Jackson Board of Adjustment
PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE
October 21, 2009
Minutes Approved December 16, 2009
Members in Attendance: Frank Benesh, Debra Crowther, Helene Matesky and David Urey. Alternates attending the meeting were Joan Davies, Paul Belluche, Joan Aubrey and Lisa MacAllister. Susan Way is the recording secretary. Brian Byrne also attended the hearing. .
PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AREA VARIANCE—2009-04—FETTEROLF UNDER CONTRACT TO BYRNE
The hearing began at 7:00 PM with Frank Benesh, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, presiding. The members voting tonight are Frank Benesh, Debra Crowther, Helene Matesky and David Urey. Paul Belluche will be the alternative voting member
This property is located on Map V-01, Lot 9 at 57 Green Hill Road. The applicant is requesting an Area Variance from Section 2.2.3 of the Jackson Zoning Ordinance regarding changes to a non-conforming structure, in order to raise the north wall, create a single roofline on the north end, and bring the structure into compliance with new building codes adopted by the state.
Helene Matesky explained that the hearing was noticed in the Conway Daily Sun, posted at the Town Office and included in the ENEWS and town website. All the abutters were notified. The only receipt returned was from abutter Daniel Samson. There were no letters or comments received from interested parties.
Chairman Frank Benesh explained that the hearing will follow our standard procedure:
1. The applicant will present the case for the appeal. 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 vote and give the results on the same night but it depends on the time and deliberations whether we finish tonight. You may stay and listen while the Board deliberates to make a decision but there will be no further public input unless the Board has a question. If it gets late, the hearing may be adjourned to a later date.
Brian Byrne explained his construction project to the Board. He and his wife, Kathy, are in the process of buying the property from William Fetterolf. The property is only 77 feet wide and the house is non-conforming due to setback requirements. Brian has an agreement with Mr. Fetterolf that he can begin repairs. He got a building permit and began repairs to the roof on the entire house. Previous owners had problems with the roof leaking and seemed to solve the problem by adding a new roof over the existing roof,
During demolition of the old roof, it was discovered that more extensive work needed to be done on a 12 by 21 foot structure. Instead of just repairing the roof on that section, the entire structure needed to be replaced. The area is only 5 feet high with wasted space created by a roof addition in the past. Brian explained that in order to replace the roof, he would have to raise it approximately 7 inches to straighten the roofline and raise the ceiling height.
David Urey pointed out that construction has already been started on other areas of the home under the Building Permit issued for Phase 1. Brian explained that he was trying to replace trusses on the roof in order to make it more waterproof before the winter set in. It was during this process that he discovered the extent of the timber rot on the 12 by 21 foot section of the house.
When the extent of this rot was found, Brian had a discussion with Gino about the next step. It was decided to break the job into 2 phases--one for roof maintenance and one to demolish the 12 by 21 foot structure and rebuild it on the same footprint. He applied to the Board of Selectmen for a building permit for Phase 2 of the project. This permit was denied because new construction would result in a volume increase to a non-conforming structure. The Board of Selectmen suggested he present the case to the Board of Adjustment for an area variance.
Helene asked what rooms were in the 12 by 21 foot structure. Brian replied that the previous owner used it as a sleeping area until the roof became too rotten. He explained that the area also does not meet IRC codes regarding minimum ceiling height and does not contain a required egress. The new construction would address these problems.
The IRC requires a minimum ceiling height of 84 inches and no rooms smaller than 7 feet wide. The building is being modified, with the proposed safety updates, for Mrs. Byrne’s grandmother. Brian had spoken to Shawn Bergeron and Andy Chalmers and both agreed with the idea of tearing down the existing structure and replacing it.
Brian also explained that a new septic system has been designed and approved by the State and the Town. He has already removed the electrical service system from the tree outside and has updated that service to meet current codes.
As there were no other comments or questions, Chairman Benesh closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Board to begin deliberation on each condition on the application for an area variance.
1. The value of the surrounding property will not be diminished.
Frank Benesh felt, and that Board agreed, that there would be no decrease in value due to the proposed changes. The fact that there were no comments seems to support this. Neighbors that Brian talked with felt that the property would be improved with these changes.
2. The variance would not be contrary to public interest.
David Urey felt it is not contrary to get the structure cleaned up and up to date with codes.
3. Special conditions exist that a literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship. David Urey pointed out that this is a peculiar piece of property which fits the rules regarding unnecessary hardship. The property is only 77 feet wide and the house is entirely within the setbacks. These circumstances would probably never be duplicated. He and Frank Benesh have stopped by the project so they are familiar with the problems. Other Board members said they also have visited the property.
4. Substantial justice is done.
Helene Matesky feels that bringing the structure up to safety codes is important for current and future owners of the property. It was discussed that straightening the rooflines, making winter maintenance easier, is also important.
