TOWN OF RYE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 4, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall

Transcription

1 TOWN OF RYE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 4, :00 p.m. Rye Town Hall Members Present: Chair Patricia Weathersby, Vice-Chair Paul Goldman, Clerk Burt Dibble, Shawn Crapo, Patrick Driscoll, Alternates R. J. Lincoln and Charlie Hoyt. I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Chair Weathersby called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. II. Approval of Minutes: April 6, 2016 Motion by Shawn Crapo to approve the minutes of April 6, 2016 as amended. Seconded by Burt Dibble. Vote: 4-0. Abstained: Paul Goldman III. Applications: 1. Michael J. Degnan of 88 School Street, Concord, NH for property owned and located at 1601 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 13, Lot 29 requests a Variance from Section 301.8B 1& 7 for a deck 97 +/- within the 100 tidal buffer. Property is in the General Residence and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Tom Degnan, contractor, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. He stated that they are asking for an 8 x15 deck. He noted that a NH DES Permit has been issued to build within the wetland buffer. The deck will be 3 into the tidal buffer where currently there is a brick walkway. The walkway will be removed and the deck will be constructed in its place. There will be no access to the ground from the deck. The deck will only be accessed from the inside of the house. The deck is raised 5 off the ground with no enclosures below. The impervious surface will remain approximately the same as it is now because the walkway is being removed. Chair Weathersby noted that a letter dated April 4 th was received from the Conservation Commission. The commission noticed some fill and wondered if it was properly permitted. They also recommended a buffer of natural bushes and shrubs. Mr. Degnan explained that the engineers proved that those are pre-existing conditions. There is a letter with the NH DES application explaining this. The commission was concerned about the lawn in the back, as well as, the stone wall. He continued that one of the proposals in the future is to add a natural buffer in the back of the property. The Board reviewed the permit issued by NH DES. 1

2 Mr. Degnan reviewed the criteria for granting the variances. Chair Weathersby opened to the public for comments or questions. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. The Board did not have any issues with the proposal. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections 301.8B (1) & (7): 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? 5. There are 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 provisions 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 grant the variance relief requested to Section B.1 and 7, for 1601 Ocean Boulevard, for a deck 97 within the 100 tidal buffer. Seconded by Burt Dibble. Vote: 5-0. All in favor. 2

3 2. Michael Daigle for property owned and located at 287 Wallis Road, Tax Map 19, Lot 12 requests a Variance from Section 203.3B for a shed/garage in the side setback where 4 exists, 4 is proposed and 20 is required and from Section for expansion of the shed/garage where currently is 20 x 12 and the proposed will be 14 x 24. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Michael Daigle, applicant, spoke to the Board. He explained that he is proposing to improve the look of his garage/shed, which is about to fall over and leaks. He is not trying to move the garage any closer to the property line. The expansion of 4 will not infringe on the side property line. The expansion will be towards the rear of the property and the decrease of 2 will be closer to the house. He noted that the garage is actually 9 and not 4 from the property line. It is 9 currently and will be 9 after the garage is completed. Member Crapo asked if he measured from the drip edge. Mr. Daigle stated that he believes there is a 1 overhang. After some discussion, Mr. Daigle agreed to request an 8 side setback to accommodate the overhang. Chair Weathersby read a letter of support from Peter Colbeth, 155 West Road, owner of abutting property. Chair Weathersby asked if the shed at the back of the property will stay. Mr. Daigle confirmed. Mr. Goldman asked if the rear shed is involved in this project. Mr. Daigle replied no. Chair Weathersby opened to the public for comments or questions. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. The Board did not have any issues with the proposal. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections 203.3B and 603.1: 1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest? 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed? 3. Substantial justice is done? 3

