdivision with tight conditions after hours of public comment

After more than two hours of public comment and board deliberation, the Saratoga Springs Planning Board voted 4–2 to approve the Bemis Point (Lexington Road) 13‑lot subdivision, attaching a package of conditions addressing wetland maintenance, HOA responsibilities, fencing and tree protection.

Applicant counsel Bruce Steeves outlined the developers’ approach: a homeowners association (to be incorporated as a New York not‑for‑profit) would be legally bound to maintain about 17 acres of restricted land, perform annual wetland inspections and implement a mitigation plan, maintain three water‑quality basins, and install split‑rail fencing and conservation signage. Steeves said the declaration and easement would be recorded in the Saratoga County Clerk’s Office and that the HOA budget and initial assessments would be submitted to the New York Attorney General for review.

Neighbors testified in force, voicing concerns about single‑point access, fire‑code thresholds, possible loss of mature trees, and the enforceability of restrictions. Mary Rose Behan told the board the project would change neighborhood character and urged denial. Regina Reels and other neighbors pressed the board to obtain a written, explicit determination from the fire code official on whether adding 13 homes to a single access road would violate Appendix D section D107.1’s exception language.

Board members debated how much deference to give the city’s fire official: staff explained the fire chief and state Division of Building Standards had been consulted and had consistently viewed the application as a discrete project not requiring a second apparatus access road. Several board members said they remained concerned about emergency access even if the code expert had rendered an opinion.

To address recurring enforcement and long‑term maintenance concerns the board attached the following major conditions to approval: require the HOA to be incorporated and the declaration of covenants and easements to be filed and recorded prior to issuance of building permits; strengthen language to allow the city to recover costs and place liens when the HOA fails to perform; require the applicant to show a tree inventory and a fence alignment plan that avoids cutting mature stream‑bank trees and demonstrates the fence will not undercut the bank; require that the split‑rail fence and conservation signage be staked and reviewed administratively before ground disturbance; and add a five‑year, city‑conveyable easement on Lot 1 so a future city connection (for emergency access or connectivity) would be possible if opportunities materialize.

Chair Mark Pingle summarized the board’s position as one of conditional approval: "We don't want you to undercut that steep bank" was the gist of a condition the board required, directing staff to work with the applicant on precise plan language the board would enforce administratively before any construction. The motion to approve carried 4 in favor and 2 opposed.

The board required the applicant to return administratively with finalized HOA/declaration language acceptable to the city attorney, a staked fence and tree plan that preserves root structure along the stream bank, and recorded easement/declaration documents before building permits will be issued.