NEW SCOTLAND – Dean Van Alstyne and his business, Hydrotech, will not be moving to Unionville.

The zoning board of appeals voted, 3 to 2, Tuesday night against a use variance for Martin Flansburg, who owns the property in the residential hamlet of Unionville that VanAlstyne was hoping to buy.

VanAlstyne, and his wife, Patricia, have run their bulk-plant maintenance and emergency spill-response business, Hydrotech, from South Troy for six years. They were planning on purchasing the property from Flansburg and building a 60-by-100 foot steel building to house their equipment.

Because they planned to use the property, which is located in a residential zone, for a commercial purpose, it would require a use variance from the zoning board. The use variance could be granted by the board only after Flansburg proved unnecessary hardship, according to the zoning law.
In proving such hardship, all the criteria, determined by the state and outlined in the zoning law, must be met. Flansburg had to prove to the board that he could not "realize a reasonable return," which would need to be backed up with financial evidence; that the hardship was unique; that the use variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the hardship was not self-created.

Flansburg provided the board with documentation from two individuals who had been interested in purchasing the property, but then became disinterested when they learned of the poor water situation. A well test determined the water pressure to be three gallons per minute, which is not sufficient for a residential dwelling. The property has previously been used as a motel, a grocery/convenience store, and a horse stable, Flansburg said, in explaining to the board that a large garage would not alter the district’s character.

Three of the five board members – Ronald Von Ronne, Adam Greenberg, and William Hennessey – agreed that Flansburg did not meet all the criteria for a use variance.
"There would be a change to that immediate district," Von Ronne, chairman of the board, told The Enterprise. That property falls in a residential zone, and it is obvious that the proposed building would not fit with the zoning regulations for that area, he said.

At Tuesday’s meeting, board member Adam Greenberg asked Flansburg if he had ever listed the property with a real estate agency. Flansburg said he had not.

Without listing it with a real estate agent, Greenberg told Flansburg, he could not make a case that he was unable to sell it as a residential lot for the same price that he could sell it to the VanAlstynes, Greenberg said.

Wayne LaChappelle, who along with Robert Parmenter, voted in favor of the variance, told The Enterprise that more proof of hardship would have really helped Flansburg’s cause. "The only thing that was a weak link was that he didn’t show enough hardship," he said.

Greenberg told The Enterprise that about 90 percent of use variances are turned down, while 90 percent of area variances are approved.

An area variance allows for the use of land that is not permitted by the dimensional or physical requirements of the zoning law, such as when a building would not comply with setback, height, lot or area requirements. A use variance allows landowners to put their land to a use not permitted by the zoning law.

Public opposition

Before voting, the board held a public hearing on the issue, where board members posed numerous questions to Flansburg and VanAlstyne, and then opened the floor to the public.
"Won’t you need water"" asked Judy Fritz, a Unionville resident who lives near the property. Fritz said she believes that Hydrotech is a valuable business and provides a much-needed service in the community, but was concerned about potential pollution and contamination, in the event of a spill.
John Dearstyne told the board, "In my opinion, this hardship has been self-created." He indicated that it is a well-known fact that water is very difficult to find in Unionville, and, therefore, the situation is not unique. Flansburg should have researched the availability of water before he bought the property, he told The Enterprise.
"I was very pleased with the decision," he said, "but I was disappointed it was a split decision."

Patricia VanAlstyne was disappointed with the board’s decision. She and her husband live just a few miles up the road from Flansburg’s property, and were looking forward to bringing the business close to home.
"It looks like we’re going to have to keep looking for the right spot," she told The Enterprise.

She said that she and her husband have no plans to appeal the decision.