GUILDERLAND — The town that stopped construction on the Cox family’s torn-up house will now let them proceed.

Since Oct. 19, Dave and Loretta Cox’s home was exposed to the elements as they fended off rodents looking for warm winter refuge. Last Wednesday, the zoning board re-instituted their building permit in a 5-to-1 vote.
The Coxes’ building permit to expand their two-family home at 6332 Frenchs Hollow Rd. was "red-flagged" after they began construction and the town’s building inspector, Donald Cropsey, discovered the expansion was a non-conforming use. The Coxes had already torn down a portion of their home for the expansion when the stop-work order has handed down.

Cropsey later told The Enterprise that he originally issued the building permit "in error."

The reaction
"Thank God," Loretta Cox said after the board’s decision. "As soon as we get a hold of the builder, I hope he can start again tomorrow."

Earlier in the week, David Cox expressed his dismay at the debacle that held up his home’s construction when he invited The Enterprise to photograph the project underway.
"All these guys do is issue permits; they should know this code inside and out. Maybe they should start testing them on this stuff, and, if they fail, maybe they should be fired," Cox said. "I believe there may be political motives behind this."

Cox said that one of his neighbors studied the code and brought the conformity issues to the town. He said that he believed some neighbors who feared his home could become a rental property were the driving force behind getting his building permit red-flagged.

Cox also added that he spent $10,000 in lawyer’s fees, had to turn away three trucks full of cement, and had burned well over a cord of firewood while the stop-work order was in effect.

All that protected his home from the elements was a $125 tarp, Cox said, adding that he hopes he never has to use it again.
"I can’t believe I ripped my house open and now we can’t re-build," he said at the time. "My water tank and pipes are exposed to the elements."

Cox said his three dogs and his cats were doing their part by keeping mice and other rodents out of the house. Several dead mice were seen near the vicinity of the tarp — obviously succumbing to feline patrols.
"You’ve been a good boy," Cox said while leaning down to pet his cat. "You’ve been earning your keep."
Cox said his family has been "very stressed out," and he was worried about winter construction affecting the quality of the work done on his home as the winter months approach. The construction was stopped for nearly a month between Oct. 19 and Nov. 15.

The Coxes were extremely happy with the board’s decision and say they just want to be able to care for their in-laws when they are in the area.
When asked before the vote, what he thought about the board’s decision, Cox responded by saying, "If we don’t get this approval, we’re f---ked!"

"Easy case"

The Coxes’ home is a duplex with an added in-law apartment in an agriculturally-zoned area. Their home was built in the late 1970’s before the zoning law changed in 1987 to ban duplexes in such zones. The zoning board, after considerable debate, had previously granted a special-use permit, allowing the construction of the in-law apartment.

Mrs. Cox said earlier she wants to care for her elderly father who will live in the apartment.

The Coxes’ attorney, Edward Sossner, addressed the zoning board on Wednesday night before the vote-only hearing.
"I believe the code gives you an avenue to vote in favor of my clients," Sossner told the board. "To me, this is an easy case. This isn’t a Wal-mart big box application. This is someone who came in and is financially invested"They can’t turn back."
Sossner also added, "Think about how this case got to this point."

Board member Susan Cupoli questioned the kitchens in the building plans and Chairman Peter Barber asked Cropsey if the fact that the structure has a second kitchen makes it a dual-family use.
"The dwelling is defined by the kitchen," Cropsey responded. "Certainly they could remove the kitchen, but I don’t think that’s their intention."

Cupoli was concerned that, with a kitchen in the apartment, it could later be used as an additional rental property.

Sossner protested, saying that the use of the house has not changed and that the structure was legally built within the code at the time of its construction. Furthermore, Sossner contended, the Coxes had paid for the duplex at a higher price than a single-family home.
"I can tell you for sure there are many residents around the country with more than one kitchen. We paid good money for a two-family structure," Sossner told the board. "We’re only asking for this twenty-by-twenty-one addition."

The vote

Cupoli was the only dissenter, with fellow members James Sumner and Patricia Aikens recusing themselves from the vote and alternate member Thomas Remmert voting in Aikens’s stead.
Cupoli stated that she would not comment on why she dissented, but later commented on worries of the apartment’s being "rentable." At the previous meeting, board members Sumner, Aikens, and Susan Marci were all absent. Marci said that she reviewed the tape of the previous meeting and felt competent in her vote in favor of the expansion. Sumner said the he was not comfortable voting because he was not at the previous meeting, although he did review the tape.

Aikens sat in the crowd and allowed Remmert to remain and vote since he sat in for her as an alternate in the previous meeting.

Board member Charles Klaer said that the history of the structure should be on record before the board voted.
"I understand the original house was a duplex built in 1978 with a two-car garage"Some time after that, the two-car garage became living space associated with the downstairs apartment," Klaer said. "Can a portion of the duplex have its own in-law apartment" We had a lengthy discussion on that, and said, yes, it could have an in-law apartment"The garage then became a part of the duplex."

Crospey indicated the structure was in conformance and that the problem began because of the change in the actual footprint of the structure. However, the expansion was not more than a 25-percent increase, therefore making the structure conforming under its pre-exiting conditions.

Barber agreed.
"Don [Cropsey] has indicated that it is a conforming structure. It’s still a two-family structure, be it that an in-law apartment is attached," said Barber. "I still see it as an expansion of the structure, and not of the use."

Board attorney, Janet Thayer, also agreed with Barber’s and Cropsey’s logic.
"The simple expansion of the structure does not increase its use," Thayer said. "Keep in mind, the apartment was issued a special-use permit that said, once a blood relative isn’t living there, the kitchen has to be removed in order to be conforming."

The Coxes’ in-laws live in Florida for part of the year and in the in-law apartment during the rest of the year. When not in use, David Cox told The Enterprise, other family members and their children use it as a guest apartment when they visit.

While talking to Rodger Stone, the town’s code enforcer, after the vote, Sossner thanked him for arranging the paperwork allowing construction to resume.

He also asked Stone to extend their thanks to the zoning board.
"Tell Mr. Cropsey and the rest of the board, ‘Thank you,’" Sossner said to Stone.