NARROWSBURG, NY — The Town of Tusten Zoning Board of Appeals discussed a contentious subdivision proposal at an October 10 meeting.

The applicant, Robert Weigers, intended to subdivide a property he had bought at 437 Hankins Rd. in Narrowsburg. Weigers required an area variance to do so; based on the current size of his property, each lot would be smaller than zoning allows.

A majority of board members appeared inclined to grant that variance at the October 12 meeting.

Chairperson Neil Latkowski raised concerns about the possibility of the construction impacting local populations of eagles and rattlesnakes, and recommended that, if the board approved the subdivision, it do so with the condition that all Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines be followed.

Latkowski said he had done the math, and the lot width variance requested was within 17 percent of regulations, and the road frontage variance requested was even closer. There were many undersized lots around it; allowing this variance wouldn’t change the character of the community, but preserve it, according to Latkowski.

Public sentiment appeared to say otherwise, as brought up by board member Stephen Stuart.

Neighbors on Hankins Road had appeared at an earlier public hearing on the subdivision to protest it. Weigers’ plans for the property—as discussed by the zoning board of appeals— included building a new dwelling to replace a pre-existing shed on the lot that got split off, a dwelling he planned to turn into a short-term rental. The amount of traffic a short-term rental would bring would change the character of the neighborhood, neighbors had said.

Latkowski didn’t consider the short-term rental issue of relevance to the zoning board of appeals’ decision. The current variance discussion only concerned the subdivision of the property, he said; any future plans for that property were hypothetical, and irrelevant to the current discussion.

“[Short-term rentals regulations are] something that needs to be done in the new zoning,” said Latkowski. “I can understand that being problematic, and I don’t know how many are operating on that road now. If that comes to be, the town has to address that in a separate matter. That should not affect what we are doing here.”

One sticking point remained. The four conditions that must be met for a use variance to be granted include the point that the situation addressed by the variance must not be self-created.

This situation was self-created: Weigers had bought his property two years ago, well after the relevant zoning had come into effect, and there was no financial hardship requiring him to subdivide his property.

The majority of zoning board of appeals members appeared willing to grant the variance despite this point. Town attorney Ken Kline planned to draw up a resolution to that effect, to be decided at the next meeting.