Photograph by Kathy De La Torre

The home at 215 Belmont Ave. remains under construction while a neighbor's protest finally boils down to the size of the balcony. The owners of the home, however, now want to protest some of the conditions placed on their project.

Belmont appeal heads once again to the town council

By Nathan R. Huff

What started out as an unopposed plan to add a second-story addition to a historic Belmont Avenue home has become a long-running battle between the home's would-be occupant and a neighbor.

On Oct. 16, the town council will see Don and Dana Langley's application for a second time. Then and there, a final decision will be made on the fate of the two-year-old application.

Also certain to be present at the meeting will be Eric and Kate Raff, the would-be neighbors of the Langleys whose protestations have delayed construction. The Raffs appealed the decision of the director of community development who approved the project to the planning commission. After the commission upheld the appeal on Aug. 23, the Langleys appealed the conditions of approval to the town council.

The Langleys state in their appeal that, while it did approve the project, the commission imposed a number of restrictions on the project based on the old plans, when the proposal was considered a historical remodel. The project morphed into a new residence application after one too many original walls was to come down.

Kate Raff stopped short of saying she and her husband would not speak against the project, but she acknowledged that they were happy with the project as approved by the planning commission. "We'll stand by the issues we've had with it that relate to privacy and the integrity of our property," Raff said.

But to get an accurate understanding of the rollercoaster ride the application at 215 Belmont has taken, one has to go back to the summer of 1998. The property was owned by Jim Levitt, who began the process of getting the town's permission to add a second story to their pre-1941 home. While the proposal exceeded the town's allowable floor-to-area-ratio, the lot at 215 Belmont is nonconforming--too small and lacking adequate setbacks. The application was approved in November 1998.

The Raffs were silent on the original application. According to letters in the planning file, the couple had "reservations" on the project relating to privacy, but since it was a remodel that fell within all the town's codes, they did not actively oppose it. The one request they had related to a change in landscaping.

Levitt then sold the project to the Langleys in midconstruction in January 2000, for reasons unrelated to the Raffs, he said. All the permits and plans were included in the sale. Around May 2000, the Langleys' contractor met with the town building inspector regarding a plumbing problem of routing pipes from the second floor to the first floor. The contractor felt the only way to handle the plumbing was to remove the 4-inch-thick wall and replace it with a standard 6-inch wall.

However, what the contractor saw as a small technicality, the Raffs saw as a big deal. In order for the project to qualify as a remodel, 75 percent of wall facing the street and 50 percent of all the walls had to be saved. With the removal of the interior wall, the project now qualified as a demolition. On July 3, the construction site was red tagged, and a new architecture and site application was filed by the Langleys. An attempt by the Langleys to get the town council to retroactively overrule the building department and save them the pain of filing a new application was unsuccessful.

The Raffs, who said in letters to the town that they had kept a close eye on the construction next door, were now able to take an active role in the approval process. Through ongoing negotiations with the Raffs, the Langleys changed a number of aspects of the project. Windows were moved, landscaping plans were altered and architectural details were modified.

But when director of community development Paul Curtis approved the application earlier this summer, the Raffs still didn't feel comfortable with the project plans. They appealed the decision to the planning commission, which upheld Curtis, with a few modifications.

One of the modifications related to the rear balcony, which had become the most significant and final issue between the two neighbors. The Raffs claim the balcony, as proposed, violates their privacy. The Langleys have argued that the balcony is the only thing that gives them relief from the Raffs' home, which, while situated on a larger lot than most neighbors, is also one of the largest houses on the block and towers over the Langleys' house.

At the Aug. 23 planning commission meeting, commissioners conditioned their approval to restrict the balcony to no deeper than 41/2 feet, and no wider than the French doors leading out to it.

The Langleys have taken no issue with the balcony restrictions, but have appealed to the council to remove a number of the commission's other conditions.

Photo: Fourth-graders from Blossom Hill School join in to plant bulbs for spring blooms

More changes coming to Main Street

Home sale listings

Obituary

Picture From the Past

Sports Briefs

Cats run to Firebird meet titles

Wildcats roll to big win over Leigh

Panthers, Cougars claim Pop Warner Football wins

Reyes sisters star for Cats

Soin, Bartels net wins, pace Courtside to title

Volleyball camp for girls

Photo: The Los Gatos Rowing Club wins five gold medals