RENSSELAERVILLE — Just days after the town’s new comprehensive plan was adopted last month, Vernon Husek, the chairman of the committee that designed it, resigned.

The sticking point was lot size.

Last night, at the public hearing on new zoning laws and subdivision regulations proposed to implement the plan, many town residents said they want smaller lot sizes. Larger lot sizes, many said, will place burdens on farmers.

Thomas Mikulka, who lives in Rensselaerville and served on the land-use committee, was appointed as the new chairman.
"People on the committee were failing to represent the public interest as generated by the public," Husek told The Enterprise last week.

Nearly a year ago, a moratorium halted subdivisions of over three lots in Rensselaerville. The town’s comprehensive plan was adopted by the town board on March 8.

Using the plan as a guide, the town is now drafting new zoning laws and subdivision regulations. A public hearing on the new laws and regulations was held last night.

The former plan, adopted in 1991, had had a five-acre minimum lot size for agricultural districts.

To collect data, Husek’s committee sent surveys to town residents last spring and visioning workshops were held at the town’s three firehouses. Data showed residents want to keep the town rural and protect its open spaces.
A majority of the 13-member committee voted for 10-acre zoning in the agricultural district. Husek, who owns approximately 130 acres of land, called the committee’s zoning decision "totally ineffective if we’re to believe the experts."

The agricultural district and the rural residential district, which had been combined, were split to protect the town’s prime soils. While forming the plan, the land-use committee used recommendations by the American Farmland Trust and by Pace University, a law school that provides guidance to towns, Husek said.

A planner hired by the town, Nan Stolzenberg, of Community Planning and Environmental Associates, recommended four dwellings per 100 acres, half as dense as what the committee voted for.
The committee, Husek said, changed from "data-driven" to "politically-driven." Unless committee members found flaws with the information provided by experts and planners, he said, it was their duty to follow the experts’ advice.
"There are no farms here," said Becky Lewis, a member of the land-use committee who operates a dairy farm with her father, David Lewis.

The town once had many dairy farms, she told The Enterprise, but now only has few. Her family’s farm is the only working dairy farm in Rensselaerville and one of few in the county, she said. According to the 2000 census, nine Rensselaerville residents have occupations in farming, fishing, and gaming.

Larger lot sizes, of 20 or 25 acres, Lewis said, would devalue her land. Large lot sizes, she said, leave property owners with large parcels and high taxes. Owners of large parcels of land, she said, need to subdivide because they cannot afford to pay high property taxes.

Finding a purchaser for larger parcels of land is more difficult than finding one for a smaller parcel, she said.

Public hearing

Stolzenberg, who worked with the land-use committee, outlined the year-long process at Wednesday night’s hearing. Amendments were made to the town’s existing plan to comply with state laws, she said.

Town residents, she said, gave input into the plan. Their input, she said, showed that the town’s residents want to maintain the town’s rural and historic character, protect open spaces, preserve its environment and water, and preserve natural habitats.
"We want to try and keep Rensselaerville, Rensselaerville," she said. "It takes a lot of work and commitment to keep it the same."

Stolzenberg said information that guided the plan was from the people who participated by attending the visioning workshops at the three hamlets’ firehouses and who filled out surveys sent out to area residents.
Mikulka said the process was "long and hard, but democratic." The committee, he said, didn’t always agree, but made every decision by a majority vote. "It’s a good document and a fair document," he said.

The most controversial issue, he said, was lot size. The recommendation of 20-acre lot sizes, he said, was the most controversial issue.
"We lost the chairman of the group over that issue," he said.
A larger lot size, he said, would result in decreased land value. "That strikes me as unfair," he said.
"It’s un-American," he said. "No way do we, as a group, recommend going up to 20 or 25 acres."

Some members of the land-use committee, who worked long hours on the plan, said it was rushed.

Throughout the hearing, many residents requested the moratorium be extended. Residents said they had not read the lengthy comprehensive plan or the zoning laws and subdivision regulations under consideration.
"Who in God’s heaven would enforce this thing," said a resident.

Both the comprehensive plan and zoning laws and subdivision regulations under consideration are posted on the town’s website at www.rensselaerville.com.

Packed into the town’s highway garage, many residents said last night that farming, once a bustling occupation in Rensselaerville, no longer exists.

Some said a new committee should be formed to review the comprehensive plan and new zoning laws and regulations.

Land-owners said their money is tied up in their property and is all they have to pass on to their children.
"I don’t have a 401K," said David Lewis. "That’s my 401K."
Lewis said farming in the area is "piss-poor." Other residents echoed Lewis.
"If a farmer donates his land to his son, he should go to jail for child abuse," said Robert Bolte.
Ray Welsh, a member of the land-use committee, said the process was "totally democratic." Meetings, he said, were open to the public. The committee, he said, "tried to go by what you told us."
There wasn’t much opposition to the plan when the committee’s public hearing was held, he said. "The town was divided with the moratorium in the first place," he said. "We wanted more time to work on this," he said, adding that the committee needs to take a more detailed look at the plan.
"I have read the plan, and I have read the laws, and I support it," said Jeannette Rice, a member of the land-use committee. "We didn’t write the laws. We’re not lawyers. But we did our best to remain impartial," she said.

Assessor’s view

Jeff Pine, one of the town’s assessor, told The Enterprise that it would be difficult to gauge how many farms are in the town. To receive an agricultural exemption, a farm must make at least $10,000 in profit per year for an average of three years, he said. It is also difficult to estimate the number of farms because many farmers lease their land. Many farmers are hay-balers, and about half of the farmland in the town is leased, he said.
Pine, who was one of the original members of the zoning committee and served on the planning board for six years, said he was "disappointed" in the comprehensive plan and zoning law process.

The rezoning of the agricultural district, meant to protect the town’s prime soils, did not include other parts of the town that also have good farming soil, Pine said. Areas near the Catskill Creek, he said, also have agricultural soils but were not defined as an agricultural district on the new zoning map.
"The whole thing was rushed," he said, adding that, after the town board adopted the plan last month, the zoning and subdivision regulations were rapidly drafted. Pine said more time should have elapsed between adopting the plan and drafting new zoning laws.

Last week, at the town board meeting, trustees were asked by a resident if they had read all the information in the comprehensive plan. None said they had read the plan in full.
Pine said of the comprehensive planning process, "It went completely bizarre."