Jackson Board of Adjustment
PUBLIC HEARING - February 21, 2007
Members in Attendance: Roger Chambers, Kurt Kramp, Ted Brown, Helene Matesky, Debra Crowther, Dot Wood and David Urey. Susan Way is our recording secretary.
Bea Davis, Bob Davis and Wayne Peterson also attended the meeting.
The meeting began at 7:05 pm. with Roger Chambers, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment presiding. The voting members tonight are Kurt Kramp, Roger Chambers, Helene Matesky, Dot Wood and David Urey. Debra Crowther and Ted Brown asked to be recused due to a possible conflict of interest.
Agenda: Hearing for an Area Variance—2007-01— Wayne Peterson
Unfinished Business—Jan. 17 Minutes
Annual Meeting – Election of Officers
The hearing will follow our standard procedure:
1. The applicant will present his case for the area variance. During this time only the Board may interrupt to ask questions.
2. Those in favor may speak.
3. Those opposed may speak.
4. Public comments
5. Rebuttals from both sides
6. Comments.
After this, the Public Hearing will be closed. The Board will try to make a decision on the same night but it depends on the time, whether we finish tonight. Anyone may stay and listen while the Board deliberates but there will be no further public input unless the Board has a question. If it gets late, the hearing may be continued to a later date.
HEARING FOR AN AREA VARIANCE—2007-01—Wayne Peterson, R-17 Lot 33.
Roger Chambers, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, asked Mr. Peterson to explain his request for a variance. Mr. Peterson would like a variance for the bulkhead that he has already constructed to allow access to his basement. He needs an area variance of approximately 35 feet as the home is in the setbacks on Black Mountain Road. The existing basement space is slightly less than 6 feet in height. The original opening was a hole created by removing some cement blocks in the same approximate area where the bulkhead was constructed. He would like to have a safer egress from his basement. He also needs to remove an old furnace from this space which would not be possible with the original opening.
Roger Chambers asked why this was constructed on that side of the house. Mr. Peterson explained that one other wall has a porch and utilities, the other side has the interior stairs and a fuel tank and the western wall has an 18 inch load-bearing timber. If the bulkhead was put there, it would lower the height of the opening to the point of it being ineffective.
Helene Matesky asked for a description of the existing opening. It was explained that there was an opening created by removing cement blocks approximately 24 inches high and was covered with a piece of plywood leaning against the foundation.
Roger Chambers reported that Shawn Bergeron found that the bulkhead was already in place when he went to the property to check on the application for a building permit for other work at the home. David Urey questioned why the construction was done without a permit for the bulkhead.
Mr. Peterson explained that he had a construction crew at the site with the necessary equipment and had the hole dug and footings poured while they were there. There was a building permit issued to extend the porch but it had expired. Mr. Peterson came to the Selectmen’s office to get this permit extended and this was the reason Mr. Bergeron went to inspect the project.
David Urey had a question about the height measurements on the drawing submitted by Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson explained that the bulkhead is approximately 18 - 20 inches high. The footings and door enclosure are actually 18 inches above the ground.
When asked if the north side would have been a better place for the bulkhead, Mr. Peterson explained this would still involve a variance for a setback from the abutter’s property and the basement on that side contains the interior staircase from the first floor and also an oil storage tank.
Roger Chambers asked about the space on the south side and it was explained that the water pump, septic line and furnace were on this side. There would have only been 8 feet of setback on this wall. The east side location places the bulkhead 15 feet from the Right of Way of Black Mountain Rd, so a 35 foot variance is being requested.
Kurt Kramp asked for the distance of the setback on the north side. Mr. Peterson stated that it was approximately 25 feet. Kurt also asked about the beam on the west side. Mr. Peterson explained that the house was not too sturdy on that side so a support beam was necessary along the whole west wall.
Roger Chambers asked about other access to the cellar. Wayne explained that he had constructed interior stairs on the northwest wall for this purpose. These stairs were constructed under existing stairs to the upper floor. The northeast side also has a fuel storage tank.
David Urey asked why the bulkhead was not included in the original building permit. Mr. Peterson said that he hadn’t thought of it at the time. Dot Wood asked about the septic system. Mr. Peterson explained that there is a 250 gallon steel tank and leach field on the south side of the house.
David Urey questioned if the abutters had any input. Helene Matesky replied that she had received all the notifications and only two where here at the hearing tonight. No one had sent any comments.
David Urey feels, as a general rule, that we should follow the guidance of the Master Plan and not permit a property to become more non-conforming. However, in this situation, he is a little more comfortable as it is not a request for an increase in living space but is creating a means of egress from the basement. Mr. Peterson stated that he has no plans to extend the bulkhead in any way and suggested that the Board make that a condition of approval.
Helene Matesky agreed with David Urey and felt that there is an existing opening and Mr. Peterson’s plans are making that opening safer and providing an emergency exist from the home.
