Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bolton ZBA approves variance for 10 North Road addition after applicant cites electrical hazard

Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals · June 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance allowing an addition at 10 North Road to come 9 inches closer to the side lot line than the 10-foot requirement, citing an existing non-conforming foundation and an electrical hazard reported by the homeowner.

The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously Sept. 10 to grant a variance permitting an addition at 10 North Road to sit closer to the property’s side lot line than the town’s 10-foot requirement. The board approved a 9-inch variance after a public hearing and discussion of the property’s preexisting non-conformity.

Kristie Selbie, the applicant, spoke on her own behalf and said the house was purchased by the current owners about a year ago without an inspection. She told the board that "the upstairs bedrooms and attic area contained a dangerous electrical situation," and that adding dormers was part of the work to remediate that problem while increasing usable space.

Board member William Pike noted that the foundation is already non-conforming but that the proposed dormer addition would remain within the existing foundation footprint and would not change the house perimeter. Pike also pointed out that the variance amount listed on the application needed correction; the application text requested an 8.4-inch variance but the motion recorded and voted on by the board specified a 9-inch variance.

Joshua Machnik moved to approve the 9-inch variance on the basis of hardship from the existing non-conformity; Jonathan Treat seconded the motion. The board voted 5–0–0 in favor and the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m.

The transcript does not record further administrative steps such as conditions attached to the variance, building permit approvals, or inspection timelines. The board did not request additional public comment during the vote, and no members abstained or voted against the motion.