BELMONT LAND USE OFFICE

BELMONT LAND USE OFFICE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Belmont Corner Meeting House Belmont, NH 03220 Present: Absent: Staff: Chairman Peter Harris; Vice Chair Norma Patten; Members Marshall Ford and David Dunham; Alternate Mark Mastenbrook. Member John Froumy (E). Candace Daigle. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7pm, welcomed those in attendance and appointed Mark Mastenbrook as a voting member. ABUTTERS HEARING Carolyn Bancroft: Request for a Variance of Article 5 Table 1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a doggie daycare in an "RM" zone. Property is located at 68 Tioga Drive in an "RM" Zone, Tax Lot 235-011, ZBA # 0615Z. The members considered whether this application is a development of regional impact. This consideration is 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. On a motion by P. Harris seconded by N. Patten it was voted unanimously that the proposal does not have a potential regional impact. (5-0) Ms. Bancroft was present for this application. She explained that her husband passed away recently, she s a good bookkeeper but does not use modern software and needs to supplement her reduced income. She does, however, have extensive expertise in dog care and training, having trained for almost 30 years, 20 of them for the Laconia adult education organization. She understands and loves dogs. In her plans she has limited the number of dogs she will accommodate as part of the daycare business. She understands the need for, and has made accommodations regarding noise and waste disposal. She has an in-ground pet waste disposal system which runs at all times that the

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -2- April 22, 2015 temperature is above 40. When it s below 40, the waste is still regularly collected and otherwise disposed of so that there is no odor. Ms. Bancroft noted that she would not for anything in the world including her own livelihood change the character of her neighborhood having seen how neighbors step up to help each other. She does feel that she can be of help as they go to work and don t want to leave their pets alone all day. Her drop off would be between 7am and 9am and afternoon pickup would be from 4pm to 6pm. The daycare would not be open on weekends. She stated she tried to look ahead and put herself in her neighbors position so there is no impact on them. She has met with the Application Review Committee and made changes they recommended. She installed a CO2/smoke detector and additional smoke detectors in areas of the garage. Her yard is already totally fenced in. She is not making any changes and will just be using the existing 3-car garage which is heated and air-conditioned. She had her LP tanks relocated as they were too close to the air-conditioner. She wants to comply with what anyone has to say. She s been asked to set the maximum number of personal canine pets she will have at one time so that, added to the number of client dogs, there will be a not-to-exceed number of dogs on the site at any one time as part of the daycare business. She does have dogs of her own. She had three but a 4th came back to her when the owner passed away. She may find a forever home for this dog or it may stay with her. She d never want 5 dogs and didn t really plan on 4. She does have one litter of pups each year and they live with her until they go to homes at 8-10 weeks. Her dogs are well-mannered and are therapy dogs at the hospital and nursing homes. She would ask for a maximum of 5 dogs as personal pets in case she decides to keep one baby out of her last litter. In addition, the maximum number of dogs on any day in her daycare would be 12. Dogs do not traditionally come to the daycare 5 days a week, so the number fluctuates and she might not ever reach a total of 12. But that would be the maximum number she feels comfortable with. P. Harris explained the meeting procedure. The Board takes evidence from the applicant and may then present additional questions. At that time it will also be opened to the public for questions and/or comments. N. Patten expressed a concern about noise. Ms. Bancroft noted the dogs will be housed in their crates in the garage. They will be taken outside for exercise and will never be outside when she is not home. She will be at home at all times unless she had an emergency errand at which time all dogs would be inside. The dogs usually sleep when in their crates. She will maintain control of the dogs at all times. N. Patten asked about her training. Ms. Bancroft responded that she will not train during the time the daycare is open. She does give private lessons, one dog at a time unless the training is specifically for socialization when two dogs may be present. All training occurs within the garage unless it s something like agility training. This will be limited to weekends. M. Mastenbrook asked about aggressive dogs. Ms. Bancroft noted not all dogs behave the same way regardless of the breed. When the dogs are dropped off they come into the garage, one at a time and the dogs go into their crate. She will have a contract with all clients. She does not label dogs based on breed, but she will not be taking dogs that act aggressively and they will need to provide

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -3- April 22, 2015 proof of all required shots. Her dogs will never be outside when the client dogs are out or in the garage with the client dogs. They are also never out when she s training unless it s for demonstration purposes. All crates are specifically sized for the individual dog. M. Mastenbrook asked how many dogs go out at one time. Ms. Bancroft noted it depends on the specific dogs; who gets along, who likes to play with other dogs, who doesn t. Older dogs usually only go out with other older dogs. The dogs learn to respect her and noise is curtailed. Dogs also quickly learn that misbehaving shortens their free time so there is a benefit to behaving. M. Mastenbrook asked for a clarification on the pet waste system. Ms. Bancroft noted it is an inground disposal system specifically for pet waste. Bacteria are added to it that with the water dissolves the waste just like a septic system. She may decide to have