Jackson Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Meeting and Public Hearing
July 23, 2010
Board Members in Attendance: Joan Davies, Frank Benesh, David Urey, Gino Funicella, and Joan Aubrey. Absent were Ted Brown, Debra Crowther, Brian Walker, Lisa MacAllister.
Present in audience: Barbara Balfour, Steve Benoit, Stephen Weeder, Bobbi Meserve, Bea Davis.
Meeting called to order July 23rd at 4:00 pm.
Deliberations on Healy: The Board began deliberations on a decision regarding case of 2010-06 John and Jennifer Healy. The Board reviewed a proposed draft decision prepared by Frank Benesh that proposed approving the variance with conditions based on the premise that the Applicant does face a hardship given the long and narrow configuration of the property and it’s size in regard to all the adjoining properties.
During the discussion the Board removed speculative language about what the Board may have done in regard to a variance had there had been no building at all on the property.
There was also discussion about the variance request that included expanding further into the setback due to the overhangs from the proposed roof. The Board felt there was no hardship on the applicant’s part and agreed that a condition prohibiting further encroachment into the setback from the roof overhangs. Moreover, there was no support by Funicella, Benesh, or Urey for a variance without this condition.
There was also discussion about a condition prohibiting conversion of the screened porch into year round use.
Prior to any vote, the Chairman inquired if Joan Aubrey would vote as she was not at the public hearing. Joan indicated that she had reviewed the case and all materials and felt she could participate.
After further review, it was moved by Funicella , seconded by Davies, with Davies, Benesh, Urey, Funicella, and Aubrey all voting in favor and no one voting against, to make the Findings of Fact itemized in the attached Decision, and to take Approve the Variance with the specified conditions as on the attached Exhibit (‘Summary of Issues, Findings of Fact, and Decision in re Application of a Variance by John Healy”).
Public Hearing on Benoit: The Chairman reopened the hearing on Benoit at 4:50 pm.
The Chairman noted that the Charles Meserve Trust was re-noticed with the correct address and Bobbi Meserve was noticed on the hearing. Receipts were received from both parties.
Brian Benoit presented his arguments regarding an appeal of an administrative decision of the selectman (regarding RSA 674:41) and a variance application to encroach into the setback due to the requested 24” roof overhangs.
Aubrey asked about the Equitable Waiver that the Applicant filed. After some discussion, it was clear that this document referred to RSA 674:41, and the Board presumed that it has been withdrawn in favor of the appeal of an administrative decision that referenced the same issue.
Area Variance: Benoit pointed out he is adding a pitched roof that will create “unusable” space with a maximum interior height of about 3 to 3 ½ ft. under the roof ridge. Benoit pointed out that there would be no access other than a hatch. The existing ordinance allows the addition of a pitch or configuration of the roof when the change is dictated for safety, snow disposal, or building code requirements so long that the interior floor area is not increased (Section 2.2.3 as amended March 9, 2010). Urey pointed out that we have two issues – the increased overhang and the increase in the floor area. After additional discussion, Urey then felt that the space under the roof should not be
considered floor area for the purposes of this ordinance given the 3 to 3 ½ ft interior height.
Benoit presented arguments for the increased overhang but citing that the 24” foot overhang would improve the appearance of the building to the abutter and that the additional overhang would improve the shedding of water.
When questioned by Urey about a lesser overhang if gutters were used, Benoit conceded he could build with a lesser amount of roof overhang. There was also discussion about the roof vents and Benoit indicated that he would use roof and soffit vents, and that soffit vents can be as small as 6 – 8 inches.
Urey asked if there was a less intrusive way to accomplish Benoit’s objectives. Benesh noted that 24” was atypical and the 8-12” was more typical in Jackson. Funicella asked if the full 24” overhang was necessary and Benoit indicated that there were alternatives. Urey again noted than any intrusion into the setback should be minimized.
RSA 674:41: Benoit advocated that RSA 674:41 only applies to new construction and that the building predates the enactment of RSA 674:41.
