Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bolton ZBA delays decision on Pierce family’s variance request for garage addition
Summary
The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals postponed action on an application from Michael and Michelle Pierce to build an 800 sq. ft. garage with living space above after finding the filing lacked a documented hardship and contained site-plan errors; the Board asked the applicants to correct measurements and notify abutters before the January meeting.
Bolton — The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 9, 2025 postponed a decision on ZBA-25-2, an application from Michael and Michelle Pierce seeking a variance to build an 800-square-foot double-wide garage with living space above on the left side of their home.
The applicants told the Board their house is “approximately 1200 to 1300 sq. ft.” and that building onto the back of the home would not allow for a garage. Michelle Pierce said the addition is intended to provide living space for her children. The application requested relief from the side-yard setback to place the garage closer to the property line than the R‑1 zoning allows.
Vice‑Chairman William Pike and other members identified errors in the submitted site plan and said the application did not properly document a property hardship. Pike noted “a hardship is not based on pure want, need, or financial reasons, but must be based on unique features of the property that limit reasonable use.” The Board concluded the plan’s setback labeling was incorrect (the plan showed a 20‑foot side-yard setback, while the R‑1 requirement is 25 feet) and estimated the variance needed at roughly 14 feet, larger than the applicants’ initial estimate.
Board members asked the Pierces to verify several measurements and provide clearer evidence of a hardship before the Board can vote. Specific follow-up items included verifying the front-yard setback (the applicants estimated it to be about 90 feet from the road and said the garage front would be about six feet), showing where the back-left corner of the property would lie relative to the 25‑foot setback, correcting the site plan to reflect the R‑1 side-yard requirement, and notifying abutters — by yard sign and letters — prior to the January meeting so abutters have an opportunity to respond.
Andrew Chambers asked whether impervious coverage was appropriate; the Board confirmed it was. Pike said he would follow up with Danielle Pallazzini to clarify any review-process miscommunications. The Pierces and the Board agreed that a decision will be revisited at the January meeting after the requested documentation and notifications are provided.
The Board did not take a formal vote on ZBA-25-2 at the Dec. 9 meeting; the matter remains pending.
