Fallsburg Zoning Debate Draws Hundreds, Sparks Controversy

A rescheduled meeting to discuss proposed zoning changes in the Town of Fallsburg drew an overwhelming response from the community, with nearly 400 residents filling the Hurleyville Performing Arts Center ballroom on March 4. The public hearing had to be moved to the larger venue after a previous meeting at Town Hall exceeded capacity, leaving many unable to attend.

As attendees packed the grand ballroom, with every seat taken and standing room only, emotions ran high as residents expressed both support and concern over the proposed zoning modifications.

Understanding the Zoning Amendments

Fallsburg Town Supervisor Michael Bensimon opened the hearing by explaining the town’s rationale for the changes, stating, “These changes are about ensuring our zoning code aligns with federal law while also meeting the needs of our growing community.”

The amendments introduce updates to land use laws, particularly affecting religious institutions, nonconforming properties, and site plan regulations. The new definitions clarify religious retreat centers and religious schools to align with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). While the town argues these adjustments are necessary to avoid legal conflicts, some residents fear they may open the door to increased development in rural areas.

The changes also propose greater flexibility for nonconforming properties, allowing commercial and multifamily buildings to expand up to 50% with site plan approval. Bungalow colonies would be permitted to replace existing structures without reducing density, and sleepaway and day camps could be converted into religious retreat centers without requiring a full variance.

Additionally, site plan reviews would now mandate stricter adherence to the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code, and permit approvals would be extended from 18 months to 24 months, with optional six-month extensions.

Opinions

Moses Friedman, a seasonal resident, expressed skepticism about the law’s ability to prevent future legal battles. “I’m opposing the law because I think the law isn’t enough and it still may bring in fact some other litigations.” He urged the town to ensure any new zoning law is airtight against potential lawsuits.

Annie Mauer, a South Fallsburg resident of 11 years, raised concerns about contradictions in the proposed amendments. “The proposed amendments create ambiguities and inconsistencies in the zoning code,” she said. She pointed to a Sullivan County review that recommended a complete rewrite of the definitions section to minimize conflicts. “A roundtable discussion that includes multiple perspectives is needed to redraft the amendments,” Mauer suggested.

Gabriela Nolan, a longtime resident with expertise in geological sciences and environmental policy, criticized the procedural handling of the zoning process. “You missed some parts to correctly evaluate the environmental impacts that may occur with these amendments,” she stated, emphasizing that both human and wildlife ecosystems could be affected.

Water supply concerns also dominated the discussion. Resident James Car warned that increased density without proper studies could have severe consequences. “Where there is no water, there is no people, there is no life,” he said, urging the town to conduct a hydrological study before approving any changes.

Attorney William Demarest, representing Fallsburg Citizens for Sustainability, opposed the amendments, citing infrastructure limitations. “At present, our critical infrastructure will be over capacity at the pre-planned buildout of new homes. That infrastructure is also near obsolescence stage and is beginning to fail.” He warned that the town’s aquifer was already at full capacity, causing summer water shortages for existing residents.

Legal Pressures and County Disapproval

Attorney Steven Barshov, representing proponents of the zoning changes, cautioned the town board about the legal risks of inaction. “I don’t want to sue you. I don’t want to bring an RLUIPA case. I don’t want to sue you in court like the Town of Highland is now.” Barshov argued that Fallsburg’s current zoning code does not properly accommodate religious uses, making these changes necessary to comply with federal law. “If there’s some ambiguity, if there’s some problem, I would love to see the Town Board address it because it should be done properly.”

Meanwhile, the Sullivan County Division of Planning issued a formal recommendation against the amendments, expressing concern that they could lead to an increase in nonconforming uses, conflicts with existing agricultural zoning, and potential RLUIPA violations. The county report urged Fallsburg to update its Comprehensive Plan before enacting these changes to prevent unintended consequences.

Water Study and Next Steps

One of the most pressing concerns raised was the absence of a hydrological study to assess Fallsburg’s water supply. Supervisor Bensimon acknowledged the issue, stating that the town had not conducted a study due to cost constraints but understood that Sullivan County was planning one.

Sullivan County Planning Commissioner Heather Brown clarified, “The County has not yet initiated the aquifer/groundwater study. The Sullivan County 2025 Operating Budget includes $250,000 for matching funds for the study. We have requested an additional $250,000 from the State. Once all funding has been secured, an RFP for the full scope of the study will be issued to secure a vendor.” However, Brown noted that no timeline had been established for the study’s completion.

With strong opposition, legal threats, and unresolved environmental concerns, the Fallsburg Town Board voted to keep the public hearing open for 30 more days, allowing residents to submit additional written comments and giving the board more time to review the county’s recommendations.