BELMONT LAND USE OFFICE

Transcription

1 BELMONT LAND USE OFFICE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, May 27, 2015 Belmont Corner Meeting House Belmont, NH Members Present: Members Absent: Alternates Absent: Staff: Chairman Peter Harris; Members Marshall Ford, John Froumy and David Dunham. Vice Chair Norma Patten (E). Mark Mastenbrook (U). Elaine Murphy and Candace Daigle. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:08 pm and welcomed those in attendance. OTHER BUSINESS: BOARD ACTION - MINUTES: On a motion by M. Ford, seconded by Peter Harris it was voted unanimously to accept the minutes of April 22, 2015 as written. (3-0-1) J. Froumy abstained. The chairman explained that there is not a full 5-member Board present. An affirmative vote of 3 members is necessary to approve any application. All applicants have the option to be heard by the short board or to request to be tabled until the next regular meeting. If the applicant chooses to proceed, and their application is denied, the fact that the denial was by a short board is not grounds for a rehearing. ABUTTERS HEARING SINCLAIR CONSTRUCTION: Request for a variance of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a porch closer (43.8') to the front property line than allowed (50'). Property is located at 67 Plummer Hill Road in an "RM" Zone, Tax Lot ZBA # 1215Z J. Froumy moved that the proposal does not have a potential regional impact. The motion was seconded by M. Ford and carried. (4-0) Mr. Andrew St. Godard was present for this application and agreed to a short Board.

2 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -2- May 27, 2015 Mr. St. Godard explained that the house was in disarray and they have done extensive renovations. The outside was designed for a front porch but a corner of the porch falls within the 50 setback. The ordinance states that you have to meet the five criteria for a variance and he plans on addressing them. There is no diminution of surrounding property values because the aesthetic of a porch would add value to surrounding properties. The structure looks like it was a mobile home at one time and replaced with a stick built. The proposal is a benefit to public interest because it will allow a citizen peaceful enjoyment of his property and does not cause angst to the population. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because he is meeting the three hardship requirements of the NH law "Standards of State Zoning Act 1925". Granting the variance would not injure the private right of others. It allows for the best use of the property for the owners needs and the most desirable aesthetic effect for the community. The porch would change the ranch and manufactured home look of the structure. The proposal is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the ordinance is to create a standard setback for communities to allow for desirable community access from roads and for the visual enjoyment and non encroachment. Even with the encroachment the site has another 16' from the road and is further back than six other houses in the area. There used to be a 6' deck in the proposed area. The chairman open the hearing to public comment. Ms. Marcia Kong representing Granite Ridge Condominiums stated that she received the abutter's notice for this application and sent it out to members of the association. Mr. Paul Hegarty, a unit owner, hand delivered a letter to the Land Use Office stating he has no problems with the porch. There were no other comments from any other unit owners. C. Daigle noted the referenced letter was not in the file but that Mr. Hegarty's comments were being submitted by Ms. Kong. P. Harris stated that the applicant has addressed the variance requirements, the impact to the neighborhood and is building within the confines of the area. J. Froumy stated the property line is at an angle to the building and the size of the porch is conservative with the encroachment being on the south end of the porch. Mr. Godard stated it enhances the aesthetic of the neighborhood and adds value to the surrounding properties. His property line is 16' from the edge of the pavement and there are other properties that are closer. P. Harris wanted to know what the distance is from the ground to the sill. Mr. Godard stated it is 31". P. Harris stated that safety is a number one concern and if someone has to get out the window it is a long way to ground without some kind of platform. Mr. Godard stated everything will be up to code. There being no further questions or comments the chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD ACTION SINCLAIR CONSTRUCTION: M. Ford moved to grant approval for a variance to construct a porch closer (43.8') to the front property line than allowed (50') as it meets all the criteria.

