Family pleads case
ZBA throws flag at house construction



GUILDERLAND — As one local family pleads to finish construction on its home before the snow flies, the zoning board of appeals has tabled its application until next week.
Their building permit was "red-flagged" and revoked by the town’s chief building inspector in the midst of construction.
David and Loretta Cox’s application to expand their 6332 Frenchs Hollow home will come to a "vote only" decision next Wednesday, Nov. 15. The public hearing has been closed.

The family pleaded its case to the zoning board last Wednesday through its attorney, Edward Sossner.
"My clients came numerous times to the town with plans"were given a permit and then told to stop," Sossner told the board, describing the house expansion as a "substantial project."

Donald Cropsey, the town’s chief building inspector, revoked the Coxes’ permit after the family had begun construction because the duplex is a non-conforming use in an agriculturally-zoned area.

When Sossner asked the board why Cropsey issued a stop-work order on his clients’ building permit, the zoning-board chairman, Peter Barber, responded that a pre-existing non-conforming use would need zoning board approval before a building permit could be carried out.
"He found that the construction needed the zoning-board-of-appeals permission," Barber said about Cropsey on Tuesday.

Cropsey told The Enterprise he misunderstood the applicant’s original intentions.
"In this case, the permit came in and Mr. Cox made an application to expand," Cropsey said yesterday. "I thought the expansion was only for an in-law apartment."

Actually, the application was to expand the in-law apartment and the duplex.

According to Cropsey, building-permit applications are sent to the building department and are then reviewed by town inspectors to see that they meet all of the building codes and zoning requirements.

They are then stamped with a standard seal that bears the initials of the zoning board chairman. Cropsey said that Barber never saw the building permit because standard paperwork like that doesn’t usually cross his desk.
"It’s a red stamp that indicated there’s ZBA approval, so it lets us know that there has been some zoning board discussion, which usually has stipulations," said Cropsey. "That lets us know we have to look more closely to make sure everything’s in compliance."

Cropsey didn’t see the conformity conflict at first, he said.
"The job was stopped after it was discovered that it is a non-conforming use," Cropsey said. "I had issued the permit in error."

Cropsey said that the issue was originally brought to his attention by surrounding neighbors who were concerned about the project.
"‘Oops’ only works when it’s spilled milk, not with a pending financial disaster"The house is essentially open and half exposed to the elements," Sossner told the board. "I’ve got a stamped building permit"We don’t deserve ridicule and punishment."

The Coxes’ home is a duplex with an in-law apartment attached, but there was debate over whether the residence is one unit or two. Cropsey maintained that the residence is one structure.

"Oddity of the code"

In 1971, the zoning law was written to allow two-family housing in agricultural zones as long as certain provisions were met by the applicant, according to Cropsey. In 1988, that part of the law was taken out and two-family homes were no longer allowed, Cropsey said.
"This [house] was constructed at a time when it was in compliance with the code," Sossner said at the meeting. "There are sections of your code I believe to be ambiguous"I believe this code enables this board to help good people," he said, urging the board to allow construction to continue.

Barber agreed, but again said that the duplex was still a non-conforming use.
"It’s not illegal"I’ll grant you that 100 percent and more," Barber said. "It’s an oddity in the code we’re trying to work with here."

Sossner pleaded with the board to reinstate the building permit.
"Please, how can you help my clients as a board"" Sossner asked. "They can’t sleep at night; they have half a house."
"You’re basically enlarging the structure of your house to provide for your family," Barber said, reiterating what the Cox family told the board.

The Coxes have proposed expanding their home’s square footage by additional 16.25 percent.

Barber told The Enterprise that this is a very rare case and "the first time we had to look at this section of code." Most of the applications before the board deal with commercial and business development along Western Avenue, Barber said.

During the meeting, Barber admitted that it is actually easier for businesses to receive approval for this type of application than it is for residents.

Community concerns

Several neighbors came to Wednesday’s meeting to hear about the Coxes’ case and to talk with the zoning board during the public-discussion period.

The neighbors were concerned that, if a large duplex with a possible third apartment were allowed to go up in their rural neighborhood, and if the Coxes sold their house, it could lead to larger non-conformity issues, such as multiple families living there or the land being subdivided further for additional development.

Mr. and Mrs. Cox told the board that a portion of the building was going to be used to house Mrs. Cox’s sick and ailing father who lives in Florida for part of the year. In essence, they said, a section of the house was to be used as an in-law apartment, not a rental unit.

Mrs. Cox was very emotional and in tears when she spoke to the board.
"It’s a lot easier to go down the stairs to take care of my father than it is to go even across the yard," she said.

Some of the neighbors, including Lynn Wells who lives next door to the Coxes, said they were sympathetic to their cause, but were still concerned about the property’s future use, especially since the Coxes’ property had recently been subdivided.
"What if they sell" What’s going to happen to the neighborhood"" Wells asked the board. "This board has addressed this issue before and said it would never be subdivided or expanded."

Some other neighbors submitted letters to the board, expressing similar concerns.
"We want to give them as much of a chance to plead their case as possible," Barber said about this Friday’s deadline for the Coxes to file any additional paperwork or arguments to the board, even though the public discussion has been closed.

Barber also said at the meeting that no one was arguing that the Cox family did not fully comply during their building permit application and he said that the intensity of the property’s use has not increased.

Sossner argued that disallowing the building permit would create a significant financial hardship, if not ruin the Coxes financially.
"I want the board to recognize that the town made the mistake," said Sossner. "I also want to point out that each day that passes makes it worse for my client. We will be forced into winter construction."