Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board allows small lot‑coverage increase for covered decks at KJ Estates, with strict conditions
Summary
The Fallsburg Zoning Board approved a limited variance increasing lot coverage to 28% exclusively for uncovered-to-covered decks, requiring gutters and a prohibition on future enclosure, after residents and the fire department raised concerns about infrastructure, drainage and safety.
The Fallsburg Zoning Board of Appeals voted April 24 to allow a narrow lot‑coverage increase for KJ Estates solely to permit roofed decks, imposing conditions intended to prevent future enclosure and to protect drainage and public safety.
The board approved raising the applicable lot‑coverage allowance to 28% for the purpose of covered decks, with conditions that gutters be installed and that the decks not be enclosed or converted into habitable space. The motion was moved, seconded and carried by board members in attendance.
Why it mattered: Residents and local officials had urged the board to deny the broader coverage request, saying the project — a 52‑duplex development — conflicts with Fallsburg’s 2018 comprehensive plan, risks increasing impervious surface and stormwater runoff, and could strain the town’s limited water and sewer capacity.
At the public hearing, resident Pam Wagner urged denial, saying the request “is a part of a broader development that already conflicts with the intent and spirit of the Fallsburg comprehensive plan of 2018.” Wagner also questioned the environmental review process and said the rezoning that allowed denser housing was contested by the planning board and by some town board members.
Amy Barclay Carey, speaking for the Los Shelby Fire Department, told the board she was concerned enclosed porches could be converted into bedrooms and cited egress and emergency‑access issues. “If the traffic study and traffic light has been dropped, I strongly, strongly encourage everyone across the town to revisit that and enforce that,” she said.
The applicant’s representative said the proposed covered decks match prior, approved designs elsewhere in town and described the roofed decks as non‑enclosed features intended only to make decks more usable in bad weather. Staff and the applicant said a traffic‑mitigation agreement and an escrow account exist to fund a traffic signal and turning lanes if future development triggers the requirement.
The board’s deliberation centered on standard area‑variance criteria: whether the change would alter neighborhood character, whether the benefit could be achieved by other means, whether the variance was substantial, environmental impacts, and whether the difficulty was self‑created. Several members said they were uncomfortable granting an open, unspecified cushion for future changes and emphasized that the 28% increase was being granted exclusively to accommodate covered decks, not as a blanket allowance for other uses.
The board added conditions to the approval: gutters and stormwater measures as represented in the application materials and an explicit prohibition that the deck roofs be used to create habitable living space. Staff said building‑department enforcement would address any future illegal enclosures.
Next steps: The variance applies only to the coverage for covered decks as described in the motion. The board recorded that it had reviewed the necessary criteria and closed the public portion before the vote. If the applicant seeks to change the use or to enclose decks, it must return to the board for further approvals or face enforcement by the building department.