4 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? 5. There are 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 provisions and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinances would result in unnecessary hardship? Motion by Burt Dibble to approve the request by Michael Daigle for property located at 287 Wallis Road for the variance from Section 203.3B for a shed/garage in the side setback where 9 exists, 8 is proposed, and 20 is required and from Section for expansion of the proposed shed/garage; with the condition that the building inspector approves the final placement of the slab before the shed/garage is constructed. Seconded by Paul Goldman. Vote: 5-0. All in favor. 3. Donald R. Blouin for property owned and located at 426 Wallis Road, Rye NH Tax Map 18, Lot 91 requests Variances from Section to tear down an existing garage and replace it with a new garage with finished living space above and from Section B side yard setback where 13 +/- exists, 14 is proposed and 20 is required. Property is in the Single Residential District. Case # Withdrawn 4. Michael & Diane Cavaretta for property owned and located at 30 LaMer Drive, Tax Map 13, Lot 44 request a Special Exception pursuant to Section 506 to allow for an accessory apartment. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Asking to be continued to the June 1, 2016 meeting. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the application of Michael and Diane Cavaretta to the June 1, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. 4

5 5. Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust, Mark A. Kearns, Trustee of 161 Portland Ave, Dover NH for property owned and located at 1381 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 3 Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section from the Decision made by the Building Inspector in a letter dated February 29, 2016 to deny a plumbing permit on cottage #8. Property is in the Business and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Withdrawn 6. Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust, Mark A. Kearns, Trustee of 161 Portland Ave, Dover NH for property owned and located at 1381 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 3 Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section from the Decision made by the Building Inspector in a letter dated February 29, 2016 to deny an electrical permit on cottage #8. Property is in the Business and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Withdrawn 7. Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust, Mark A. Kearns, Trustee of 161 Portland Ave, Dover NH for property owned and located at 1381 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 3 Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section from the Decision made by the Building Inspector in a letter dated February 29, 2016 to deny a building permit on cottage #8. Property is in the Business and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Withdrawn 8. Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust, Mark A. Kearns, Trustee of 161 Portland Ave, Dover NH for property owned and located at 1381 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 3 Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section from a Notice of Violation per NHRSA a issued by the Building Inspector on March 8, Property is in the Business and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Withdrawn 5

6 9. Joseph & Marcella Mills for property owned and located at 355 Central Road, Tax Map 8, Lot 8 request an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section and NHRSA 674:33-a, from Section 203.3A for an existing shed with a rear setback of 2 where 30 is required and from Section 203.3B for an existing garage with a side setback of 18 where 20 is required. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Frank Drake, representing the applicants, presented to the Board. (He reviewed the submitted materials for the application.) Referring to a photo he submitted to the Board, he explained that there is an existing garage that has been there since the 70 s. Another photo shows a view of the space between the garage and the house. The last photo from the 70 s shows a bit of the garage with the house behind it. The house is exactly as it is today. The garage that is shown in the photos from the 70 s is pretty much in the same location as the new garage. Referring to the photo, Chair Weathersby clarified that the garage/barn that is shown was torn down and a new one was built. Mr. Drake confirmed. Chair Weathersby asked if the new garage was built closer to the house. Mr. Drake stated that he does not know where the original garage was located exactly; however, there was a two car garage in that area. He continued that the Mills are requesting an Equitable Waiver of Dimensions, which is a pretty straight forward process. He thinks they have a good presentation that proves that they meet the requirements for approval for the Equitable Waiver. The application says that the Board must find in favor of all four segments below or the request must be denied. It is a dimensional requirement because the existing garage is about 18 from the property boundary, where 20 is required, and the shed is about 2 on the left side and 4 on the rear, where 20 and 30 is required. That is all the applicants are asking for. He pointed out that the use is permitted and there is no change in use involved. The second requirement is that the violation has existed for 10 years or more with no enforcement action or written notices being commenced by the Town. He noted that the house addition and the garage were built in The shed was placed in the back left corner about In all those years, there has been no enforcement letters or complaints from anyone. It has been well over 10 years. He continued that they also satisfy the requirement that the non-conformity was discovered after the structure was substantially completed and the violation was not an outcome of ignorance of the law or bad faith but resulted from a legitimate mistake. He explained that the violation was discovered after a neighbor performed a recent survey. The garage setback was originally determined to be in compliance based on a meeting between Joe Mills and then abutting property owner, John Philbrick. He continued that Joe and John paced off what they thought was 20 and that was where the garage was located. The shed s location was mutually acceptable to Joe Mills and Roger Philbrick, who was the abutter representative after John Philbrick had passed. Mr. Drake stated that requirement 3 states; the non-conformity does not constitute a nuisance, diminish the value or interfere with the other uses of properties in the area. He continued that the garage being 2 shy of compliance, which is being served by the same driveway since the 70 s, is not a nuisance. It does not diminish property values. It is a good looking garage. It does not interfere with anyone else s use of their property surrounding it. He continued that it is the same for the shed. The shed is a basic garden shed, which has been kept up. It sits back from the street and really can t be seen. The shed abuts 6

