The NYS Accessibility Code Fallsburg Can No Longer Avoid
Dear Friends and Neighbors
For years, discussions about development in Fallsburg have focused on density, traffic, zoning, environmental impacts, water, sewer, and the growing strain on infrastructure. But another area of New York law has received surprisingly little public attention despite being part of the statewide building code: Accessibility. Many people hear the word accessibility and immediately think of the Americans with Disabilities Act, commonly known as the ADA. But the ADA and the New York State Building Code are not the same. A recent discussion involving 40–44 Church Road raises an important question for Fallsburg: Does the Town and Code Enforcement Officer clearly understand which accessibility law it is enforcing?
Accessibility Is Part of the Building Code
In New York, accessibility is built directly into the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. The Uniform Code establishes minimum building and fire-safety standards throughout New York State. Local governments are responsible for administering and enforcing these requirements. Accessibility is a building-code issue. The code addresses fire protection, structural safety, occupant loads and means of egress. It also contains requirements governing accessible routes, entrances, sleeping accommodations and other building features based upon the applicable occupancy and use. That distinction matters because the federal ADA and the New York State Uniform Code operate under different legal authority. It matters even more when the building department is certifying to the Planning Board that a project complies.
Church Road Put a Question Directly on the Record
On June 29, 2026, the Fallsburg Planning Board approved a site plan and a one-year Special Use Permit allowing 40–44 Church Road to operate as a religious school with dormitories. During the meeting, Planning Board Chairman Arthur Rosenshein asked whether accessibility issues had been addressed. Code Enforcement Officer TJ Brawley confirmed that they had, although he did not state which code he used. Later, when asked whether the entire building at 40 Church Road was ADA compliant, Mr. Brawley explained that it was not required because only a certain number of buildings on a property needed to comply. He stated that not every building had to be ADA compliant. Moments later, however, he made another important distinction. He stated that he does not enforce the federal ADA because it is federal law. He explained that his authority is to enforce New York State accessibility requirements. That second distinction is important. It is also where the questions begin.
The Question Remained Unanswered
The issue resurfaced during the July 22, 2026 Fallsburg Town Board meeting. Town Supervisor Nathan Steingart addressed accessibility at the Church Road project, stating that, based on his understanding, “the entire project doesn’t have to fall under compliance, but as long as enough of it is compliant that people that have disabilities can use restrooms and have safety if there’s a fire, it passes.” Supervisor Steingart then invited Building Department head TJ Brawley to comment, stating, “I don’t know if TJ wants to speak on it at all.” Mr. Brawley offered no explanation or confirmation to support the Supervisor’s statement. As a result, the public was left with an unsupported assertion regarding compliance and no explanation of what accessibility standards were applied or how the Church Road project was determined to meet them. The July 22 discussion echoed the same uncertainty that arose during the June 29 Planning Board meeting. Once again, the public is left without an explanation of which New York State accessibility provisions were applied or how the Building Department determined that the Church Road project satisfied those requirements. Given the ongoing questions surrounding this development, the Building Department should publicly explain the basis for its compliance determination.
Which Law Was Actually Applied?
Federal ADA Title III contains a broad exemption for religious entities controlled by religious organizations. Whether a particular school, dormitory operation, or property qualifies for that exemption depends upon the entity operating or controlling the facility. If the Church Road school is indeed controlled by a qualifying religious organization, federal ADA Title III does not govern the property in the same way it would govern an ordinary private school or public accommodation.
New York’s Uniform Code is a Different Matter.
The Town of Fallsburg cannot simply opt out of the State Uniform Code. The Town is responsible for administering and enforcing the code within its jurisdiction. That leads to the central question raised by the June 29 meeting: When the Building Department determined that accessibility requirements at 40–44 Church Road had been satisfied, what specific New York State code provisions were applied? The public was told that one accessible building was sufficient for the property. But, what section of the New York State Building Code supports that determination for these particular buildings, their approved occupancy classifications, and their use as a religious school with dormitories? If there is a code provision supporting that conclusion, it should be identified. If an accessibility analysis was prepared by the applicant’s architect or engineer, it should be available to the public and the Planning Board. If sleeping-unit calculations were performed, the calculations should show how the required number and distribution of accessible units were determined. And, if accessible routes, entrances, bathrooms, ramps, slopes and turning spaces were evaluated, the approved plans and code analysis should document that review. The answer must be found in the code and written in the project record. It should not depend upon casual language used during a meeting.
