Board approves after‑the‑fact exterior work at 511 Belmont with conditions

The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a certificate of appropriateness for work already performed at 511 Belmont Avenue, but made the approval conditional on restoring landscaping, providing a vehicle turnaround on the site and complying with all required permits and historic‑district guidelines.

Planning staff told the board the property is in the Belmont historic district and has been recorded as a contributing structure. Staff reported a stop‑work order was issued on February 9 after a property maintenance notice and said multiple exterior changes — including replacement of tin and standing‑seam roofing with asphalt, removal of original windows and encapsulation of asbestos siding with vinyl — have reduced the building’s historic integrity. "A stop work order was issued about February 9th on this project after property maintenance notice that work was being performed on the property," staff said during the presentation.

Applicant Brett McDonald defended the changes as necessary for safety, habitability and insurance. McDonald told the board the building had been heavily deteriorated, with boarded windows, squatters and a tree through the roof, and that his goal was to convert the structure into three three‑bedroom rental units close to downtown. "My plan and my idea, I wanted to create ... three three‑bedroom rental[s] ... and I wanted to try to preserve that as much of the historic building as I could," McDonald said. He added he chose vinyl siding and asphalt roofing in part because of cost, availability and the difficulty of insuring older roof materials.

Staff acknowledged that some decorative porch details were preserved and that one nearby property (513 Belmont) could be resolved administratively, but recommended conditioning any approval on restoring landscaping removed during the unpermitted work and on adding a turnaround so vehicles do not back into the street. Staff also noted the design guidelines do not explicitly address asbestos treatment and described encapsulation as a common approach to avoid costly abatement where materials are sealed rather than removed.

Board members and the applicant disagreed about whether county building permits had been required or advised for the work. McDonald said he had been told in other contexts that permits were not needed for remodels that did not expand a building footprint; staff emphasized that the historic overlay requires review independently of county permitting practices and that demolition or exterior changes within the overlay are subject to historic review.

After discussion, a member moved to approve the work performed to date but to require that the landscaping be restored, that a turnaround be provided in the drive, and that the applicant obtain any necessary permits and follow historic guidelines going forward. The motion was seconded, restated by the chair and approved by voice vote with three affirmative votes.

Staff said the property will still need to complete any separate zoning or rezoning processes required to authorize the proposed three‑unit configuration and that staff can return with an enforcement update. The applicant offered to provide design drawings for the turnaround and landscaping to staff and the board before proceeding. The meeting adjourned following the vote.