TOWN OF RYE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, August 19, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall

Transcription

1 TOWN OF RYE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, August 19, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall Members Present: Chair Patricia Weathersby, Vice-Chair Paul Goldman, Burt Dibble, Shawn Crapo and Ray Jarvis. Also Present: Planning Administrator Kimberly Reed I. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Weathersby called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. II. APPLICATIONS 1 1.Timothy R. & Diane B. Terragni of 66 Long Pond Road, Dunbarton, NH for property owned by Terragni D. & T. Trust of 1999 and located at 2227 Ocean Blvd., Tax Map 5.3, Lot 18 request Variances to Section 204.3A to install a patio 2 from the rear property line where 23.5 is required; to Section 204.3B to install a patio 1 from the side property line where 20 is required and to Section 204.3E lot coverage where 55% currently exists, 75% -/+ is proposed and 30% is allowed. Property is in the General and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Diane Terragni, applicant, spoke to the Board. She stated that she and her husband own the property at 2227 Ocean Blvd and have been the owners since They are requesting relief from the setback ordinance, as well as the coverage ordinance. The proposal is to install a patio in the back yard. The patio will measure 37.5 long and 17.5 deep. The patio will be 3 off the back property line, which abuts a small catch basin/pond less than 1 acre in size. She continued that the patio will be 1.5 off the south property line, which is the location of the fence abutting the Murphy s property. The patio will be 14 off the north side abutting the Cusick property. She explained that the reason for the patio size is because it fits the building size. It is only necessary to fit a gas grill, hammock and a patio table with chairs. She noted that they are asking for an impervious patio. The catch basin in the back tends to leach into the home s crawl space, which has a dirt floor that is 4 lower in the back than the front. There has always been some water issues. There is a concern that a pervious patio will add to this problem. She noted that they are looking to protect the cinderblock foundation from more seepage. They are aware that runoff is going to be an issue. The Murphy property located to the south is slightly higher than this property. Under the fence is a bit of a swale that directs the water to the catch basin.

2 Member Jarvis asked about the request for an impervious patio. Mrs. Terragni stated that they feel the water would go into the surface and cause further water problems in the cellar with a pervious surface. Tim Terragni, applicant, stated that the water from Myrica Avenue and Gray Court comes down the street and collects in the catch basin. The catch basin is about a half-acre and it will fill up during a storm. Once the water gets to a certain point, it goes through the ground to the crawl space in the house. They feel that creating an 18 granule base will make it really easy for the water to go into the crawl space. That is the reason they would like to get away from that particular ordinance. The lots in that area are all subject to that particular issue. He continued that the property was professionally surveyed about 7 years ago. There are no issues with the survey. He continued that the patio is on the gable end so there is no roof runoff and the house has full gutters. Chair Weathersby asked if the grade in the patio area will be changed. Mr. Terragni noted that it will need to be leveled. The driveway has a tiny lip and they would like to have that brought out flush with the new pavers. It will probably have to be brought up 3 on the Murphys side and will be pitched towards the catch basin. Chair Weathersby stated that her concern is that so much of the lot should be impervious. Water has to go somewhere and she is concerned about creating problems. She continued that the deck is almost 650 sqft. This is a really good size deck. This is larger than most patios. She asked why they would like it to be so large. Mr. Terragni explained that once the table, hammock and gas grill is set up it really needs that amount of space. Member Dibble asked how often water is in the crawl space. Mrs. Terragni replied that in the winter and rainy seasons the sump pump is working quite a bit. Member Dibble asked if the sump pump is working correctly. Mrs. Terragni confirmed. Member Crapo asked if the driveway slopes away from Ocean Blvd. He asked if water would flow to Ocean Blvd from the driveway. Mr. Terragni explained that he has not noticed an issue with water flowing to the boulevard. 2

