ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BELMONT, NH

Transcription

1 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BELMONT, NH Wednesday, October 24, 2018 Belmont Corner Meeting House Belmont, NH Members Present: Members Absent: Alternates Absent: Staff: Chairman Peter Harris; Members Mark Mastenbrook, John Froumy and David Dunham. Vice Chair Norma Patten (E). Marshall Ford (E). Elaine Murphy and Candace Daigle. The Chairman opened the meeting at 6pm and welcomed those in attendance. 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. The chairman stated the following definition will be used to determine if the applications before the Board tonight have a regional impact. He explained that in order to provide timely notice, provide opportunities for input and consider the interests of other municipalities, the Board shall act to determine if the development has a potential regional impact as defined by RSA 36:55. Impacts may include, but are not limited to: relative size or number of dwelling units as compared with existing stock; proximity to the borders of a neighboring community; transportation networks; anticipated emissions such as light, noise, smoke, odors, or particles; proximity to aquifers or surface waters which transcend municipal boundaries; shared facilities such as schools and solid waste disposal facilities. ABUTTERS HEARING STACY J. CLARK: Request to replace and relocate a preexisting nonconforming 1-story single family dwelling with a 1-story single family dwelling with a full basement: A. A Special Exception of Article 11.A.3.d. of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new dwelling footprint closer (27.3 ) to the highwater mark than allowed (50 ) but not closer than the preexisting footprint and not exceeding 40% of the original structure. ZBA #1418Z. B. A Special Exception of Article 11.A.3.c. of the Zoning Ordinance to create useable space (full basement) within a preexisting nonconforming footprint. ZBA #1518Z

2 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -2- October 24, 2018 Two Variances of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance: C. To create a new dwelling footprint closer (28.9 ) to the constructed private road than allowed (50 ). ZBA #1618Z D. To relocate a shed closer (23.2 ) to the constructed private road than allowed (50 ). ZBA #1718Z. Property is located at 39 Breck Shore Road in an RS Zone, Tax Lot Mr. Jon Rokeh and Ms. Stacy Clark were present for this application and agreed to a short Board. The members that viewed the site were: Peter Harris, John Froumy and David Dunham. M. Mastenbrook moved that the proposal does not have a potential regional impact. The motion was seconded by J. Froumy and carried. (4-0) Mr. Rokeh explained that they are installing a new foundation and moving the house onto it. The house is being moved back on the lot and being reconfigured. Originally they were going to lift the house and put a foundation under it. By moving it back and centering it on lot it will be more beneficial. They get the benefit of keeping the house and using it as a residence for a long time. They are not a developer and do not plan to sell it. Mr. Rokeh explained that they had meetings with DES in order to get the Shoreland permit. The patio out back has to be pervious and they have to do extensive plantings along the shoreland. The drainage will be improved; now it drains into the crawl space. The new foundation will prevent vermin from entering the house and will keep the appliances and utilities cleaner and not susceptible to rust and mold. There are a couple of sheds on the property that are used for storage and the garage improve that situation. He explained that in the neighborhood there are larger houses being constructed that are similar to this proposal. The hardship is having to meet the 50 setbacks from the highwater mark and the constructed road. They have worked with the State to create the best proposal that would benefit the neighborhood and improves the site. P. Harris stated that Mr. Rokeh touched on the hardship requirement and improving the health and safety of the site. Mr. Rokeh explained that he worked with the State about putting the patio out back and they granted the waiver for the patio having a pervious surface. Mr. Rokeh stated that Ms. Clark is working to improve the site and has hired an architect to for the interior work. D. Dunham wanted to know if the site is on public sewer. Ms. Clark stated they are on municipal sewer. J. Froumy wanted to know the distance from water front buffer to the road. Mr. Rokeh stated they have to be 50 from the highwater mark and 50 from the constructed road leaving them only