Dot Wood asked what the existing surface of the basement is. Mr. Peterson explained that at the present time it is packed dirt. Sometime in the future he would like to add some stone and pour concrete which will sacrifice some of the 6 foot height. Wayne Peterson had no more comments.
The Board had no further comments and no one spoke in favor or against the request the variance. There being no further discussion Roger Chambers closed the public portion of the hearing for further deliberation at 7:50 pm.
Kurt Kramp mentioned that because there is a 12 foot drop to the road and the bulkhead is only 20 inches high, it is not as visible from the road. Mr. Peterson explained that abutters Robby White and Jim Dunwell might possibly be able to see it seasonally if they really tried hard.
Roger Chambers feels that there isn’t another space to put this after reviewing the basement layout.
David Urey would be opposed to the variance if this involved additional living space, as this is a non-conforming structure. The bulkhead already having been constructed is not an issue for him. The fact that it is low profile and not visible from the road has him leaning favorably toward the request.
Dot Wood didn’t have any other questions. She can’t see anywhere else to put it.
David Urey and Kurt Kramp both agreed that it is important to get access to the basement
Helene Matesky felt that it is a safety issue and there is a low profile.
Chairman Chambers called for a vote.
1. The value of the surrounding property will not be diminished.
All voting members voted yes--there would be no decrease in the value of the property.
2. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. All voting members voted yes that it is not contrary.
3. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship.
a. An area variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property.
b. The benefits sought cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
All members voted yes.
4. Substantial justice is done. All voting members voted yes.
5. The variance is consistent with the sprit of the ordinance. Kurt Kramp felt that it was not a big addition—only 20 inches—and is in favor for safety reasons. All voting members agreed and voted yes.
6. The specific variance is the minimum variance necessary for a reasonable use of the land or structure. All voting members agreed and voted yes.
Chairman Chambers asked for any comments before making a motion. David Urey asked for conditions.
Kurt Kramp made a motion that the Board approve a variance for building of a bulkhead entrance as shown on the application, with the condition that there can be no future expansion or increase in any way. David Urey seconded the motion and all voting members voted favorably.
The variance was granted with the conditions as noted. The hearing was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Ted Brown made a motion to accept the minutes of the January 17, 2007 meeting as written. Roger Chambers seconded this motion and all voted favorably.
OTHER BUSINESS:
David Urey presented a plan for the Documentation of Facts for each case. He also mentioned that variance criteria number 6 needs further clarification due to changes in case law. (Variance criteria number 6 is based on Section 15.2.3.6 of the Jackson Zoning Ordinance but is not found in recent New Hampshire court cases.) Roger Chambers asked David to seek additional information from the Local Government Center attorneys on his behalf. David will follow-up with David Mason, Chairman of the Jackson Planning Board, and the Local Government Center on this.
David Urey discussed his suggestion that the Board change its procedures for voting at Public Hearings. He suggested that in the future, the Board begin discussing the variance criteria but adjourn and announce a continuation to a date for additional deliberations and a final vote. In this way, the Board will have time to create a Findings of Facts document for each case and determine if its reasoning is sound. This procedure is recommended by attorneys at training sessions conducted by the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning who specialize in land use board procedures.
At the end of the evening, the applicant will have an idea which way the Board is leaning during its discussion and deliberation. However, the Board can document its findings and seek legal advice if necessary. Debra Crowther sees the advantage of pausing before making a final vote. David Urey suggests that we explain to the applicant that we have discussed the criteria and we are going to draft a Findings of Facts to support our decision. Ted Brown feels that at the beginning of each Public Hearing, we should explain that the final decision will not be coming tonight. Kurt Kramp was concerned with the timing and with what would happen if the same people did not show up at the next meeting. David Urey felt that the draft should be done within a week and be circulated and discussed with the Chairman if there are any
differences. Roger Chamber thought this approach was a good idea and may decrease the amount of appeals.
The Board is in favor of accepting the changes in the voting procedures.
ANNUAL MEETING - ELECTION OF OFFICERS
David Urey made a motion to elect the following officers: Roger Chambers, Chairman; Debra Crowther, Vice Chairman; and Helene Matesky as Clerk. Ted Brown seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
The next meeting will be dateYear2007Day21Month3March 21, 2007.
There being no further discussion, Kurt Kramp made a motion to adjourn; Ted Brown seconded the motion and all voted favorably. Chairman Roger Chambers adjourned the meeting at 9:15 pm.
Susan G. Way
Recording Secretary
February 24, 2007
PUBLIC COMMENTS/CHANGES –Changes in writing should be sent to Roger Chambers, Chairman, Jackson Board of Adjustment, PO Box 268, Jackson, NH within 7 days, in order for consideration by the Board at the next meeting.
A complete text of the By-Laws and other Board of Adjustment (ZBA) information can be found on jacksonvillage.net under Boards and Commissions.
| 