5. The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.
Paul Belluche does not see any reason not to grant a variance—he sees no inconsistencies. Helene Matesky stated that the replaced structure would be on the same footprint. She pointed out there is not that much of a change in volume because the applicant is not adding any additional living space, and the increase makes the overall structure safer and in brings it into compliance with new building codes.
Upon review, it was felt that all 5 criteria were met.
Frank Benesh made a motion to accept that the applicant has met all the criteria for an Area Variance. Debra Crowther seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
Helene Matesky made a motion to grant the Area Variance. Paul Belluche seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
Those voting favorable on both motions were: Frank Benesh, Paul Belluche, Debra Crowther, Helene Matesky and David Urey.
The hearing adjourned at 7:45 pm.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There is a possibility of a meeting being held at the usual time next month. An application is being made by Larry Seibert regarding a variance.
David Urey has concerns about Zoning Ordinance Section 2.2.3, changes to non conforming structures. After recent hearings, he feels that the wording needs to be clarified. It seems that we are hearing more cases that involve minor changes and perhaps new wording would alleviate this problem. David has a drafted an amendment to clarify the issue. Frank will try to attend the Planning Board Workshop on Thursday, Oct 22, where they are discussing wording of ordinances.
Frank Benesh made a motion that the Board of Adjustment will support changes that clarity the wording in the ordinance as recommended but that we do not support major changes to the intent of the ordinance. Debra Crowther seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
Chairman Benesh reported that there have been new legislative changes regarding variances. He will be e-mailing these to members.
There was no further business. Frank Benesh made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Debra Crowther seconded the motion and all voted favorably. Chairman Benesh adjourned this meeting at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted -
Susan G. Way,
Recording Secretary
NOTICE OF DECISION
JACKSON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
PO Box 268, Jackson, New Hampshire
Case 2009 - 04 Fetterolf - Byrne
You are hereby notified that the Area Variance requested by William Fetterolf (under contract to Brian and Kathy Bryne) for the property located at V01-09, 57 Green Hill Rd. has been granted based on the Findings of Facts and Reasons for Decision by the Board outlined below.
Those voting in the affirmative to grant the variance are: Frank Benesh, Paul Belluche, Debra Crowther, Helene Matesky and David Urey with none opposed.
The Findings of Facts
1.The current structure is approximately 850 square feet and consists of 3 separate but connected areas. The depth of the property is 77 feet and the current structure is non-conforming because it is entirely in the setbacks.
2. The applicant originally proposed to replace the roof on the entire structure, received a building permit from the Board of Selectmen, and began construction.
3. During demolition of a 12 by 21 foot section that contained the sleeping area, it was discovered that the entire portion was unsafe and needed to be replaced.
4. In order to replace it, the roofline of this 12 by 21 foot section needs to be raised approximately 7 inches to meet the minimum ceiling height for bedrooms of 84 inches; and minimum room size and egress standards of the IRC adopted by the state of New Hampshire.
5. The replaced structure would not be larger than the footprint of the existing structure.
6. The Board has not received any letters or any testimony from abutters or other interested parties opposed to the changes.
Reasons for Decision of the Board
The Board of Adjustment voted that the applicant meets all the criteria for an Area Variance from Section 2.2.3 of Jackson Zoning Ordinance specifically:
1.There would be no decrease in the value of surrounding properties but rather an improvement as the current structure is dilapidated and not in keeping with other homes in the area.
2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the replaced structure would be in compliance with the IRC and would be an improvement to the current building. The proposed changes would result in a safer structure that meets egress and height standards of the new code.
3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because the 12 by 21 foot portion of the house is uninhabitable and not in compliance with existing building codes. There is no other way the owner could proceed without raising the roofline to be in compliance with new building codes.
4. By granting the variance substantial justice is done because without replacing the 21 by 20 foot structure, the house would be less than 500 square feet.
5. The proposed use of the structure is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because the increase in volume due to raising the roof approximately 7 inches is necessary in order to bring the house into compliance with existing building codes. The increased volume is not a result of an increase in living space of a non-conforming structure but is necessary for the safety of current and future owners of the property.
Those voting in the affirmative that the applicant meets all the criteria for an Area Variance are: Frank Benesh, Paul Belluche, Debra Crowther, Helene Matesky and David Urey with none opposed.
Frank Benesh, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
PO Box 268
Jackson, NH 03846
October 21, 2009
Note: The Selectmen, any party to the action or any party directly affected has the right to appeal this decision. See New Hampshire RSA 677 available at the Jackson Town Office. This notice has been placed in the file and been made available for inspection on October 22, 2009 and has been published on Jackson ENEWS, the town website, and posted in the Jackson Town Office. Copies of this notice have been sent to the applicant, the Planning Board, the Board of Selectmen and placed in the property file.
| 