3 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -3- October 24, J. Froumy stated that strict application of the ordinance would render the property unusable. Mr. Rokeh agreed and stated they have to also meet the side setbacks of This is a typical lake lot that would not be created again. This is a modest project. They want to move the existing house, put it on a foundation and add a garage. P. Harris wanted to know if the applicant is aware of the Conservation Commission s concerns about runoff. Mr. Rokeh stated they will be having swales on both edges of the lot and there will be no runoff from the site. J. Froumy stated both the driveway and patio is pervious to control the runoff. Mr. Rokeh stated currently there is no runoff off the back of the house everything goes into to lake. There are no trees in that area. They are adding a new pervious patio and additional plantings that will filter the runoff and create erosion control. P. Harris stated that with the improvements to the runoff the lake wins and by the owner improving the wiring and utilities and bringing the house up to code it improves the safety and welfare to the abutters. The chairman opened the hearing to public comment. There being no further questions or comments the chairman closed the public hearing. P. Harris stated that the Board has worked with applicants around the lake and this applicant and her expert consultant put together a good application. J. Froumy stated that the old shed was 36sf and the new one is 23sf and wanted to know why the shed couldn t be put in the large area near the house. Mr. Rokeh explained that there are two shed on the property and the other shed is in that area so one shed is being removed. This also allows for a bigger yard and more landscaping. BOARD ACTION STACY J. CLARK: J. Froumy moved to grant a Special Exception of Article 11.A.3.d. of the Zoning Ordinance to replace and relocate a preexisting nonconforming 1-story single family dwelling with a 1-story single family dwelling with a full basement to create a new dwelling footprint closer (27.3 ) to the highwater mark than allowed (50 ) but not closer than the preexisting footprint and not exceeding 40% of the original structure. to create a new dwelling footprint closer (27.3 ) to the highwater mark than allowed (50 ) but not closer than the preexisting footprint and not exceeding 40% of the original structure as it meets the following criteria: 1. The proposal is specifically authorized as a special exception by the ordinance. 2. The Special Exception criteria set forth in Ordinance Article 13.F. does not apply. 3. The proposal is not incompatible to other uses in the area through the creation of noise, fumes, dust, odor, lighting, smoke or other impacts. The intended purpose is a single-family residence which is identical to what is existing. It is not different from other structures in the area. There is no testimony against the proposal nor is any expected for a single -family residence. 4. The proposed location is of adequate size. They are moving the existing structure so the size is adequate and the same as what is currently there.

4 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -4- October 24, The proposal does not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair vehicular or pedestrian safety. This is a single-family residence with no commercial activity. The driveway is small but adequate for the normal single-family use occurring on site. 6. The proposal does not overload any existing water, drainage, sewer or other system, nor will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or street. The applicant testified that the work satisfies DES requirements. There will be no increase in stormwater runoff. By moving the structure back from the lake, they are reducing the runoff to the lake. The driveway and patio will be pervious to control the runoff. 7. The proposal does not create excessive demand for municipal services and facilities. There will be no increase in services than what currently exist. They are not increasing the size or number of occupants of the house. 8. The proposal does not create hazards to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Placing the house on a foundation instead of a dirt crawl space increases safety by eliminating vermin in the structure and reduces the chance of mold in the building. Moving the house will not impact the neighboring houses. Additional conditions: 1. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. 2. Comply with all conditions of Shoreland Protection permit. 3. Comply with Floodplain Ordinance. 4. 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. 5. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. 6. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. 7. Approval expires on 10/24/20 if use is not substantially acted on and if an extension The motion was seconded by M. Mastenbrook and carried (4-0) J. Froumy moved to grant a Special Exception of Article 11.A.3.c. of the Zoning Ordinance to replace and relocate a preexisting nonconforming 1-story single family dwelling with a 1-story single family dwelling with a full basement to create useable space (full basement) within a preexisting nonconforming footprint as it meets the following criteria: 1. The proposal is specifically authorized as a special exception by the ordinance. 2. The Special Exception criteria set forth in Ordinance Article 13.F. does not apply. 3. The proposal is not incompatible to other uses in the area through the creation of noise, fumes, dust, odor, lighting, smoke or other impacts. The intended purpose is a single-family residence which is identical to what is existing. It is not different from

5 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -5- October 24, 2018 other structures in the area. There is no testimony against the proposal nor is any expected for a single-family residence. 4. The proposed location is of adequate size. They are moving the existing structure so the size is adequate and the same as what is currently there. 5. The proposal does not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair vehicular or pedestrian safety. This is a single-family residence with no commercial activity. The driveway is small but adequate for the normal single-family use occurring on site. 6. The proposal does not overload any existing water, drainage, sewer or other system, nor will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or street. The applicant testified that the work satisfies DES requirements. There will be no increase in stormwater runoff. By moving the structure back from the lake, they are reducing the runoff to the lake. The driveway and patio will be pervious to control the runoff. 7. The proposal does not create excessive demand for municipal services and facilities. There will be no increase in services than what currently exist. They are not increasing the size or number of occupants of the house. 8. The proposal does not create hazards to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Placing the house on a foundation instead of a dirt crawl space increases safety by eliminating varmints in the structure and reduces the chance of mold in the building. Moving the house will not impact the neighboring houses. Additional conditions: 1. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. 2. Comply with all conditions of Shoreland Protection permit. 3. Comply with Floodplain Ordinance. 4. 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. 5. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. 6. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. 7. Approval expires on 10/24/20 if use is not substantially acted on and if an extension The motion was seconded by M. Mastenbrook and carried. (4-0) J. Froumy addressed the variances. He stated the structure is closer to the constructed road because they moved it further from the lake in an effort to make it more conforming. Mr. Rokeh stated they tried to balance the site out. They had to go closer to the road to make everything fit. The lake is affected more by the structure than the road is. P. Harris stated the concern for being too close to roads is in the future certain roads have a potential to be widened but that is not the case in this situation.