3 Member Jarvis asked about the width of the home. Mr. Terragni replied that it is 20 wide. Member Jarvis commented that the patio would be almost twice as wide as the home at 36. Mrs. Terragni explained it is the width of the house and the width of the driveway. Member Jarvis asked what happens with the water now when it rains. Mr. Terragni stated that the material that is there now is probably as hard as concrete. Mrs. Terragni commented that the water goes into the back pond mostly. Member Jarvis stated that he does not know how much expertise is being brought to the proposal. This will be taking a small lot and making most of it impermeable. He is guessing that everything will go into the pond. Mrs. Terragni commented that this is what she would say is going to happen. Member Jarvis asked if anyone with expertise has looked at the potential drainage and made any recommendations. Mr. Terragni replied not at this time. He continued that it is apparent that the water is not going to go anywhere but stay on the property. Member Jarvis asked how it would help to minimize the water in the house if there is a heavy rain and the water stays on the property. Mr. Terragni stated that he is not worried about the rain that falls on it in the summertime. He is worried about the water that fills up the catch basin gravitating towards the basement. He is concerned about putting in 18 of stone that will make this much easier for the water to do that. Member Jarvis stated that he sees a very small lot. The proposal is to take approximately 50% impervious coverage and increase it to 75%. Following that there would be hydrology issues happening. He is not sure what is going to happen with this proposal. Mr. Terragni stated that if this is the concern they would go with a pervious surface. Vice-Chair Goldman stated that in looking at the tax map the pond touches lot 15, 21, 20 and is close to this property and the other property on either side. He thinks Member Jarvis has a good point. If a lot of water runs into that pond and there is no way to know where the boundaries of the pond are going to be. If there was a professional opinion that showed what would happen to the property it would help him to understand the project. 3

4 Member Crapo asked who has made the ruling on the size of the pond being less than 1 acre. He asked if the pond has been flagged. The edge of the water is not the edge of the wetland. The buffer restriction applies to the wetlands that are 1 acre in size. Chair Weathersby pointed out that the building inspector did not flag this in his letter. Member Crapo pointed out that it is definitely more than the 20,000 sqft that is shown. He thinks it is marginal that it even meets the buffer restriction. There is a huge eco system in this area. The soil where the deck is proposed is filtering the runoff before it gets into the pond. It is not just a question of where the physical water would go but contaminates also. He continued that if a permeable patio was installed it would lessen any filtration of the water from the site before it is dumped into the pond. Some of the water that comes into that pond is coming from where Cable and Central Road connect. The water drains down to the other side of Gray Court and off Big Rock to this basin and out to the ocean. He reiterated that there is a much larger wetland there than what the edge of the water is. Member Dibble asked if there are any catch basins along the roadway that drain into the pond. Mr. Terragni pointed out that he has seen one on Gray Court. He commented that he does not think the catch basins are very functional at this point. Member Dibble asked what happens when the pond fills up. Mr. Terragni stated that when the pond fills up it will run over onto lot 20. It has never gone up so high as to go over the bank. He continued that it has gravitated into the soil on lot 19 and 18. He thinks it used to do that on lot 17. Member Crapo commented that he has seen Myrica Avenue flooded many times. Chair Weathersby opened to the public in support of the proposal. Mrs. Terragni submitted a letter from Thomas Cusick, 2229 Ocean Boulevard, stating that he did not have any issues with the proposal. Chair Weathersby noted that the application was noticed for the August 5 th meeting. The official notice has changed as the building inspector has revised his letter to address other issues. It is the same project but other variances are needed. The variances that are needed are from 204.3A; 2 from the rear property line and 204.3B; 1 from the side property line. Also needed is E for lot coverage. Chair Weathersby opened to the public in opposition to the proposal. 4

5 Mr. Murphy, 2225 Ocean Boulevard, stated that his lot is 1 to 1.5 lower than the Terragnis lot. He is concerned about the water. He continued that he and his wife have owned the property since 2003 and it has been flooded twice. He commented that his property does flood and it is a big problem. He pointed out that the road has also been flooded on at least two occasions. There have been countless problems with water. He stated that they are also concerned about the size of the deck and being so close to their yard. The distance of 1 is too close. He would like to see a patio created with grass. The 75% coverage is too much. It is already at 55% and that is significant enough. He noted that his property is the closest to the side and will have the most impact. Jean Murphy, 2225 Ocean Boulevard, stated that the road does flood. The water goes to 4, 8 and 10 Myrica Avenue. She continued that they have petitioned the town council to put a storm drain on Myrica, which has not happened. There is still a lot of concern in this area. She continued that they did some landscaping and were required to install a plastic fence and bales of hay to protect the environment. If the properties are that close to plant and animal life, she does not know how this project would not impact the environmental area. Speaking to the applicants, Chair Weathersby explained that they have a couple of choices. The application before the Board is for the impervious patio. The application can remain and move forward for the Board to make a decision. If the application is approved it can be built. If it is not approved, the applicant may come back with a plan but it must be substantially different than what is being proposed at this meeting. She continued that she is not sure if a pervious patio would meet the variances or not. She cannot say that the Board would think that this is a material change, from going to impervious to pervious; however, it is a possibility. It may be found that it is the same project and would not be allowed to go forward. The other alternative is to withdraw the application, change the plans and come back to the Board. Vice-Chair Goldman stated that given the discussion at this meeting he would like to see some professional opinion on the proposed project showing what will happen with the water. There are a lot of unknowns in this area that is very wet. Chair Weathersby reviewed Zoning Ordinance Section 507.2; drainage off a lot cannot be increased. She stated that an approval could be conditioned upon the building inspector requiring a drainage study that shows that there is not an increase to the abutting lots. Planning Administrator Reed replied that the Board can condition any special exception or variance. Member Crapo stated that he would be uncomfortable moving forward with a change to permeable without the building inspector reviewing the proposal to be sure it would qualify as permeable. 5