3 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -3- May 27, The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because there is no regional impact and no negative impact to abutters. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because there are no health and safety concerns. 3. Substantial justice will be done because other variances have been granted on nonconforming lots. 4. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because no factual evidence has been provided to show that property values would be diminished. 5. Owing to special conditions of the property, that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because of the following: a. no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because there is no other method for the applicant other than a variance. and b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because it allows the applicant to increase enjoyment of the property. Additional conditions: 1. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. 2. All decks, steps, landings & stairs must be shown on the building permit application and no other structures or additions (incl. decks, porches, landings, etc.) that do not meet setback are allowed by this approval. 3. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. 4. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. 5. Use is restricted to single-family/accessory use. 6. Building and occupancy permits required for porch, pool/pool service area, deck and proposed garage. Permit required for any renovations to existing garage. No water/sewer connections permitted into existing or proposed garages. 7. Approval expires on 5/27/17 if use is not substantially acted on and if an extension is not granted. Approval also expires if use ceases for more than two years. The motion was seconded by J. Froumy and carried (4-0) ABUTTERS HEARING SINCLAIR CONSTRUCTION: Request for a variance of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to construct a swimming pool/pool service area closer (9.3') to the

4 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -4- May 27, 2015 rear property line than allowed (12.5'). Property is located at 67 Plummer Hill Road in an "RM" Zone, Tax Lot ZBA # 1315Z J. Froumy moved that the proposal does not have a potential regional impact. The motion was seconded by M. Ford and carried. (4-0) Mr. Andrew St. Godard was present for this application and agreed to a short Board. Mr. Godard explained that they are constructing the swimming pool off the back of the garage. The garage is not being used as garage. Encroaching into the setback is the only way to put the pool so there is an area for pool furniture. There is no diminution in surrounding property values. The value of the pool would add to the property value and subsequently to the surrounding property values. The public interest would be served by not unreasonably allowing a citizen the peaceful enjoyment of one's own property that does not cause angst to population. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship as he is meeting the hardship requirement of the NH law. Substantial justice would be done because it allows the owner the best use of his property that meets his needs. The proposal is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the setback standards were created to allow for desirable community access from roads and visual enjoyment and nonencroachment. Even with this encroachment the site has an additional setback created by the 400' green space buffer zone as part of the condominium regulations. P. Harris wanted to know about the space between the house and the garage. Mr. Godard stated the garage is for the pump, filtration system and lawn furniture. If he moves the pool closer to the house he would lose the useable space for the patio and furniture. There is a fence surrounding the property and there will be a fence surrounding the pool. J. Froumy wanted to know what is in the neighbor's backyard. Mr. Godard stated a fenced in area for a barking dog. D. Dunham wanted to know where the water runoff will go when they purge the filter. Mr. Godard stated he has a stone filter that goes into a five gallon pail. The chairman opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Kong wanted to know the size of the pool. Mr. Godard stated it is 36' x 20' and 4' deep. Ms. Kong wanted to know how he arrived at the 400' buffer area to the Association property. Mr. Godard stated that there is a 400' green space where no houses can be built. Ms. Kong wanted to know what the vertical drop is. Mr. Godard stated it is an 8 slope. Ms. Kong stated that it is not just a straight 400' open field but has up and down slopes. Mr. Godard stated the measuring was done using a mechanical tool. He noted that the water from the Association drains down onto his property. J. Froumy clarified that the 400' buffer is private property. Mr. Godard stated that is correct and that by the Association regulations it can never be developed. It is protected from development now and in the future. He also stated it is his opinion that rules get more stringent, his 12.5' setback is protected because he has a nonconforming lot and everyone else has as 25 setback. Ms. Kong stated that Mr. Hegarty had no issues with the porch but does have some concerns with the pool. She read from his letter stating the reason zoning laws exist is to provide physical and

5 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -5- May 27, 2015 noise buffers so the those in the neighborhood can enjoy their individual properties. Granite Ridge Condominiums is quiet and they can already hear noise from that property and that is why he is concerned about the pool. He wanted to know why the pool could not be constructed within the guidelines of zoning. Mr. Godard stated the entertainment area is between house and pool and if he moves it closer to the house then he loses that area for chairs. The Board wanted to know if he could move the pool service area to the other side of the pool. Mr. Godard stated the service area and entertainment area is a swim up area to the pool bar. If he moves the pool over it will be within the eves of the house and there will not be enough room for chairs. The noise to the abutting property will not be unreasonable because there is a vegetative buffer between him and the condos. There is no diving board and the pool service area is a dry area where you can swim up to and sit at stools to get something to eat. Ms. Kong wanted to know why he needed such a large pool. Mr. Godard stated swimming helps his joints and he is using it to swim laps. Mrs. Kong wanted to know if the pool is heated. Mr. Godard stated that it is not and will not be used in the winter. J. Froumy stated that people using a pool can make noise and even if Mr. Godard keeps the noise down the variance goes with the property and noise can become an issue with future owners. Mr. Godard stated that he could construct a block wall or a fountain so that the noise wave would bounce off and go back into the water or towards the road. He will also plant 3' arborvitaes along the fence line. The trees grow between 9' to 10'. M. Ford stated that they will not be using the pool in the winter so noise will not be an issue when the leaves are off the trees. Mr. Godard stated there will be a fence 6' from the pool. Ms. Kong stated that in the summer people are outside and even with the leaves on the trees noise travels. P. Harris stated that this is 1/4 acre lot and they can move the pool 3 back and still have reasonable use of the property without the Board setting a precedent. The pool can be moved even if Mr. Godard cannot have a patio in that area. M. Ford stated that a pool 17 wide would still be a huge pool for the property. P. Harris stated the quality of life applies to the affects a variance has on abutters. The variance goes with the property and the abutters have to be considered when determining what is a reasonable use of the property. The pool can be put in a conforming area on the property or downsized. Mr. Godard stated that if he made the pool narrower it would not look right. He wants something that is aesthetically pleasing. P. Harris stated that 3' seems little but it has to be taken into consideration considering the number of outbuildings on the property. Mr. Godard discussed the options for having a patio and what needs a permit. C. Daigle explained that it has to be dry laid stone that can be picked up, not more than 32sf and no more than 70lbs. M. Ford stated a 16' x 36' swimming pool could still have a bar and still have room for lawn furniture. Ms. Kong stated a 24' pool is still big enough for a lap pool the width doesn't matter. The width makes it sound like a party pool. Mr. Godard stated it would look odd and would not be aesthetically pleasing. P. Harris stated it is still a small lot and there is only a limited amount of things that can be done on 1/4 acre lot. M. Ford stated that those lots were created in the 1940's & 1950's when things were constructed differently. Mr. Godard stated that if noise is an issue the police can be contacted. There being no further questions or comments the chairman closed the public hearing.

6 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -6- May 27, 2015 J. Froumy moved to deny a variance to construct a swimming pool/pool service area closer (9.3') to the rear property line than allowed (12.5') as it does not meet all the criteria. 1. The variance will be contrary to the public interest because it conflicts with the implied purpose of the ordinance which is to maintain setbacks for privacy and minimize noise levels on other properties. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is not observed because the implied purpose of the ordinance is to maintain setbacks for privacy and minimize noise levels on other properties. The proposal does not threaten the health, safety and welfare of abutting properties but might questionably injure the public rights of other property owners. 3. Substantial justice will not be done because it could set a precedent for others applicants to randomly minimize setbacks contrary to the ordinance. 4. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties. The applicant's arguments are recognized. 5. Owing to special conditions of the property, that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would not result in unnecessary hardship because of the following: a. there is fair and substantial relationship between the general public purpose of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because the general public has the right to have setbacks to adjourning abutting properties for their right to enjoy their own property, and b. the proposed use is not a reasonable one because the criteria have not been met. ADJOURNMENT: The motion was seconded by D. Dunham and carried (3-1) M. Ford opposed. On a motion by M. Ford seconded by J. Froumy it was voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:25 pm. (4-0) Respectfully submitted, Elaine M. Murphy Administrative Assistant