6 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -6- October 24, 2018 J. Froumy stated that when reviewing the criteria for a variance he studies the character of the neighborhood and this is an evolving neighborhood. He looked at the character of the existing neighborhood and applied the setbacks to road and saw that houses to the southwest that are closer to the road. If this was the only structure closer to road then it would affect the character of the neighborhood. This is in character with houses along the lakeshore that want to see and enjoy the character of the lake. The existing structure is out of character for the neighborhood. P. Harris stated the house was probably built in the 1960s. Ms. Clark that it was probably earlier than that. There have been many additions to the house. C. Daigle stated the assessment card indicates that it was built in J. Froumy moved to grant a Variance of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new dwelling footprint closer (28.9 ) to the constructed private road than allowed (50 ) as it meets the following criteria: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because it does not conflict with the explicit or implicit spirit of the ordinance and does not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not impact the public safety or welfare. It does not impede the public right of way or adjoining neighbor s property. It is possible abutters will profit from any increase setbacks to the lake. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because it does not conflict with the explicit or implicit spirit of the ordinance and does not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not impact the public safety or welfare. It does not impede the public right of way or adjoining neighbor s property. It is possible abutters will profit from any increase setbacks to the lake. 3. Substantial justice will be done because there is no reason not to grant the variance because there is no harm to the public interest. Denial would only harm the property owner. Granting the variance offers the property owner use of the property. 4. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because there are other new structures in the neighborhood and some are closer to the road. This structure is further from the water than others in the area. Moving the structure will not diminish surrounding property values. 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 the general purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the character of the neighborhood and not harm the safety of the neighbors. The depth of the property renders it useless and that is the hardship of the property. and b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because the purpose of the application is to relocate a residence on the property. The property is used as a residence similar to others in the area. Additional conditions:

7 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -7- October 24, All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. 2. Comply with all conditions of Shoreland Protection permit. 3. Comply with Floodplain Ordinance. 4. 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. 5. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. 6. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. 7. Approval expires on 10/24/20 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 M. Mastenbrook and carried (4-0) J. Froumy moved to grant a Variance of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance to relocate a shed closer (23.2 ) to the constructed private road than allowed (50 ) as it meets the following criteria: 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because it does not conflict with the explicit or implicit spirit of the ordinance and does not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not impact the public safety or welfare. It does not impede the public right of way or adjoining neighbor s property. It is possible abutters will profit from any increase setbacks to the lake. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because it does not conflict with the explicit or implicit spirit of the ordinance and does not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not impact the public safety or welfare. It does not impede the public right of way or adjoining neighbor s property. It is possible abutters will profit from any increase setbacks to the lake. Denial would exclude the applicant from moving the existing shed to a pre-existing footprint. 3. Substantial justice will be done because there is no reason not to grant the variance because there is no harm to the public interest. Denial would only harm the property owner. Granting the variance offers the property owner use of the property. 4. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because there are other new structures in the neighborhood and some are closer to the road. This structure is further from the water than others in the area. Moving the structure will not diminish surrounding property values. 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 the general purpose of the ordinance is to maintain the character of the neighborhood and not harm the safety of the neighbors. The depth of the property renders it useless and that is the hardship of the property.

8 Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -8- October 24, 2018 and b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because the purpose of the application is to relocate a shed on the property. Denial would be improper because they are just changing the location of the existing shed to a pre-existing footprint.. Additional conditions: 1. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. 2. Comply with all conditions of Shoreland Protection permit. 3. Comply with Floodplain Ordinance. 4. 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. 5. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. 6. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. 7. Approval expires on 10/24/20 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 M. Mastenbrook and carried (4-0) OTHER BUSINESS: BOARD'S ACTION -MINUTES: On a motion by M. Mastenbrook, seconded by D. Dunham it was voted to accept the minutes of August 22, 2018 ADJOURNMENT: J. Froumy stated that on page 3 the first paragraph third line has a typo. It should be C. Daigle explained that they tested the area they wanted to quarry The Board voted to approve the minutes as amended. (4-0) On a motion by M. Mastenbrook seconded by P. Harris it was voted unanimously to adjourn at 6:55pm. (4-0) Respectfully submitted, Elaine M. Murphy Administrative Assistant