7 against open fields. The next requirement is the cost of correcting far outweighs any public benefit to be gained. There will be no public gain from moving the shed and the cost of removing approximately 3 off the side of the garage would be nearly impossible, engineering wise. There would be no public benefit. It would be completely out of bounds to require the applicant to strip the garage on one side. It would be structurally unsafe and unusable. He believes they meet the requirements to gain the Equitable Waiver for relief for the dimensional problems. Chair Weathersby stated that there is a letter from the Rye Building Department, which is dated July 23, 2014, and is part of the Board s package. The letter indicates that the placement of the shed and garage may be in violation of the town required setbacks. She asked when the garage was built. Mr. Drake replied that the garage was built in 1981 and the shed in He continued that they still satisfy all the requirements. Chair Weathersby opened to the public in favor of the application. No comments were heard. She opened to the public in opposition to the application. Patrick Carberry, 345 Central Road, stated that Mr. Mills never had a permit for anything that he did. Being a Selectmen, he knows the rules and the setbacks but he decided to ignore them. He pointed out that there was a Notice to Remedy dated August 18 th. There was a 30 day notice to comply and it is now 7 months later just to get Mr. Mills to comply. This has been going on for a long time. Since 2013, he has been asking to have the stuff moved. It falls on deaf ears, we are looking into it and it went on back and forth. He continued that he was told in 2014 from the town administrator that it was being handled. It is a very tough situation to deal with. The town administrator did not know how he was going to deal with it but he was going to see what he could do. He stated that he cannot get a post hole digging machine in to finish his fence due to the shed being in the way, he would have to do it by hand. Moving the shed would not be a big deal. It was moved in and it can be moved out. He asked if there was a letter from Roger Philbrick stating that he agreed to the shed. Mr. Drake commented that all the evidence is in the packets. Member Crapo asked about the size of the post hole digger. Mr. Carberry explained that the shed is setback 12 and he cannot get the guard for the digger behind the fence. Member Crapo stated that the Board has to look at what each property would gain. He asked what would be gained by forcing the movement of the shed. Mr. Carberry commented that he would be able to get in behind his fence to paint it and work on it. The fence is setback 12 and he cannot get in to work on the fence now. Chair Weathersby asked for further comments from the public in regards to the application. 7

8 Mr. Drake stated that to suggest the garage be moved or dismantled over a couple of hundred feet is clearly not doing justice. As far as the shed goes, he is a little perplexed that the shed is 12 like Mr. Carberry says. He believes it is 1 6 and the fence is 1 back. He thinks Mr. Carberry could get in there. Mr. Carberry stated that the shed was not put in until 2004 or Chair Weathersby commented that it is about 11 plus years ago. Speaking to Mr. Carberry, Member Driscoll asked if his primary issue is with the shed. Mr. Carberry confirmed. Member Driscoll asked if his fence is set well within the side yard setback. Mr. Carberry noted that the building inspector required a survey to have the fence put in. No further comments or questions were heard. Chair Weathersby closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Chair Weathersby stated that the fact that Mr. Mills is a Selectmen in this Town does not affect the Board s vote one way or the other. Everyone that goes before the Board is treated equally. She commented that last month there was a U.S. Senator before the Board that did not get unanimous approval of his project. There has been a governor before the Board. The fact that Mr. Mills is a Selectmen does not give him preferential treatment. She continued that this request is difference from a variance. This is a request for an Equitable Waiver for Dimensional Requirements. If the statutory factors are found, the Board is required to grant it. If it is not found, the Board is required to not grant it. If it is not granted, the applicant can come back and ask for a variance, in which case it would be the variance analysis. She noted that she will read the factors for the application and poll the Board on each one. Chair Weathersby stated that the Board is required to grant the Equitable Waiver if the following are found: 1A. The violation was not noticed or discovered by any owner, former owner, owner s agent or representative, or municipal official until after the structure in violation had been substantially completed? Garage Shed Paul Goldman Yes Yes Shawn Crapo Yes Yes Patrick Driscoll Yes Yes Burt Dibble Yes Yes Patricia Weathersby Yes Yes 8

