FALLSBURG — The Fallsburg Town Board, which met on May 6, is reevaluating its plans for a proposed workforce housing development, shifting its focus from the former Woodbourne Correctional Annex to a 4.3-acre parcel of town-owned land. 

The project, which aims to create 40 to 60 rental units for local working families, seniors and veterans, is still in its early planning stages and would require a zoning change to allow high-density residential use.

As previously reported by the Democrat, a proposal was brought forward at the April 1 meeting to develop the same number of units on a five-acre portion of the former Woodbourne Correctional Annex. 

That project, led by local realtor Sheldon Roberts and William D’Avella of Pennrose, would have created townhome-style rentals for families. But with the annex site now designated for use by the town’s highway department, the Route 42 parcel has emerged as a potential alternative.

Councilmember Sean Wall-Carty voiced his preference for the annex. 

“I really think that annex works best because of the infrastructure that’s there,” he said. “We’re talking less than five acres. I think it just works best there.”

“There are more grant opportunities and funding opportunities going in the prison annex than there would be going here,” he added.

Bensimon raised questions about the buildability of the Route 42 lot. 

“I’m just not sure if it’s buildable in terms of what we’re looking to do, but that’s just my initial thought,” he said.

Despite those concerns, Wall-Carty suggested the site could still be competitive for funding. 

“If you went with a mixed-use and had a daycare, for example, you can still go after funding,” he said.

Zoning emerged as a central challenge. 

“The densest zoning allowed is half an acre per unit,” Bensimon noted. “So that’s eight units for four acres, assuming that all four acres are available.”

Wall-Carty replied, “Because it’s a public use, we could be okay changing the zoning to an HR, which would be multi-use, multi-unit.”

The board is considering a lease model rather than selling the land to maintain control over how the property is developed and operated. 

“We would lease the land and then set up a proforma. This way the town can control to an extent the rental rates,” said Wall-Carty. “Their lease would rise or fall based on them having the available housing and demographic that we’re looking for.”

Bensimon expressed concern about private profits on public land, saying “I’m just weary about the idea of a developer keeping millions of dollars in rents every single month.” 

“It would be better if we dealt with either a municipality doing the work, or if we were to contract with nonprofits,” he said.

He added, “Affordable housing is incredibly important. It’s a matter of how we do it.”

Both officials said the town should not directly manage the property. “We as a town should not be in the business of being a landlord,” Wall-Carty stated. “That control is through the lease agreement and leveraging the lease agreement.”

Bensimon suggested partnering with a local housing authority. “Why wouldn’t we go in with the Woodridge Housing Authority that has experience with day-to-day management of affordable housing units?”

With zoning limitations and land size posing challenges, Councilmember Nathan Steingart suggested revisiting state-owned land near the former annex called “The Flats.” 

“It’s a very large piece of property. Maybe they [New York State] would break off 20 acres,” he said. “That’s a good site for 60 units.”

“Alright,” Wall-Carty concluded. “So that would be the next move — reaching out to state?”

The board agreed to draft a letter to New York State to explore that possibility. No formal decisions were made during the meeting.

“We know we need housing for the workforce. We know we need it for veterans. We know we need it for seniors,” Wall-Carty said. “But those things being said, it’s really up to us to decide what that vision looks like.”