ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES of August 4, 2016 the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town of Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: ABSENT: Beatrice Haugen- De Puy, Charles Fischer
Steven Fornal
Troy Dunn
Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Ronald Santosky, 14 Project 32 Road, 15’ Area Variance Required for side yard setback for a 22’ x 24’ carport, Tax Map #76.4-2-16, R-2 Zoning District.
Mr. & Mrs. Santosky were present on behalf of their application.
Chairperson Haugen DePuy explained that the applicants were requesting a 15’ Area Variance for side yard setback for a 22’ x 24’ carport at 14 Project 32 Road. She noted that the ZBA asked Mr. and Mrs. Santosky at the last meeting for more documentation for the record in regards to the definitive location of the lot line in question. They had asked for pictures, surveys, and deeds.
Mrs. Santosky noted that their neighbor who shares the lot line in question with them has his original survey and deed. If you read the deed, he was the first one to purchase property and it refers to a trailer on 1.04 acres that no longer exists.
The ZBA reviewed the deed with the applicant.
Mrs. Santosky confirmed that the lot line in question is 304.8’ long from Project 32 Road. Their property is 150’ wide in the front and 151’ wide in the back.
Mr. Fornal noted that they still don’t have any definitive point to locate this property line. Did they find any stakes that correlated with the deed references?
Mrs. Santosky explained that they found only one stake in the back opposite corner of the property.
Mr. Fornal explained that they wouldn’t be able to find the location of the property line in question with that information. He noted that in order to approve this application, the ZBA needed some definitive documentation to base their decision off of. He believed the only way to find that line was to have a surveyor flag it. Having the stakes removed makes it impossible for the applicants to locate the lines without those points of reference. He believed the only one who would be able to truly locate the location of the line would be a surveyor at this point.
Mr. Dunn disagreed with Mr. Fornal’s statement as being absolute truth. Even surveyors have been known to make mistakes and he uses deeds to find property lines all the time, so he didn’t think only a surveyor was the answer to this dilemma.
Mr. Fornal noted that they needed the surveyor to certify that was the correct location of the line.
Mr. Fornal and Mr. Dunn continued to disagree.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy believed that they may be able to use the two deeds to locate the line and base their decision off of. These deeds are filed documents with the County and are established measurements.
Mr. Fornal agreed, but noted that the documents are just words—it’s taking those words and putting them on the property to find the line and with only one stake—there is no way that the applicants can do this without two points. With only one point to work from, degrees come in to play—if you walked a foot on the wrong angle, that changes the location of the next point.
Mr. Dunn disagreed that all you needed was one starting point to find a line.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that there are two points referenced on the Schoonmaker parcel that could be used. The deed describes the wire fence.
Mrs. Santosky noted that the fence no longer goes all the way across the property.
Mrs. Santosky noted that in all the paperwork it doesn’t mention needing a survey.
Mr. Fornal noted that on the original document—the Zoning Permit from the Code Enforcement Office—it says they require a map to scale and a survey may be required.
Mrs. Santosky noted that Medenbach and Eggers said it would cost $1500 for a whole survey and they wouldn’t shoot only one line.
Mr. Fornal noted that he doesn’t doubt that this will end up being 15’, but they don’t have any evidence for the file of that.
Mr. Dunn still believed with the survey and the deed from the neighbors that there was a way to find this line. He still disagreed with Mr. Fornal’s absolute declaration that the only way to definitively find this line is with a surveyor.
Mr. Fornal noted the only way it would hold up in court was with a surveyor’s certification.
Mr. Dunn noted that Mr. Fornal couldn’t speculate that this was what a judge would say. Would a survey be definitive?
Mr. Fornal answered yes.
Mr. Dunn noted that he knows of a court case where a survey didn’t hold up in court, so that is a false statement. All he was saying is that there are no absolutes other than the laws of physics.
Mr. Fornal noted that they gave the option as to what the most definitive documentation would be. Having a surveyor shoot the line in question or have a complete survey done.
Mr. Dunn felt that this was going to the extreme.
Mr. Fornal noted that this was what was going to hold up in court.
Mr. Mallery agreed with Mr. Fornal that they needed a definitive line and documentation to base their decision off of.
Mr. Dunn agreed as well.
Mr. Dunn and Mr. Fornal discussed hypotheticals in regards to measurements.
Mrs. Santosky questioned if the absolute exact number was really that important?
Mr. Mallery answered yes.
Mr. Fornal noted that even if the house was shown on the survey they would be able to measure from the building to find the lot line.
The ZBA decided to speak with Mr. Davis, CEO and see if he was comfortable determining where the line was based off of the deeds and the survey of the neighbor. If Mr. Davis signs off on that, then they can proceed. If Mr. Davis could not certify this, the applicant’s should get a surveyor.
Mr. Fornal motioned to continue the Public Hearing for the August 18, 2016 Meeting. Seconded by Chairperson Haugen De Puy. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen-DePuy- Yes Mallery: Yes
Dunn- Yes Fornal: Yes
Fischer- Absent
Motion carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent
Mr. Mallery made a motion to allow Mr. Fornal to speak with the CEO to relay the information from this meeting. Seconded by Chairperson Haugen De Puy. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen-DePuy- No Mallery: Yes
Dunn- No Fornal: Yes
Fischer- Absent
Motion did not carry.
2 ayes, 2 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent
Vote:
Haugen-DePuy- Yes Mallery: Yes
Dunn- Yes Fornal: Yes
Fischer- Absent
Motion carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. Dunn motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Fornal. No discussion. All Members present in favor.
Since there was no further business, at 8:05PM Chairperson Haugen De Puy adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary