Tusten planning board faces disappearing deed restrictions

Property owners proposed subdivision

By JANET NOBLE

NARROWSBURG, NY — At the town of Tusten Planning Board meeting on Monday, August 21, residents spoke out against a subdivision proposal for a property on Perry Pond Road.

One of the property owners in the community wants to divide his lot in two, and the other homeowners feel this is illegal. Because of the location of his property, they are concerned that his true intention is to extend the existing road, gaining access to Skipperene Road, which would enable him to develop a large tract of land that he owns adjacent to his original lot. This, they said, would severely alter the sylvan character of the community and violate the covenants in their property deeds.

The history of the Perry Pond community is simple enough. In 1985, a company called Patton Corporation, a developer of large tracts of land, applied to the planning board for permission to develop an area around Perry Pond and Forest Pond roads. Approval was granted but with the stipulation that there could be no further subdividing of the lots. According to board member Richard Crandall, this stipulation, in the form of a covenant, was included in the deeds held by those who bought into the community. Homeowners who spoke at the meeting said this ban on subdivision was one of the main reasons they bought their lots.

However, even though the planning board ruled out additional subdividing when they originally approved the Patton Corporation subdivision, they cannot now rule on the legality of this proposed subdivision. The reason? It has come to light that their original stipulation somehow disappeared from the recording that was filed at the Sullivan County courthouse in Monticello. Also, the sub-divider claims he has no such ban in his deed.

Because his plans conformed to all of Tusten’s zoning requirements, planning board members said they were obligated to give their approval, though the vote was not unanimous.

The other property owners were advised that it is up to them to enforce their covenants and challenge the sub-divider based on the ban stated in their deeds. They were encouraged to form a homeowners association and hire a lawyer to formally do so in court.