Occupancy Classification Matters
Accessibility cannot be separated from the way a building is actually used. Every building is classified according to its use and occupancy. A single-family residence is treated differently from a dormitory, school, assembly space, lodging facility, or place of worship. Those classifications are not paperwork. They affect the code requirements that may apply to occupant loads, fire protection, exits, accessibility and other life-safety features. This is particularly relevant at Church Road.
According to publicly available real estate records cited during our review, 40 Church Road was originally a single-family residence of approximately 1,993 square feet before being converted into a ten-bedroom dormitory. The Planning Board’s approval now limits occupancy to 54 students at 40 Church Road and 48 students at 44 Church Road, a total of 102 students. Yet the June 29 public discussion did not explain the occupant-load calculations supporting those numbers or publicly provide the accessibility analysis for the approved dormitory use.
The meeting did include discussion of a structure that had previously been constructed without and no approved plans. Structural supports were later added and inspected, according to statements made at the meeting. These facts are important because they demonstrate why code review cannot be based upon assumptions about a property. Buildings change. Uses change. Occupancy changes. Structures are enlarged and reconfigured. When that happens, the applicable code requirements must be evaluated based upon the building and use that actually exist.
Accessibility Reveals a Much Larger Problem
Accessibility is only one part of the Uniform Code. But it can serve as an important indicator of whether the correct legal and technical review occurred. If the wrong accessibility standard was discussed, residents are entitled to ask whether the correct State standard was actually applied behind the scenes.
• If occupancy increased, were the occupant-load calculations properly documented?
• If the use of a building changed, was the occupancy classification properly reviewed?
• Were the required means of egress evaluated for the approved dormitory occupancy?
• Were additions and alterations properly permitted and inspected?
• Were certificates of occupancy or compliance updated where required?
These are basic questions about building safety and code enforcement.
One Building. One Meeting: A Much Larger Question.
The concern raised by Church Road is not simply whether a ramp exists or whether one building on a property is accessible. The major concern is whether Fallsburg’s boards are being given the correct code framework from the town Code Enforcement officer when they make decisions. Planning Board members are not building-code officials. Town Board members are not expected to independently perform accessibility calculations or occupant-load analyses. They rely upon the professionals charged with reviewing those issues. That system only works when the correct law is identified, the correct occupancy is evaluated, and the conclusion can be supported by the public record. The June 29 discussion exposed uncertainty about the distinction between the federal ADA and New York State accessibility requirements. That uncertainty should not be ignored. It should be resolved.
The Best Answer Is Documentation
The Planning Board granted Church Road a one-year Special Use Permit and required the applicant to return before the 2027 operating season to demonstrate continued compliance with the Board’s conditions. This creates an opportunity. Before the next approval, the Town should be able to clearly identify the occupancy classifications assigned to the buildings, the applicable New York State accessibility provisions, the accessibility analysis used to determine compliance, the occupant-load calculations supporting 102 students, and the means-of-egress analysis for the dormitory buildings.
The Town should determine whether the correct New York State code provisions were applied. And Church Road should not necessarily be the end of the review. Has the same understanding of accessibility has been used when reviewing other religious institutions, camps, bungalow colonies, dormitories, schools, or assembly uses in Fallsburg. (See the YNHK LLC/63–73 Rose Road Project in Woodbourne) The June 29 meeting raises a reasonable question about the framework being used to reach those approvals.
Accessibility Is Not Optional
A person with a mobility impairment should not discover that a required accessible route was never considered. A senior citizen should not encounter a barrier because a building’s expansion failed to account for applicable accessibility requirements. A student or visitor should not be placed in a building whose approved use, occupant load, exits, and accessibility features were never evaluated under the correct code provisions.
Building permits are not suggestions. Occupancy classifications are not technical formalities. Certificates of occupancy are not pieces of paper to be issued and forgotten. And accessibility is not simply an “ADA issue.” New York established statewide minimum building and fire-safety standards for a reason. Those standards only protect the public when they are understood and consistently enforced. Church Road has now given Fallsburg a reason to look more closely. Once a gap in the review process becomes visible, the responsible response is not to look away. It is to find out how far that gap goes. The question is what accessibility standard was used to approve it and whether that same standard has been correctly applied throughout the Town for other projects.
Fallsburg's Future is a community network of concerned Fallsburg residents established in January 2016. Its Mission is to help guide the urban development of the town of Fallsburg and its five hamlets, to promote its sustainable economic development, protect the fragile beauty of its natural habitats and enhance the opportunities and quality of life for all its residents and visitors. We hope to curb the suburban sprawl that is threatening to overwhelm the town’s physical infrastructure and destroy the natural beauty that the area depends on for its future development. See us on Facebook and our website Fallsburgsfuture.com.