9 1B. The violation was not an outcome of ignorance of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, misrepresentation or bad faith, on the part of any owner, owner s agent or representative, but instead was caused by a good faith error in measurement or calculation made by an owner or owner s agent, or by an error in ordinance interpretation or applicability made by a municipal official during the process of issuing a permit for which the official had authority. Garage Shed Paul Goldman Yes Yes Shawn Crapo Yes Yes Patrick Driscoll Yes Yes Burt Dibble Yes Yes Patricia Weathersby Yes Yes 1C. The physical or dimensional violation does not constitute a public or private nuisance nor diminish the value of other property in the area, nor interfere with or adversely affect any present or permissible future uses of any such property. Garage Shed Paul Goldman Yes Yes Shawn Crapo Yes Yes Patrick Driscoll Yes Yes Burt Dibble Yes No Patricia Weathersby Yes No 1D. Due to the degree of past construction or investment, ignorance of the facts constituting a violation, cost of correction so far outweighs any public benefit to be gained and it would be inequitable to require the violation to be corrected. Garage Shed Paul Goldman Yes Yes Shawn Crapo Yes Yes Patrick Driscoll Yes Yes Burt Dibble Yes No Patricia Weathersby Yes No 9

10 Motion by Shawn Crapo to grant the Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements to allow the garage to remain in its present location. Seconded by Patrick Driscoll. Vote: 5-0. Motion passed. Motion by Shawn Crapo to grant the Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements to allow the shed to remain in its present location. Seconded by Paul Goldman. Vote: 3-2. Opposed: Burt Dibble, Patricia Weathersby. Motion passed. Referring to the following application, Member Driscoll noted that he has worked with Michael Callahan on a couple of projects in the past. He does not see it being an issue with reviewing the application or making a decision on the proposal; however, he would be happy to step aside if it is felt that it would be appropriate. Chair Weathersby asked if he had any present relationship with Mr. Callahan at this time. Member Driscoll replied no. Chair Weathersby asked if he felt he could be unbiased in his decision. Member Driscoll confirmed. Mr. Callahan did not have any issues with Member Driscoll sitting for the application Nicole & Michael Callahan of 325 Wallis Road for property owned and located at 1367 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 16 request Variances from Section for expansion of a non-conforming building; from Section 204.3B for expansion of building on the left side where a setback of 9.2 ; exists, 13.6 is proposed and 20 is required; from Section 204.3B for expansion of building on the right side where a setback of 3.4 exists, 3.7 is proposed and 20 is required; from Section for building height where 34 4 exists, is proposed and 28 is allowed; from Section 204.3E for lot coverage where 50.1% exists, 50.0% is proposed and 30% is allowed. Property is in the General and Coastal Overlay Districts and SFHA, Zone AO+1. Case # Nicole Callahan, applicant, spoke to the Board. She explained that they are planning to make 325 Wallis Road their permanent residence after the home is remodeled. She continued that there is an existing heated porch on the front of the house. Currently, it is 6 on either side set in from the rest of the house. The ceiling height is very low at 6 7. The interior layout of the house is difficult to use. The house is under 2000sq.ft. They are looking to reduce the total footprint impact by over 10sq.ft. The proposal is to replace the first floor porch with another first floor and expand it 6 on either side. This will still make the overall setback request less than what is existing. She noted that they are proposing to add a dormer to the third floor space because the stairs leading up to that space are very dangerous. The dormer will add living space back to the home while helping to correct the stair situation. She summarized that they are trying to improve the overall setback in the front. The overall coverage on the lot will be reduced by 1%. They are not exceeding the existing height of the house. The requirement is 28 and is being requested; however, it is still less than what is existing. None of the existing setbacks will be increased.