a second one installed. It does not function in the winter, so the waste is bagged and disposed of. D. Dunham said he had one that he had trouble with. Ms. Bancroft said it was essential that bacteria are added as needed and he agreed he had probably not done that. P. Harris asked if Ms. Bancroft was aware that the Board would put conditions on any approval. He understood the background that Ms. Bancroft brought to the table and her necessity to supplement her income with the loss of her husband. The chairman opened the hearing to public comment. Mr. Joel Weinrebe of, 64 Tioga Drive abuts the edge of the Bancroft property. He has been handling dogs since he was 5 years old and his mother is an instructor with 30 years experience. He has only ever met one other person that he felt was at the level of his mother in expertise and that is Carolyn Bancroft. Once a year she has a birthday party for all of the pups she has homed. You ve got 30 dogs at that party and it s amazing how well behaved they all are. He has not once smelled dog waste whether the wind is blowing his way or not. If there is a human being on this planet more dedicated to dogs it s this person. He s handled dogs in law enforcement and he chose this home because she was going to be their neighbor. He advocates for this application. She d be the person to watch your dog. Ms. Dianne Woodruff has been the neighbor on the other side of the Bancroft s, at 78 Tioga Drive for over 16 years. She was married to a K-9 officer for 17 years and they love dogs. She still has pets and they love to watch the training through the fence. With dogs there in and out for training, Carolyn s personal dogs and puppies once a year, honestly they have never had a problem with odor onto her property, never, never ever had to call Carolyn about anything negative. She s always been a great neighbor. She supports Carolyn in her new journey. Robert Carchia noted all the neighbors were here to support this application. He is across the street and has done numerous jobs for Carolyn. He has always been afraid of dogs, but her dogs have been fine and they love her.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -4- April 22, 2015 Shari Lebreche showed a picture of all the dogs that were Ms. Bancroft s puppies that came to the annual birthday party. She said she had a situation with a dog years ago and was very fearful for many years. Mr. Carchia noted for special training needs, he has let Carolyn use his yard so it s a place the dogs are not familiar with. Ms. Bancroft noted this is helpful for obedience in a strange place to get the dogs used to behaving in all environments. Mr. Weinrebe explained that Ms. Lebreche actually had her face torn face apart when she was mauled by her step-brother s dog. For over two decades she had a fear of big dogs. She has overcome her fear by Ms. Bancroft s work with the dogs. Ms. Bancroft had a 160 lb Doberman that was a huge dog with a heart of gold; they are the best, well-trained animals and everyone is here to support her and hope that the Board would consider this as a positive thing for the community, avoiding having animals left home all day. It allows pets to have interaction with other animals and is truly a benefit to the community. Mr. Weinrebe said they all wanted to know if they had to also come to the Planning Board meeting to show their support. C. Daigle explained the difference between the Variance and Site Plan processes. Certainly support in front of both Boards is appreciated, but the Planning Board does look more at the physical characteristics of the proposal and they will have the benefit of the ZBA minutes to understand the support this proposal has. P. Harris explained the ZBA process and the need to comply with the standards for a variance. N. Patten asked how long dogs are in crates versus outside. Ms. Bancroft noted dogs are taken out every two hours to relieve themselves and would also have at least two play times a day. The better they socialize with other dogs and behave, they longer they can play. They also have snack times as well as nap times. Sara Flynn of 40 Tioga Drive explained she has know Ms. Bancroft for many years and she helped train Ms. Flynn s four bloodhounds and obtain a therapy license for her current dog. She will do anything she can to assist with this proposal. She feels Ms. Bancroft has the most giving heart and is a true dog whisperer. C. Daigle explained that any approval obtained by Ms. Bancroft goes with the property. That is why there is such concern on the part of the Board about use variances. Such a variance does expire, though, if the uses ceases for two years or more. There being no further questions or comments the chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD ACTION Carolyn Bancroft: M. Ford moved to grant approval on the following basis: The Variance will not be contrary to the public interest because it does not have a regional impact. There are no objections from the public and no evident negative impacts to the public.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -5- April 22, 2015 The spirit of the ordinance is observed because there will be no health or safety impacts to others. Substantial justice will be done because the evidence shows that to not grant the variance would be an injustice and other similar variances have been granted in the past. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because the use is primarily contained in the garage and fenced area. The area will be kept clean and any noise controlled. 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: 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. Owing to conditions, denial would result in unnecessary hardship because the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved in any other reasonable manner and the proposed use is allowed when a variance is granted. b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because it increases the enjoyment and use of the property. This approval is granted with the following conditions: A. