News

Frustration over subdivision law aired at hearing

By Colin DeVries

CATSKILL — Town hall was nearly standing room only as frustrated residents and developers thronged to a highly anticipated public hearing on subdivision changes.

Since the introduction of the subdivision law in 2007, property owners have had considerable difficulty dividing parcels of land to build a home for their sons or daughters, even just to create a wood or timber lot.

The outcry from speakers at the public hearing also warned that current regulations and specifications may garner suburban-like development in rural areas, going against the principles of the town’s comprehensive plan.

“We think there’s an opportunity for a rural subdivision more in line with the town’s comprehensive plan,” said resident Don Carlson. He said a “rural subdivision” may be a good fit for situations that do not permit the specifications of a minor or major subdivision.

In rural areas such as Kiskatom and Palenville, Carlson said that dividing large acre parcels into several lots need not require blacktop, streetlights, sidewalks and a “Colonie-like” feel to it.

From the perspective of developer Robert Koechel, who wants to subdivide 165 acres into large acreage lots, the cost of paving and bringing the property up to specifications would probably disrupt his vision of preserving the rural character.

He said that paving a road with blacktop is not only incredibly expensive but leaves a large carbon footprint, where as purchasing local stone products for paving is both environmentally mindful and supports the local economy.

New definitions being proposed also came under some scrutiny — particularly the “shared driveway,” which is defined as vehicular access for two to four dwellings or businesses within the town of Catskill and does not allow lot frontage.

A contradiction exists, however, within the design standards section of the proposed revision which states that “all lots shall front on a public or private street, or a shared driveway (existing or proposed).”

Carlson identified the flaw and some examples vague terminology used throughout the one-page document.

“I would suggest there be a subcommittee and really work on getting this right, and not doing it in a patchwork way,” Carlson said.

Kiskatom resident Robert Smith spoke before the board regarding his tribulation in trying to subdivide his property so that his daughter and son-in-law could build a home.

He was told by the Town Planning Board attorney that his right-of-way needed to be brought up to specifications before building the lot, to provide frontage. That would have required him to acquisition more land and expand the driveway to meet the 50-foot requirement, something he says he can’t afford.

The introduction of a “road maintenance and access agreement” also posed a problem for Smith and others at the hearing.

“What if the ten people (sharing a private road) say, ‘I’m not signing a maintenance agreement just because you want to split one parcel down here to give to your son or daughter,’” Michael Carlson said.

The issue of dividing property for more than just building was also on the table at the hearing.

Greg Carlson raised the question, why do I need a paved road if I want to subdivide to pasture cattle?

“There’s nothing in the subdivision law that addresses land that’s planned to remain vacant,” he said. “The name planning board is a misnomer, it shouldn’t be called a planning board at all. It should be called a review board because they’re not helping anybody plan anything.”

Town Code Enforcement Officer Linda Speckman also questioned the proposed statute on a maximum 10 percent grade for a “rural street,” a newly defined term in the proposed revisions.

“I spent a lot of time in different areas in the town of Catskill and most of these areas where properties are being subdivided right now are not flat areas,” she said. “I think the 10 percent maximum grade is not going to be a realistic number. … I would suggest being more generous with that percentage so that people have more room to work with that.”

Town Supervisor Peter Markou said that all the suggestions and comments will be reviewed and forwarded to the Greene County Planning Department, which is serving in a consultant capacity as the law is reviewed.

“We’ll seek to assist them in reviewing the existing regulations and then come up with an appropriate response from the comments they received this evening,” said Greene County Planning and Economic Development Director Warren Hart. “It’s not atypical that when a community enacts a new law that after a year goes by and they have practical application of it, that it’s time to re-address it and look at how they might be able to improve it.”

Reader Comments

Submit a Comment