Cochecton Development Pulled

Paul Savad, a developer from Nanuet who proposed a 42 home subdivision on New Turnpike Road in Cochecton, pulled the plug on the development last week. The development faced considerable local opposition from neighbors who argued that the plan would compromise the quiet solitude and rural character of the area.

The New Turnpike Road case raises important issues for development in Sullivan County, particularly the more rural western townships. Cochecton zoning permits one to two acre lots in certain areas, so Savad was not asking for a variance --- just subdivision approval under current zoning regulations. Concerned citizens in Cochecton wanted to preserve the rural character of the area, and were particularly concerned about increased traffic on New Turnpike Road, which is a narrow local road. At the same time, though, one of the big complaints among property owners here is high property taxes, and the Savad development, when complete, would have added about $12 million to the tax rolls (and generated about $400,000 in annual property and school taxes.) Savad's plan also called for more reasonably priced houses --- about $250,000 --- which is an underserved market niche here. (However, I doubt his plan for houses on small lots in a traditional subdivision layout would have had much appeal for the second home market, which is where the $250,000 demand is.)

This is also a classic case of the raw land cost squeeze that developers are facing here. The 108 acre parcel is on the market for $500,000, roughly $5,000 an acre. Figure half of the land is 'developable', given that Savad planned to develop that much (and leave the rest in green space.' So you've got roughly 50 developable acres. Cut into 5 acre, rather than 1 acre lots, would yield 10 parcels --- with a raw land cost of $50,000 per parcel. With development, carrying costs, sales expenses and profit, that would translate into a minimum 'retail' per parcel sales price of $150,000. And that puts you back into the upper end market that's so slow right now.

Somehow we've got to figure out how we have our cake and eat it too.

Comments

[David Knudsen]

In today's Times Herald Record is an article about the Township of Liberty considering a 6 month moratorium on subdivisions in the township's agricultural districts. (The moratorium is just a proposal and hasn't been approved.) This brings to 4 the number of townships considering putting the brakes on subdivisions --- Fremont, Rockland, Cochecton and Liberty. This isn't just a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) phenomenon, though. The northern townships have been heavily impacted by flooding, and are looking at the impact of development on flooding. Liberty has been working diligently on a new comprehensive plan the for township, and understandably wants to have that put to bed before proceeding with any major new subdivisions. But there is a growing populist anti-development sentiment, which could have a significant impact on land use planning and land costs in the next few years.

[Anthony Ritter]

Dave, as you noted, this was a case in which the developer was not asking for a variance from the town of Cochecton's zoning code.

Additionally, the proposed subdivision was proposed to be a "conservation cluster" in which about 70% of the total area would be perserved as 'open space' - as oppposed to standard developments that we've seen up here in which say - 100 acres - are divided into 20 five acre lots - or road frontage minimums are met and the parcels become 'cigarette lots" - they meet the minimum road widths are are very deep.

I was under the impression that Conservation Cluster subdivisions have become the eco sensitive way to foster smart growth and good planning going forward.

If you read Mr. Badger's quote below in the SC Democrat he states; "'The group is not against development – it’s [against] inappropriate development,' he explained.

Toward that end, Badger said local citizens will be advocating for a review and possible overhaul of zoning laws and the comprehensive plan so as to protect what they treasure most about Cochecton: its rural character."

In the case of this development, in my opinion, "inappropriate" was probably the key word.

Howeever, let's hope that this was not just a case of NIMBYism on New Turnpike Road.

Many of these eloquent speakers and activists might just fade away since it doesn't affect them the next time something of the scale within the existing context is proposed. I hope not.

Those citizens that showed up in force at previous Cochecton planning board meetings to voice their concern played an active role in the process and should continue to be heard when and if Cochecton addresses their Master Plan for growth and revsits their zoning codes in the future.

Best...
Tony Ritter

[pull quote]

However, Badger cautioned people not to think Keep Cochecton Rural is anti-development.
“The group is not against development – it’s [against] inappropriate development,” he explained.
Toward that end, Badger said local citizens will be advocating for a review and possible overhaul of zoning laws and the comprehensive plan so as to protect what they treasure most about Cochecton: its rural character.

At:

http://www.sc-democrat.com/news/11November/21/cochecton.htm

=============

[David Knudsen]

Tony, I don't think the proposed subdivision plan was particularly creative or "eco sensitive", and would be interested in how much of the land to be put into conservation was actually developable at a reasonable cost. Wetlands? Expensive road construction? Not easily buildable? To me, it looked pretty much like an economical 'loop road' proposal, rather than one with green spaces between building parcels, or grouping houses in small clusters surrounded by green space. I think developers throw around the 'eco' tag line without really putting a unique plan on the table. Larry Rockefeller up at Lew Beach has the right idea --- houses on relatively small parcels with designated building sites surrounded by protected conservation areas. Arguably Lew Beach is in a very different price point, but creative, conservation-oriented land use planning can be applied to lower-end developments.

I fear that Cochecton, as well as other townships facing an onslaught of subdivision proposals, will default to simply increasing the lot size and road frontage minimums. I just don't think that 5 acre zoning is the long term answer, unless a 5 acre minimum is the standard, but there are vairances possible for developers who propose creative options with a real conservation focus --- like clstering, designated building spots, tucking houses in trees rather than fields, maintaining fields in farming, etc.

[Allan Rubin]

I live on New Turnpike Road. You are correct that this development was innappropriate and not eco-sensitive. Such a monster should not be built in anyone's backyard. It was all about profit. Squeezing every possible buck out of it. And it was going to be ugly. But the $400k tax revenues you write of would likely have been offset by $500k in increased service costs to the town, according to common estimates of $1.25 spent for each $1.00 of residential taxes collected. Important for Cochecton now is DENSITY. 5 acre minimums won't fix the problem. Planning for controlled density through zoning and design oversight is needed to maintain the rural character that attracts the current buyers of country homes. Suburban tracts would chase owners like me away. Our group would not have objected to a conservation development of clusters of homes out of sight in the woods in numbers not overwhelming the quiet infrastructure and character of our part of town.

[paul savad]

As the developer who pulled out of Cochecton - Catskills Home & Land Developers was responsive to the feelings of the community. We do not want to go where we are not wanted.

The $250,000 homes not only were to provide a tax base, but were also intended to service the needs of weekenders and the accelerated growth in the need for housing new employment opportunities in Sullivan and the immediate region.

Based upon the zoning we could have prevailed, notwithstanding the opposition, because the LAW was and is on our side.

With the new Concord project and Gambling in Monticello, affordable housing is an absolute necessity.

The Sullivan County and its Towns will have to address these needs.

Its only a matter of time. We tried to help, while at the same time exercising our rights under our free enterprise system and the law.

PAULO SAVAD

We were prepared to make offsite road improvements and buil attractive affordable houses with a HOA pool and fitness center.

Isn't this what the community wanted and needs when it passed Current Zoning Ordinance.

The design of the road and the lots were done after the planning board walked the property and gave us "Concept Approval".

And so it is. Thanks for your balanced article and approach. Although I disagree with your economic and demographic analysis. Paul Savad