Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance request to occupy garage at 169 Road after finding insufficient hardship
Summary
Fallsburg hearing: Adam Jones, owner of 169 Road LLC, sought permission to occupy a garage as living space. Board members said he failed to provide competent financial evidence of hardship and voted to deny the use variance; the applicant may reapply with fuller documentation.
Adam Jones, who identified himself as owner of 169 Road LLC, asked the Fallsburg zoning board for a use variance to allow a garage at 169 Road to be occupied as a dwelling unit. Board members and the board’s adviser told him the application lacked the financial documentation the board would need to find the severe, demonstrable hardship required for this type of variance.
The board’s adviser walked the applicant through the legal tests for a use variance and the kinds of evidence the board would accept: a rent roll, the property purchase price, detailed renovation costs or receipts, and a clear demonstration that every allowed use on the property would not provide a reasonable return. The adviser said the board must evaluate “the totality of the circumstances” and that use variances carry a high burden, particularly where a hardship may be self‑created.
Jones said he believed an earlier permit allowed the work and offered to provide contractor receipts and other paperwork. He told the board he bought the property in 2023 and has collected rent for about 18 months; he said the garage was not occupied until April of the most recent year. Jones said he intends to provide whatever documents the board requires.
Board members pressed for specific financial information. One member outlined the typical investment analysis — gross rents less expenses, taxes and a mortgage estimate to produce a capitalization (cap) rate — and said applicants often use a 5–10% vacancy allowance when annualizing rent. Members told Jones that, based on the preliminary numbers discussed in the hearing, the property’s income appeared to be a plausible return even without the garage rental, making the hardship showing difficult.
Members also raised procedural issues: staff present in the record said mailings notifying the applicant were sent multiple times, while the applicant said he had not received consistent notice and missed an earlier session. The board advised the applicant to consult a zoning attorney, an expediter or an engineer and to prepare a robust financial package if he chooses to reapply.
After closing the public portion, the chair asked members to answer the variance tests on the record. Board members indicated they did not find the required financial hardship and judged the hardship to be self‑created. A motion to deny the variance was made and seconded; the motion carried, and the chair closed the hearing. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote tally for the final denial motion.
Next steps: the applicant may submit a new application with the requested financial evidence, or he can revert the space back to an unoccupied garage; the board indicated it would be unlikely to grant a use variance without the documentation discussed in the hearing.