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. B. The owner is solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. C. Limit total number of dogs on the property at any one time, including both client-owned and other to 17. D. Hours and days of operation are to be Monday-Friday, 7am 6pm. E. Client dogs are to be kept within the described garage except for times of exercise within the fenced area. F. Dogs are to be monitored at all times they are outside the structure to limit noise. G. Dog feces is to be gathered at least once a week and more often as necessary to maintain a clean and feces free area and shall be placed in the described underground container which will be activated and running at all times when the temperature is above 40. Vegetation shall be maintained within the outdoor keeping area or an appropriate ground cover to maintain clean and odor-free conditions shall be placed as approved by the Town. Unclean conditions, including excessive odor determined by the Town to be obnoxious or detrimental at any point beyond the property lines shall be grounds for the closure of this use by the Code Enforcement Officer. H. The intent of this approval is that noise levels shall be kept to a minimum. Excessive noise determined by the Town to be obnoxious or detrimental at any point beyond the property lines shall be grounds for the closure of this use by the Code Enforcement Office. I. No more than 5 people shall be in the garage at any one time for the purposes of temporary boarding and/or training. J. Shall maintain required smoke/co detectors in garage in working condition.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -6- April 22, 2015 K. Fencing shall be maintained as an open wire material, not an opaque or solid material and shall be maintained at all times. Insufficient fencing shall be grounds for the closure of this use by the Code Enforcement Office. L. Approval expires on 4/22/17 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 N. Patten and carried. (5-0) ABUTTERS HEARING Dianne (Callahan) Carpenter: Request for two Variances of Article 5 Table 2 of the Zoning Ordinance: A. To replace an existing manufactured home closer (30') to the front property line (Perkins Road) than allowed (50'). ZBA # 1015Z B. To replace an existing manufactured home closer (13') to the front property line (Holly Tree Circle) than allowed (50'). ZBA # 1115Z Property is located at 58 Perkins Road in an "RM" Zone, Tax Lot 121-016. The members considered whether this application is a development of regional impact. This consideration is 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. On a motion by M. Mastenbrook, seconded by D. Dunham it was voted unanimously that the proposal does not have a potential regional impact. (5-0) Ms. Carpenter was present for this application with Jacques Belanger, LLS. Mr. Belanger explained they are proposing to replace the fire-damaged home with a new manufactured home. However, the lot is just too small to meet all of the setbacks, especially having two street frontages to deal with. They re proposing to turn the home 90 degrees for a better presentation to the thru road, Perkins Road. They will increase the setback to Perkins Road to 30, will conform to the north and west side setbacks at 13 and the setback to Holly Tree Circle is proposed to be 13 The paved parking will remain as is. Water comes in from Perkins Road and sewer from Holly Tree Circle. P. Harris noted that although the setback to the Holly Tree Circle ROW is 13, it s actually 23 from the edge of the road pavement. Mr. Belanger noted that the lot was created in the late 60 s, so it s a small lot. The roads have been repaved and it s 10.3 from the edge of street-side curbing to the lot line. The lot also tapers from north to south. The home is proposed to sit on the flat area and there s a drop-off on the Holly Tree Circle side of the lot. Electric & telephone services come from Perkins Road. Ms. Carpenter noted the property is hers but her sister and family live there. Everything will be going into her sister s name at the end of this process. There is a shed on the property that her sister put up without a building permit. That will be removed. There s a little too much stuff in the yard so one car is gone, and the truck and RV are going. This will leave only the boat which will be put up for sale. In addition to a new home the lot will be cleaned up. She didn t know the shed

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -7- April 22, 2015 didn t have a permit so they were going to leave it there, but since they found out it did not, it will be leaving. P. Harris noted the concern from the Public Works Director about the close proximity to Holly Tree Circle and the importance of understanding this immediate development because there is so little room to expand or change things. This proposal will increase the setback to Perkins Road. He noted that most other units in the development are very close to one frontage when they have two road frontage setbacks to deal with. Some on Holly Tree Circle seem even closer than this proposal. The chairman opened the hearing to public comment. Debra Brazier of 48 Perkins Road noted her concern about the trash butting right up to her lot. The tenant s boyfriend does whatever he wants and that s the second shed that he put up. The tenants have edged their way over the line. There s trash everywhere. There s no way she could sell her house with that next door. D. Dunham noted he was impressed by the looks of the Brazier home. Ms. Brazier thanked him, but said she has no good neighbors around her. Ms. Carpenter assured Ms. Brazier that the tenant s boyfriend is gone and not coming back. Ms. Brazier stated the tenant s son broke into her house and that she is by herself. The tenants think they run the neighborhood. M. Ford asked if Ms. Brazier had any objection to a new manufactured home which would be an improvement. Ms. Brazier stated that if it s going to be new and cleaned up she s not in opposition. M. Mastenbrook noted the new unit will be on a slab. C. Daigle confirmed this would be a manufactured home, not a modular, which is not allowed. P. Harris noted some of the suggested conditions to the approval speak to these issues. Ms. Carpenter explained that there were 7 people living in the 4-bedroom home. It will still be the same principal people there, expect the boyfriend is gone and her sister will own the home. D. Dunham