Opinion ID: 2453513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Village Denies Cunney's Certificate of Occupancy Application

Text: Following the completion of his house in August 2007, Cunney applied to the Village for a certificate of occupancy (CO). Knizeski, however, did not process Cunney's application at that time. Rather, in response to complaints from Village residents about the height of the house, the Village requested that Collazuol complete an independent review of the Cunney property. In October 2007 Collazuol wrote, based on the results of his final survey, that the heights of the completed house were somewhat consistent with the site plan except at station 0+40. Furthermore, he concluded that the elevations of the road surface are inconsistent with the site plan and are lower than previously indicated. Despite this finding, Collazuol determined that the house was constructed substantially in accordance with the plans because it was no greater in height than as proposed. He noted that the diminimous [sic] difference in roof height should be neglected as this falls within typical building tolerances, i.e. 0.90 ft. or 10 inches. The Village found Collazuol's letter perplexing. Because Collazuol had determined that road elevation levels were lower than previously thought, the Village wanted him to explain his results by indicating whether he had conducted a physical survey of the property. A meeting was held on December 7, 2007, to further explore this apparent discrepancy in road elevation levels. At that meeting, Atzl informed the parties that he had erroneously relied upon inaccurate county topographical data in drafting the site plan. Less than a week after the meeting, Collazuol sent the Village a follow-up letter and chart indicating the corrected road elevation levels for the five measurement stations included on the site plan that Cunney had submitted to the Village. Although at three of these stations Cunney's house was in compliance with section E, at station 0+62 the high point of the house's roof line was 7.45 feet above that corresponding elevation point on River Road. At that point, which of all stations yielded the maximum difference between the height of the house and the elevation of River Road, the house exceeded section E's height restriction by 2.95 feet. Even though Collazuol knew the Village would deny Cunney's CO application based on his measurements at station 0+62, he noted in his letter that the road's elevation at the south property line is 29.25 feet. When measured from this point on River Road, he stated, the height of Cunney's house exceeded section E's restrictions by only three inches. Thereafter, on December 19, 2007, Knizeski denied Cunney's CO application. In doing so, he relied solely on Collazuol's third and final compliance determination which stated that at station 0+62 Cunney's roof height was greater than allowed. Cunney appealed this decision to the ZBA.