Benesh noted that the Board of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction to review the Board of
Selectman’s decision regarding the applicability of RSA 674:41; the powers the Board has are narrowly limited to the granting of an exception or waiver to RSA 674:41 as described in the statute.
Consequently, the arguments advanced by Benoit about the applicability of RSA 674:41 are not
something the Board can review.
Benoit testified that the property is an existing year round dwelling and that existing floor area of the building will be increased from the existing 1628 sq. ft. living space by 1,111 sq ft of additional space (consisting of 555 sq ft expansion on the first floor and a 556 sq ft on the second floor addition) to yield 2,739 sq ft of living space. This is also a currently a 3 bedroom dwelling that Benoit is reducing to 2 bedrooms by combining 2 of the existing bedrooms into a master bedroom.
Aubrey asked about the role of the Planning Board in 674:41. Benesh reviewed the requirements of RSA 674:41, that a building cannot be constructed on any lot that does not have access from (a) a Class V or better public highway, (b) a road shown on a plat approved by the Planning Board, (c) a Class VI highway, but only if the Selectman, after consulting with the Planning Board, has adopted a policy of building on a specific Class VI highways or a portion thereof, (d) a private road – but only if the Selectman, after consulting with the Planning Board, has adopted a policy of building on a specific private road and only if the owner has recorded a notice acknowledging the town is not liable with the registry of deeds, or (e) a street approved by the planning board before it was granted subdivision jurisdiction. The Board of
Adjustment may grant an exception if the enforcement would entail practical
difficulty or unnecessary hardship and that the circumstances of the case do not require the building, structure, or part thereof to be related to existing or proposed streets, that the erection of the building will not increase the difficulty of carrying out the master plan, and the erection of the building will not cause hardship to future purchasers or undue financial impact on the municipality. Benesh then asked Benoit to comment on the grounds that he believes the Board should grant a waiver.
Benoit said we are not changing the use and that it is a grandfathered property.
Urey and Aubrey inquired how building a 1,111 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1628 sq. ft. house may harm future purchaser as there is a larger property with difficult access along a 14 ft. wide deeded easement from the town street, Thorn Hill Road. Benoit added that he is not increasing the intensity of use, as this is still a single family home.
Urey asked if Benoit was going to do anything in the renovation that could reduce the risk of fire. Benoit indicated that he will be installing a sprinkler system in the dwelling. This would be a NFPA 13D classification. Urey noted that this actually reduces the risk of a fire truck even having to come
Benoit indicated that he would be glad to sign a waiver of liability.
Benoit indicated that there would be an improvement in the surface of the driveway and that he wouldmake only modest changes to the size of the turnaround at his property.
Comments by Bobbi Merserve: Bobbi Meserve provided evidence that she was speaking on behalf of the Charles Meserve Trust.
Meserve indicated that she is not in favor of the granting of the variance or the waiver under 674:41.
Meserve commented that the porch was enclosed prior to Gurry’s ownership (probably prior to the adoption of zoning), but Gurry did create a door between the porch and the house.
Meserve indicated that the prior building application (under Gurry) and the building permit did not have the setbacks indicated on the building plans.
Meserve noted that the proposed increased roof overhangs would be objectionable.
Meserve also noted problems with snow removal on the existing 14 ft right of way on her property.
Meserve agreed to provide a written copy of her testimony.
There was discussion of the location of Meserves’ house and garage in relation to the Benoit property.
There was also discussion of the view that Meserve had and how Benoit might impact that view. It was agreed a site visit would be helpful.
Benesh asked if Meserve had a position on how the Board should treat the RSA 674:41 exception request. She commented on her prior experience with the former occupant of Benoit’s property and the impact on her quality of life. Benesh noted that a lot of Meserve’s issues arose with the grant of the easement years ago and the need of the Board to balance the property rights of Benoit and Meserve’s desire to limit the increase in the size of Benoit’s dwelling.
The Chairman then adjourned the public hearing at 9:37 pm.