11 Chair Weathersby asked where the reduction in the coverage comes from. Mrs. Callahan explained that there are two bay windows at the front of the house that are being removed. There are also some stairs that are being removed. The whole front of the house is being straightened out. The Board reviewed the plans submitted. Chair Weathersby asked about the rear building on the plans. Mrs. Callahan replied that it is a garage. Chair Weathersby asked if there was living space above the garage. Mrs. Callahan confirmed. Chair Weathersby asked if this space is going to remain. Mrs. Callahan confirmed. Chair Weathersby asked if the space is a separate dwelling. Mrs. Callahan confirmed. She asked why this would matter to the variances that are being requested for the main house. Chair Weathersby stated that a variance would be needed for two dwellings on a lot. She read from Section After some discussion, it was agreed by the Board that clarification on whether a variance from Section was needed and it should be continued. Chair Weathersby opened to the public for comments or questions. None were heard. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the application of Nicole and Michael Callahan to the next possible meeting to which it can be scheduled. Seconded by Burt Dibble. All in favor. 11. Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust, Mark A. Kearns, Trustee of 161 Portland Ave, Dover NH for property owned and located at 1381 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 17.4, Lot 3 Administrative Appeal pursuant to Section from a Notice of Violation per NHRSA a issued by the Building Inspector on March 7, Property is in the Business and Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Asking to be continued to the June 1, 2016 meeting. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the Administrative Appeal of Three Rivers Farm Irrevocable Security Trust to the June 1, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. 11

12 Note: Paul Goldman recused himself for the following application. Chair Weathersby seated Charlie Hoyt for the application of John Loftus, 108 Straw s Point. 12. John Loftus for property owned and located at 108 Straws Point, tax map 8.4, Lot 99 requests Variances from Section to expand portions of a non-conforming structure; from Section A for an increase of second dwelling unit s bulk and from Section B for expansion of building into the side setback resulting in a side setback of +/- 10 where 20 is required. Property is in the Single Residence, Coastal Overlay District. Case # Attorney Bernie Pelech, representing the applicant, presented to the Board. He explained that the house was built in 1885 and the garage was built some time pre-world War II. The construction is very dated and not to code. The structure is not sound by today s standards. He continued that they are requesting a variance to Section 203.3B. The existing structure has a side yard setback of 10.5 which includes the overhang. They are not proposing to increase the footprint or increase further into the side yard setback. He reviewed the criteria for granting the variances. Chair Weathersby asked how the height was measured. John Loftus, applicant, explained that he took the four corners and averaged them. That was actually a negative number and this was factored in. Mr. Loftus stated that he is expanding into the existing attic. He is not going up another floor and adding a roof. The expansion will be within the roofline of the attic. The roof height will remain within the 28 requirement. Letters of support were received from: Michael Moody, 96 Straw s Point; Monica McCarthy, 100 Straw s Point; Kurt Swenson,18 Straw s Point; Timothy Horne, 41 Straw s Point; Kathryn & Byron Kalogerou; Frank & Pam Anthony; William Richard & Karen Kenney, 114 Straw s Point; and Anne Bride, 7 Wildwood Lane Member Crapo asked if William Richard, Karen Kenney and Monica McCarthy are aware of the change in the height. William Richard, 114 Straw s Point, stated that they do not feel that it is going to impact them at all. Chair Weathersby opened to the public in favor of the project. Hearing no further comments, she opened to the public in opposition. No comments were heard. Mr. Loftus clarified that the closest point to the property line is He is assuming this is to the foundation. In the back of the structure there is an overhang that is about 1, which is typical for an eave. The setback will not be any greater than what is there now. 12

13 Hearing no further comments, Chair Weathersby closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Member Dibble stated that he walks this neighborhood and has watched Mr. Loftus work on his house. He is of the notion that bringing the carriage house into code status and making it like the house is going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. Speaking to Mr. Loftus, Chair Weathersby asked if the number of dwelling units is being changed in the carriage house. Mr. Loftus said no change to the dwelling unit. He commented that it is a one-bedroom unit and will remain one bedroom. Member Driscoll stated that if they were trying to make this more than a one-bedroom unit, it would be laid out quite different. Member Hoyt commented that he does not have a problem with the project. There may be some challenges getting the structure code compliant but the building inspector will keep it to that. Chair Weathersby stated that the proposal is reasonable and tasteful. What is being requested is not overly excessive. Member Crapo commented that they have heard from the most affected abutters and they are in favor. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections 603.1, A and B. 1. The variances are not contrary to the public interest? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 3. Substantial justice is done? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 4. The values of surrounding properties are not diminished? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 13

