Farmers oppose four-acre option in Bethel

Smallwood residents push for conservation, oppose developer

By FRITZ MAYER

WHITE LAKE, NY — The zoning review committee recommended that new homes in Bethel’s agricultural district be built on lots no smaller than four acres. Farmers in the district say that would put young people who want to stay in the area at a disadvantage, and that farmland would be gobbled up by developers at a faster rate than if the lots were smaller.

Several farmers voiced similar views at a public hearing regarding proposed zoning changes held at the White Lake Firehouse on February 14. One of the first to speak was Joe Walsh of the Cornell Cooperative Extension and a member of the Sullivan County Farmland Protection Board. He said, “Four acres is too big to mow and too small to farm,” and changing the zoning from one acre to four would adversely affect working farms in the town.

Former Bethel supervisor Harold Russell, a dairy farmer, agreed, and argued that a four-acre minimum would drive the cost of a lot for a new house to about $100,000, beyond the reach of young people who might want to stay in the area. He said he had heard from one member of the board that “it’s already too late for the youth in this town. If that’s the way you feel,” he added, “shame on you.”

On the other side of the issue, the four-acre option had supporters such as resident Jennifer Young, who said the large lot size would help preserve the area’s country appeal and prevent over development of the sort seen in Orange County.

Resident Dawn Ryder also defended the four-acre option, saying that other towns in the area have five-acre minimums in their ag districts.

The ag district makes up about a third of the land in the town, with another third located in the proposed forest conservation (FC) district in the southern part of the town. In the FC district, the minimum lot size for new homes would be set at five acres, according to the recommendation from the zoning review committee.

In another area of concern, several members of the group Preserve Smallwood Country Life said that the lot containing the former Smallwood Golf Course and its adjacent lots should be zoned FC as are most of the surrounding parcels, instead of the proposed rural development (RD), which is much less restrictive. Members argued that any substantial development of the lots would compromise the wells in Smallwood, some of which have already gone dry in very dry periods.

The group got support from Tracy Carluccio, a deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, who sent a letter saying the land in question was home to environmentally sensitive and valuable wetlands and should be zoned FC.

The developer who owns the land in question, Robert Van Zandt, proposed building 200 townhouses in a planned use development (PUD) in 2006. Because the zoning at the time did not allow for a PUD, Van Zandt was required to seek permission from the town board. The board turned him down, in part because of community opposition. A change to RD zoning as recommended by the zoning review committee would allow for a PUD, and Van Zandt could conceivably move forward with his townhouses.

At the hearing, Smallwood resident Gail Rubenfeld, a lawyer, said that in discussions of the matter with the town board, some board members indicated they were reluctant to zone the property FC because they were concerned that it would prompt a lawsuit from the developer. She then revealed details of a similar case involving the Village of Tarrytown, in which the state’s highest court ruled in favor of the village.

The court ruled, in part, “Zoning is by no means static. Changed or changing conditions call for changed plans, and persons who own property in a particular zone or use district enjoy no eternally vested right to that classification if the public interest demands otherwise. Accordingly, the power of a village (or town, said Rubenfeld) to amend its basic ordinance in such a way as reasonable to promote the general welfare cannot be questioned.”

After the meeting, Supervisor Dan Sturm said the board would consider all the input from the residents, and make changes to the new zoning rules. Sturm said the board will likely have to extend the building moratorium that is set to expire on March 7, because the new zoning law won’t be ready by then. He said the board has an option to extend the moratorium for two months.