The Chairman announced that the Board would conduct a site visit to the property on Sunday July 25th at 9:00 AM.
The Chairman announced that the deliberations would be continued at a meeting of the Board of Adjustment on Monday August 2nd at 7:00 pm at the Town Offices.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.
Jackson Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Meeting
July 25, 2010
Board Members in Attendance: Frank Benesh, David Urey, Gino Funicella, and Joan Aubrey. Absent
were Ted Brown, Debra Crowther, Joan Davies, Brian Walker, and Lisa MacAllister.
Present in audience: Barbara Balfour.
At 9:00 am the members toured the Benoit and Meserve properties. During the visit Urey and Benesh
asked Benoit to update the submitted drawings to clearly show the existing roof overhangs and porch
stairs, and an updated drawing that shows the driveway and turnaround on his property. Several
measurements were taken from boundry markers in boulders on the Benoit – Meserve property
boundary to confirm that the position of the house as shown on the Benoit drawings was accurately
depicted. Any differences noted were one to two inches.
The site visit ended at 9:45 am.
Jackson Board of Adjustment
Minutes of Meeting
July 14, 2010
Board Members in Attendance: Frank Benesh, David Urey, Gino Funicella, and Joan Davies. Absent
were Joan Aubrey, Ted Brown, Debra Crowther, Brian Walker, Lisa MacAllister.
Present in audience: Joan Archambault, Barbara Balfour, Martha Benesh, Brian Benoit, Chris Benoit,
Brian Byrne, Bea Davis, Bob Davis, Bobbi Meserve, Stephen Weeder.
The meeting began at 7:00 pm on Wednesday July 14.
The Chairman announced that Pine Cone Properties (Patricia Wyhinny) had withdrawn her application
for a Variance with the expectation of resubmitting that and an Equitable Waiver later in the year.
Public Hearing:
Benesh called the meeting to order and announced the beginning of the hearing on Case 2010-05 Healy.
Benesh recited the notices provided and receipts received.
Benesh noted that there were only four members of the Board of Adjustment and asked the Applicant’s
agent if they wanted to proceed, noting that an affirmative vote of three members is required to grant a
variance. Stephen Weeder agreed to go forward.
Stephen Weeder, acting as an agent for the Applicant, reviewed the area variance application and then
explained the drawings he submitted.
Benesh asked for abutters or other interested parties who would like to speak. There were none.
Benesh then closed the public hearing.
The Board then began to deliberate on the property. Note was made of the long and narrow nature of
the property and thus it’s unique character that could justify a determination of hardship. There was
consensus that a variance could be supported due to the hardship, that it appeared not to be contrary
to the spirit of the ordinance, and that value of surrounding properties would not be diminished.
Benesh agreed to prepare a draft decision for review.
Public Hearing:
Benesh announced the beginning of the hearing on Case 2010-06 Benoit at 7:58 pm.
Benesh noted that there were only four members of the Board of Adjustment and asked the Applicant if
he wished to proceed, noting that an affirmative vote of three members is required to grant a variance.
Brian Benoit agreed to go forward.
Benesh recited the notices provided and receipts received. It was discovered that the address for the
notice to Charles Meserve Trust was incorrect and that the notice was returned by the USPS.
After discussion, the Board agreed to take the following steps: (a) provide notice to Charles Meserve
Trust with the proper address, to provide notice to his representative, Bobbi Meserve, and postpone the
hearing until a later date.
The Board announced that the public hearing on case 2010-06 Benoit will be adjourned until Friday July
23rd at 4:00 pm at the Town Offices.
The hearing was then adjourned at 8:40 pm until the date, time and place specified above.
There was additional discussion with Benoit about material (reworking the equitable waiver as an
appeal and more detailed drawings) that he should submit for consideration at the continuation of the
Benoit hearing. Benoit agreed to provide the additional material on Friday to be included in the public
file at Town Offices. Upon a motion by Funicella, second by Urey, and unanimous vote, the meeting was
adjourned the 8:55 pm.
| 