6 Chair Weathersby stated that she does not want to take up the pervious patio at this meeting. There are too many unknowns. More information is needed about the lot, construction of the patio and the water flow. She thinks that the Board will take a vote on the request for an impervious patio, unless it would like to be withdrawn. Mr. and Mrs. Terragni agreed to move forward with the application as it stands. Hearing no further comments or questions from the public, Chair Weathersby closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Member Jarvis stated that he feels the patio that is being applied for is too large for the property. He does not have an understanding as to what would happen to the water on the property and to the adjacent property. He commented that he is concerned about those two factors and it may be more depending upon what additional evidence comes in. Member Crapo agreed. He continued that there is a question on the overall size of the wetland. It should be checked out and there may be a buffer issue. Regardless, Section 507 would apply and there are protections in place for the smaller bodies of water. He thinks that either form of construction in this area will have a negative effect on the wetlands. The patio as proposed will create a negative situation with the adjacent property. It is also an unreasonable size request. Vice-Chair Goldman commented that Member Jarvis summarized his thoughts. Member Dibble stated that Section says that surface water drainage cannot be increased into existing water courses or to the town s storm water drainage system. The applicant had said that a significant part of this issue is to protect a flooding potential in their basement, which implies moving the water somewhere else; most likely off the property. He continued that he does not feel badly about the size of the patio but does feel that a hydrology study is likely to have unhappy consequences. Right now, the basement is okay and pumps out okay. The neighbor has water problems. He does not think there are enough benefits to the public that outweigh the shortcomings of the plan and the benefits to the applicant. Chair Weathersby stated that she shares the concerns that have been raised. She continued that the patio is really an outdoor living area where the applicant will enjoy the space. She has a concern about the patio being 1 from the property line. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Section 204.3A; rear property line setback: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest? 6

7 2. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed? 3. Substantial justice is done? 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 5. Are there special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship? Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Section 204.3B; side property line setback: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest? 2. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed? 7

8 3. Substantial justice is done? 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 5. Are there special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship? Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Section 204.3E; lot coverage: 1. The variance is not contrary to the public interest? 2. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed? 3. Substantial justice is done? 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 8

9 5. Are there special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship? Motion by Burt Dibble to deny the application of Timothy R. & Diane B. Terragni of 66 Long Pond Road, Dunbarton, NH for property owned by Terragni D. & T. Trust of 1999 and located as advertised in the posted agenda for August 19, Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. 2.Joseph Paquet of Portsmouth Builders LLC for Dale & Karen Harman for property owned and located at 257 Washington Road, Tax Map 16, Lot 157 requests Variances to Section to increase the bulk of the nonconforming portions of the building; Section 203.3C for a porch 33 from the front setback on the left side where 40 is required and Section 203.3C for a sunroom 32 from the front setback on the right side where 40 is required. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Shannon Alther, TMS Architects, spoke to the Board. He explained that the property is located at 257 Washington Road. It is a corner lot. The existing house is an L-shape with an existing barn. They are currently in the process of putting on an addition in the back. The building permit has been received from the Town in order to do that work. He continued that they are before the Board because they are looking to add a porch on the east side and a sunroom on the front of the home. The front of the house is about 17 to 18 from the road. There is a 40 setback requirement and they are seeking relief from that requirement to locate the sunroom 32 from the front setback line and the porch is 33 from the front setback. The lot is relatively large 9