14 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provisions and the specific application of that provision to the property? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinances would result in unnecessary hardship? Crapo Yes, Driscoll Yes, Hoyt Yes, Dibble Yes, Weathersby Yes Motion by Patrick Driscoll to approve the variances as requested from Section to expand portions of a non-conforming structure; from Section 202.4A for an increase of second dwelling unit s bulk and from Section 203.3B for expansion in the side setback of not less than 9.25 where 20 is required. Seconded by Burt Dibble. Vote: 5-0. All in favor. Note: Paul Goldman was reseated for the following application and Charlie Hoyt was unseated. 13. Peter Terwellinger & Denise Bell of 24 Old Sandy Pond Road, E. Wakefield NH for property owned and located at 710 Long John Road, Tax Map 16, Lot 151 request Variances from Section to expand portions of a non-conforming structure; from Section 203.3B for an addition to the house resulting in a left side setback where 4.7 exists, 4 7 is proposed and 20 is required and for a shed with a right side setback where 2 exists, 2 is proposed and 20 is required. Property is in the Single Residence District. Case # Peter Terwellinger, applicant, spoke to the Board. He explained that the existing cottage was built in 1942 by Charles Caswell. When Charles died in 1950, converted the garage, which it was at the time, into a cottage for May Caswell. She lived there until she died in Her granddaughter, Cheryl Caswell, upgraded the cottage but unfortunately it had fallen into disrepair. He pointed out that the cottage is in need of quite a bit of work and maintenance. The proposal is to turn the cottage into the quality of a building that would be expected for the Town of Rye. (He reviewed photos of the existing structure.) He noted that they are proposing to raise the peak of the dormer about 4 and raise the outside cheeks about 7. The rest of the home will be properly maintained and restored. He commented that they would like to save the building. There will be space added to the existing loft that is 6 at the center and lowers down to the ends of the building. The goal is to give it a 7 ceiling in the center and vault the ceiling down to the edges. The building s boundary will not be changed in any way. The project will also involve removing the shed type structure on the property and replacing it with a new shed. There was never a permit issued for the existing shed. He pointed out that the roof is compromised, there are holes in the side of it and the floors are falling down. The shed is very unsafe. (He reviewed the details of the plan for the Board.) 14

15 Mr. Terwellinger stated that the house is approximately 4 from the property line on the left hand side. The shed is approximately 2 from the property line. The entire modifications that are being made are long overdue. The proposal takes the space that is currently there and making it more useable and valuable as a family home. He continued that the changes will maintain the look and feel of a cottage. The home will be restored to the quality of homes that are seen in Rye and it will be useable for professionals that work out of their home offices. Chair Weathersby asked if bedrooms were being added. Mr. Terwellinger denied. Chair Weathersby clarified that the new space will be used as home offices. She asked if there will be clients coming to the property. Mr. Terwellinger replied no; that they work from home and their offices are their desks and printers. Member Driscoll asked if it was considered to go outside the footprint of the house and build within the allowable space in the middle. Mr. Terwellinger commented that they did consider this but it was ultimately not chosen because they did not want to go through the house to get to the backyard. The best plan was to take space that is already there but not useable and make it into an office space. Member Crapo asked if the property has its own septic. Mr. Terwellinger confirmed. Member Crapo asked if the building inspector required that the septic be inspected or have a plan in place. He continued that if the house is sold, the offices could very easily be converted into bedrooms. Mr. Terwellinger explained that the building inspector was very cautious about the septic system when the property was purchase a month and a half ago. The septic was built in It will need to be replaced in the near future; however, at this time the septic is working and sufficient. He pointed out that the 1978 approval for the septic was for a two-bedroom home. Member Crapo commented that there is no mention of the shed in the building inspector s denial letter. Mr. Terwellinger stated that there is no question on the location of the shed. Just about every corner of this property is up against the boundary. Chair Weathersby asked why the shed cannot be moved somewhere else. Mr. Terwellinger explained that the shed can be moved; however, the areas are limited. He pointed out that the area for the septic system is very high. The invert to the septic system is actually above ground. The current location of the shed is convenient and it is a good place for it. He continued that there is also a rock wall that goes around the house with a steep set of stairs. The idea was to keep everything as close to the way it is for minimal impact. The proposed shed is 8 x12. 15

