Board of Adjustment approves two setback variances for Town of Jackson properties

The Adams County Board of Adjustment approved two variance requests affecting properties in the Town of Jackson during its June 2025 meeting: a variance to allow a porch extension for Michael and Heidi Murphy at 372 Ford Drive, and an amended variance for a garage for Mark Rasinger at 310 North Shore Drive.

Both requests involved reduced setbacks from the centerline of the road under Adams County shoreline and comprehensive zoning provisions cited by staff. The board discussed hardship, public interest and safety before voting to approve both requests with findings entered into the adopted decision form.

Murphy porch: The applicant requested to enlarge an existing front stoop/porch. Staff and the applicant confirmed the existing stoop is approximately 5 by 3 feet and the proposal would extend the porch by an additional 8 feet (resulting in a larger finished porch footprint). The parcel is approximately 49 feet from the centerline of Ford Drive, while the current ordinance requires 63 feet from the centerline (14 feet short of the ordinance standard). The board found the addition "is not going to affect the neighborhood" and cited aesthetics, improved safety and practical access (larger landing area at the primary entrance) as reasons supporting the variance. The motion to approve the Murphy request passed by voice vote; staff will complete the decision form with each member’s stated reasons for the record.

Rasinger garage: The applicant, Mark Rasinger, sought a variance to build a garage that would be closer than the ordinance allows to the centerline of a narrow local road. Rasinger said his lot is a double lot and that the local roadway is narrower than standard county roads (the road pavement measures roughly 27 feet wide in places), which places existing houses closer to the centerline. He also said the property maintains the required 75‑foot setback from the waterline and that neighboring properties and the Town of Jackson had no objections.

During discussion the board explored alternate designs to reduce the requested intrusion. One board member moved—and the applicant accepted—an amendment changing the proposed garage footprint to 35 feet north‑south by 40 feet east‑west; with that change the structure would sit farther from the road (approximately 51 feet from the centerline in the amended layout) while keeping adequate spacing from the house. The board concluded the amended design addressed safety concerns, did not harm neighbors and allowed the property to be used as a residence under today’s standards. The amended application was approved by voice vote. Members instructed staff to document the factual hardship (placement of the roadway and historic building siting) and the public‑interest findings on the adopted decision form.

Staff and counsel emphasized that the hardship analysis must focus on property‑based limits (for example, lot configuration or elevation) rather than interpersonal disputes; training on articulating findings was scheduled as follow‑up. Both approved variances will be finalized in written orders prepared by staff and signed by the chair.