10 at 2.74 acres. The coverage would be about 7,800 sqft. With the new addition and the porches the coverage would be 8,400 sqft coverage, which is well below the coverage. He stated that there used to be a porch in this location on the property. The new porch is in the same location but has been reduced in scale from the old version. The front door of the house is not used very often. The side door is used and this would allow for an entry space into the home with a covered porch. (He reviewed the proposal on the plan before the Board.) Joseph Paquet, contractor, reviewed the criteria for granting the variances. Member Jarvis asked when the home was built. Dale Harman, applicant, noted that the original cape was built in Chair Weathersby opened to the public for comments or questions. Robin Wehbe, 20 Spruce Avenue, spoke in support of the proposal. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chair Weathersby closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Member Crapo stated that the proposal is reasonable and well thought out. The house is unique with it being on the corner and having a 40 ft setback. He commented that the house has been there since the 1700 s. It isn t in the fashion of some of the homes of late that dominate and are right against the road. The request is well behind the façade of the house. It looks like it will fit in and there is plenty of space on the lot. He does not think the purposes of the setbacks are harmed by the proposal. Vice-Chair Goldman stated that it seems reasonable to him. The additions are subservient to the structure that is already there. Chair Weathersby agreed. The relief requested is from the frontage requirements. It does not dominate or interfere with the views around the corner. It is a tasteful design and will fit in with the neighborhood. Member Dibble commented that it seems like it is in accordance with the spirit of the ordinance. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections 603.1, 203.3C; porch and 203.3C; sunroom; 1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest? Jarvis Yes, Crapo Yes, Goldman Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby - Yes 2. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed? 10

11 3. Substantial justice is done? 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 5. Are there special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship? Motion by Shawn Crapo to approve the application for 257 Washington Road as advertised. Seconded by Burt Dibble. All in favor. 3.Robin Wehbe of th Street PH226, Charlestown MA for property owned and located at 20 Spruce Lane, Tax Map 5.2, Lot 64 requests Variances to Section 204.3A for a shed 3 +/- from the rear property line where 30 is required and Section 204.3B for a shed 3 +/- from side property line where 20 is required. Property is in the General Residence and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Robin Wehbe, applicant, presented to the Board. He explained that the proposal is to locate a shed on the property. (He submitted photos to the Board showing the proposed location.) He pointed out that he does not want to have the beach toys on the front deck and laying around on the property. They are able to put some things into the basement; however, it can be challenging to get into the basement. There are other sheds in the neighborhood and he thinks a shed is 11

12 reasonable. He noted that the shed will be located in the rear corner and will not be very visible. He will be cleaning up the area and repairing the stone wall. He is also planning to plant more arborvitae in the area to help shade the abutter to the north side. He reiterated that pretty much all of the homes in the neighborhood have a shed. He has only heard one complaint that was written by the rear abutter who is not in favor of the proposal. He stated that the neighbor to the north who will be the most impacted by the shed does not have an issue with the shed. He stated the only neighbor who objected to his shed was Mrs. Squatrito who has a shed on his property line and he checked the files and she does not have a permit for the shed. He tried to talk to her but she would not talk and he mentioned the shed to the Building Inspector. The Board reviewed the proposal. Mr. Wehbe stated that he has asked for 3 from the side setback; however, it will probably be more like 6 because he did not account for the stone wall and the tree. He is requesting 6 from the side line and 3 from the rear. Hearing no comments or questions, Chair Weathersby closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Chair Weathersby read into the record a letter from Nancy Squartrito of 21 Pine Street. Chair Weathersby commented that it is a good location for the shed. She notes Mrs. Squartrito s objections; however, her house is pretty far away from the proposed shed. Member Crapo stated that the original notice was for 3 and 3. Bringing the shed to 6 will bring it closer to Mrs. Rodriquez s structure but there is enough screening for it to not be an issue. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections 204:3A and 204.3B: 1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest? 2. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed? 3. Substantial justice is done? 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 12

13 5. Are there special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship? Motion by Burt Dibble to approve the application Robin Wehbe of th Street PH226, Charlestown MA, for property located at 20 Spruce Avenue, for variances to Section 204.3A for a shed 3 +/- from the rear property line and Section 204.3B for a shed 6 +/- from side property line. Seconded by Ray Jarvis. All in favor. Adjournment Motion by Paul Goldman to adjourn at 8:36 p.m. Seconded by Burt Dibble. All in favor. *All corresponding paperwork, files and documents may be viewed at the Building Department, Rye Town Hall. Respectfully Submitted, Dyana F. Ledger 13