16 Mr. Terwellinger reviewed the criteria for granting the variances. Member Crapo asked if there is a floor plan for the first floor. Mr. Terwellinger replied no. There are no changes that are being made to the first floor. There are twobedrooms on the first floor. Vice-Chair Goldman asked if there has to be a new septic design filed with the State. Mr. Terwellinger stated that at this time, the septic has been certified that it is in working order. They have been working with the building inspector through the application process. They believe there are no changes needed to the septic at this time; however, the system will need to be replaced in the future because of its age. Chair Weathersby asked for clarification on the square footage. Mr. Terwellinger replied that the existing square footage is 893 and the proposed is 893. The loft went all the way out to the end. The real estate assessment was 893sq.ft. and was verified. The addition is just raising the roof of existing square footage. Chair Weathersby opened to the public for comments. Joseph Hassin, 698 Long John Road, stated that he and his wife own the property that abuts this property on the north side. He continued that it is a 60 wide lot and the home aligns approximately 5 from the lot line. If the roof ridge is allowed to be raised to accommodate the two offices and the bathroom, the southern sun is going to be blocked. He pointed out that the shadow is going to fall on his property and the blueberry bushes on the property. He opposes any action that jeopardizes the sale of his property. Cathy Youngs stated that her mother lives on the other side of the house and has been there for 68 years. They are very familiar with the house. It is not considered a house. It is a garage and was part of the house next door. There are a lot of things wrong with that house. The septic that was put in was a pump-up system. Over the years, there has been trouble with the system. It is a structural hazard to have any weight on that house. She appreciates that Mr. Terwellinger wants to fix up the house but that is not the house to do it. She opposes what he wants to do with the house. Louise Hassin, 698 Long John Road, asked how many people will be living in the house. Chair Weathersby noted that this question is irrelevant because they are not changing the use from a single family home. Mrs. Hassin stated that a septic is designated for the number of bathrooms and bedrooms. Chair Weathersby explained that the septic is designated for two bedrooms. The home is two bedrooms now and is staying two bedrooms. 16

17 Mrs. Hassin commented that the potential is there to increase the bedrooms. She asked if adding a half bath requires the design of the septic to be reviewed. Chair Weathersby replied that the septic design is based on bedrooms. Mr. Terwellinger explained that he and his fiancé have two children, one of which is college age and the second will be entering high school. There will be three people living at the property. He continued that this is one of several residences that they own, so they will not be there full time. He stated that they have been told that the building is a tear down. It is his hobby to restore existing structures and he likes to do that. In the last month and a half, the entire flooring has been taken out and replaced. The house is a victim of an absentee landlord and a neglectful tenant. The goal is to refurbish the building to what it should be. He noted that he will be working step and step with the building inspector s office in doing so. Chair Weathersby asked if there are trees between this property and the Hassins property. Mr. Terwellinger confirmed. Mr. Hassin stated that his property has 210ft of frontage. His home sits approximately 50ft from the lot line. The blueberry bushes are within 30ft from the lot line. Mr. Terwellinger showed the Board an aerial view of the property from Google Earth on his cell phone. The view also showed the abutting property. Chair Weathersby summarized that the scope of the project is staying within the existing footprint. The rear portion of the building will be raised 4 higher with two dormers being added on each side. The shed is also being replaced. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chair Weathersby closed the public session at 10:22 p.m. Member Crapo stated that the requirement for a new septic plan may be additional square footage. He thinks the approval should have something that if the office spaces become any kind of bedroom it would trigger the need for a new appropriate septic design. Chair Weathersby asked if he is saying that a condition be added, if the variances are granted, that it be verified that no new septic plan is required. Member Crapo stated that it should be no new septic plan is required, as well as, if the office spaces were ever to become bedrooms the septic should be certified that it is appropriate. There was discussion on a possible condition. Member Crapo stated that he finds the proposal reasonable. He does not think the 4 increase in height is going to cause a detrimental issue on the abutting property. He thinks the improvements are going to enhance and not affect the values negatively. He can support the project. 17

