If the land is so special, buy it

Golf course controversy continues

By FRITZ MAYER

KAUNEONGA LAKE, NY - “If we’re to assume that it is as environmentally important as is being presented here, really you should go out and acquire this property.” That was attorney Larry Wolinsky’s advice to the Bethel town board about the old Smallwood golf course and adjoining property at a public hearing on May 1.

On behalf of developer Robert Van Zandt, Wolinsky has been caught up in a war of words with members of Preserve Smallwood Country Life (PSCL) over what the zoning of the 200-acre property should be.

After remarking about the possible transfer of the property, Wolinsky continued to challenge the proposed zoning change. He said changing it to require five acres per house instead of the current one acre per house would be equivalent to “stripping the development” value out of the property and, he added, “we will be able to demonstrate that pretty clearly at the appropriate time.”

Wolinsky’s remarks came after PSCL member Ira Gordon spoke and reiterated points made previously by other members of the group and by the Delaware Riverkeeper: that because of three streams running into the property, and other factors, the property is uniquely environmentally sensitive and is part of an “interconnected ecosystem.”

To this point, Wolinsky challenged his adversaries’ assertions. “You really ought to make sure that the environmental claims are substantiated. So far, from the presentations that I’ve seen, I think there’s a credibility issue,” he said, without citing specifics.

Another point in the discussion was whether intense development on the property might threaten the water supply in Smallwood. Gordon noted that Smallwood wells went dry during a drought in the 1980s.

Wolinsky said he doubted that the golf course and the adjacent properties were “linked hydrologically.”

Both sides mentioned the function of the former golf course itself as being a factor in their favor. Wolinsky said that because the golf course was once active, the property already had a commercial use and was therefore previously disturbed. Gordon, on the other hand, said, “… the former fairways … after decades of non-use are, in effect, not disturbed fairways, but meadows.” Jonathan Hyman, director of PSCL added, that the fairways were the only part of the property that had been developed and that, “These meadows, no longer in use for golf are now part of the larger diverse, rich ecosystem and forested area” being considered by the board.

Gordon pointed out that the parcel should rightly be zoned forest conservation, which would require the five-acre zoning, because the land appears to be “indistinguishable” from the rest of the land in the forest conservation district in that part of the town.

Wolinsky said the parcel could be developed fairly intensely, and his client has illustrated that fact with plans for a 200-unit town house development proposed in 2006, which did not disturb “a square inch” of protected wetland. The board is expected to vote on the zoning changes and the matter of the golf course before the end of June.

Offensive fence?

Another matter addressed at the public hearing was the enforcement of the rules regarding the height of fences. Smallwood resident Bob Barrett addressed the fence erected by his neighbors Michael and Denise Connolly. Barrett said according to existing town code, the height limit for fences is eight feet, but in a couple of places the fence in question rises to 13 feet and 15 feet.

Barrett also said the normal practice on erecting a stockade fence is to “face the good side away from the installer’s property…” and the Connollys have done the opposite. He said the matter is not addressed in current town code and should be addressed in the zoning changes that the board is considering.

In a subsequent phone interview, supervisor Dan Sturm said the board had reviewed Barrett’s complaint and, in fact, the fence had been changed once already because the code enforcement officer thought it was initially unsafe.

Sturm said that in the current code there is no height limit for fences between residences. He said at this late date the board will not consider adding a height limit to the current zoning changes now being considered, but the board may consider this issue separately at a later time.