asked why this particular sized unit was chosen. Ms. Carpenter stated that they needed 4 bedrooms; one available unit was 62 and one was 64. She chose the 64 design for the extra closet. The builder will be going out there tomorrow to check on what s needed for demo, cleanup and the new pad. Ms. Brazier asked how they can be sure such a mess won t happen again afterwards. C. Daigle noted that there are some things the Town does not regulate. N. Patten asked where things currently stored in the shed would be put once the shed is removed. Ms. Carpenter noted her sister can work with the town to see about getting a permit or rent a storage unit. Mr. Belanger noted there is a small conforming area where a small shed would be located, but it is a tough lot. P. Harris asked Mr. Belanger to go over the criteria for the granting of a variance. Mr. Belanger read the written evidence provided on the application and added the following: Public Interest - The proposal is almost the exact distance off the Perkins Road frontage as abutting lots and on Holly Tree there is one that is even closer to the ROW. Spirit of the Ordinance - We are not changing anything except the orientation of the building. Substantial Justice - It s not a huge home; it s reasonably sized to what else is in the neighborhood Value of Surrounding Properties - Most homes in the neighborhood don t meet the setbacks.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -8- April 22, 2015 P. Harris noted a new home would better meet fire and life safety standards. There being no further questions or comments the chairman closed the public hearing. BOARD ACTION Dianne (Callahan) Carpenter (Perkins Road): N. Patten moved to grant approval for a reduced setback to Perkins Road on the following basis: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because meeting setbacks is not possible and the new home will be an asset to area. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because the use is the same. Substantial justice will be done because there is no change in use and the new home will be more practical for the owners and neighbors. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because a replacement home is better than the one that is there and many others in the immediate area are nonconforming. 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 denial would result in an unnecessary hardship as others in the area do not meet the required setbacks b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because the use remains the same, but with much better conditions being a cleaned up unit for the neighbors. This approval is granted with the following conditions: A. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. B. 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. C. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval. D. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. E. All demo debris to be removed from the lot and appropriated disposed of. F. No vehicles, materials or items to be parked/placed or remain within the highway right-ofways or inhibit traffic sight distance.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -9- April 22, 2015 G. Approval expires on 4/22/17 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. H. Existing shed which is not permitted and does not meet setbacks, must be removed from the property within 30 days or within 30 days a valid building permit application for denial and a valid ZBA application for relief for setback must be submitted. The motion was seconded by M. Ford and carried. (5-0) BOARD ACTION Dianne (Callahan) Carpenter (Holly Tree Circle): P. Harris noted that other lots in the development that have frontage on two lots also exhibit the same reduced setbacks to the second frontage as exhibited in this proposal. N. Patten moved to grant approval for a reduced setback to Holly Tree Circle on the following basis: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest because meeting setbacks is not possible and the new home will be an asset to area. The spirit of the ordinance is observed because the use is the same. Substantial justice will be done because there is no change in use and the new home will be more practical for the owners and neighbors. The variance would not diminish the value of surrounding properties because a replacement home is better than the one that is there and many others in the immediate area are nonconforming. 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 denial would result in an unnecessary hardship as others in the area do not meet the required setbacks b. the proposed use is a reasonable one because the use remains the same, but with much better conditions being a cleaned up unit for the neighbors. This approval is granted with the following conditions: A. All setbacks certified at the commencement of construction and as may otherwise be required. B. 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. C. All representations made by the applicant during the public hearing are incorporated as a condition of this approval.

Belmont Zoning Board of Adjustment -10- April 22, 2015 D. The applicant and owner are solely responsible to comply with the approved plan and conditions of approval. Contractors should be sufficiently warned regarding same. E. All demo debris to be removed from the lot and appropriated disposed of. F. No vehicles, materials or items to be parked/placed or remain within the highway right-ofways or inhibit traffic sight distance. G. Approval expires on 4/22/17 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. H. Existing shed which is not permitted and does not meet setbacks, must be removed from the property within 30 days or within 30 days a valid building permit application for denial and a valid ZBA application for relief for setback must be submitted. The motion was seconded by M. Ford and carried. (5-0) OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Minutes: On a motion by M. Ford, seconded by N. Patten it was voted unanimously to accept the minutes of March 25, 2015 as written. (5-0) 2. Adjournment: On a motion by M. Mastenbrook, seconded by D. Dunham, it was voted unanimously to adjourn at 8:08pm. (5-0) Respectfully submitted, Candace L. Daigle, Town Planner