18 Member Driscoll stated that there are not any clear descriptions about the existing dimensions of the house. He does not think that they have the correct proposed square footage of what is going to be there. He struggles with the amount of square footage expansion without exactly knowing what the number is. Chair Weathersby stated that if this is granted it could also be conditioned upon the building inspector receiving any required State approved septic design triggered by the expansion. She continued that some of what is going on here is that everyone was hoping this would get torn down and a nice new home built in its place. The folks in the Caswell household are concerned about the structural integrity of the building and think it should be torn down. That may or may not be true; however, that is not really a zoning issue. This is the property owners home. Anything can be saved with enough time and money. What is before the Board is should a portion of the building be raised 4 higher with dormers on either side? It may have a small effect on the Hassin property. She does not think it will shade the home, as it is far enough away but it may shade some plantings. A person s ability to make their home more livable offsets the plantings. She wishes the home was not 5 off the property line. The reasons for setbacks are for adequate light and air. There are not structures on that left side setback. The Hassin home is 50 away. There are no structures right on the other side of the line. She thinks fire, safety, light and air are not affected. Member Crapo stated that if the building was torn down and another home was built, the potential height could be at 35 which is 11 higher. That would cause more of a shade than this 4 increase. Chair Weathersby commented that this is quite modest, as opposed to what could go there. Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections and B, for the house: 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? 5. There are special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area? 18

19 6. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the ordinance provisions and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinances would result in unnecessary hardship? Chair Weathersby called for a vote to Sections and B, for the shed: 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? 5. There are 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 provisions and the specific application of that provision to the property? 7. The proposed use is a reasonable one? 19

20 8. Therefore, literal enforcement of the ordinances would result in unnecessary hardship? Motion by Patricia Weathersby to grant the variances requested by Peter Terwellinger and Denise Bell for property located at 710 Long John Road for variances to Section and 203.3B, for house on the left side and shed on the right side, as advertised with the conditions; the house is to remain a two-bedroom home, unless a State approved septic system is in place and the building inspector is to determine whether the expansion triggers the requirement for a new septic system design, if so, such design shall be submitted and approved. Seconded by Shawn Crapo. Vote: 5-0. All in favor. 14. Joan & Robert Tufts of 1212 Benjamin Franklin Drive, #909 Sarasota, FL for property owned and located at 15 Richard Road, Tax Map 5.2, Lot 171 request Variances from Section for expansion of nonconforming house; from Section C for an entry way in the front setback where a front setback of 24 +/- exists, 18 is proposed and is required; and from Section B. 1 & 7 for excavation, fill and structures within the 75 wetlands buffer. Property is in the General Residence & Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Asking to be continued to May 18th meeting. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the application of Joan and Robert Tufts to the May 18, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. 15. Paul Simbliaris of 58 Route 27, Raymond, NH for property owned by Mary Beth Herbert of 112 Gates Street, Portsmouth and located at 0 Pollock Drive, formerly 10 Pollock Drive, Tax Map 23.1, Lot 17 requests Variances from Section 601 to build a home on a vacant lot of 10,000 s.f. where 44,000 s.f. is required and frontage of 75 where 150 is required; from Section for a building height of 29.5 where 28 is required. Property is in the General Residence, Coastal Overlay Districts. Case # Asking to be continued to May 18th meeting. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the application of Paul Simbliaris to the May 18, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. 20

21 16. Jeffrey Katz for property owned by John P. McGee, Trustee, Dorothy M. Katz 1991 Trust and located at 1146 Ocean Blvd, Tax Map 19.4, Lot 89 requests a Variance from Section to tear down an existing non-conforming house and rebuild a new in same footprint with slight expansion. Property is in the General Residence, Coastal Overlay Districts and SFHA, Zone Z/AE 9. Case # Asking to be continued to June 1st meeting. Motion by Shawn Crapo to continue the application of Jeffrey Katz to the June 1, 2016 meeting. Seconded by Paul Goldman. All in favor. Adjournment Motion by Burt Dibble to adjourn at 10:46 p.m. Seconded by Shawn Crapo. All in favor. *All corresponding paperwork, files and documents for each application may be viewed at the Building Department, Rye Town Hall. Respectfully Submitted, Dyana F. Ledger 21