Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bolton ZBA continues variance request for pool and in‑law unit at 68 Country Club Road
Summary
The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals on April 11 continued a variance hearing for Jason Vaillette’s proposal to add a 20x25 in‑law apartment and an 18x30 in‑ground pool at 68 Country Club Road, after the board questioned whether the applicant demonstrated the legal hardship required for a setback variance and asked for a survey to verify property lines.
Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Mark Altermatt on April 11 presided over a public hearing on an application from Jason Vaillette for a variance to install an 18x30 in‑ground pool and add a 20x25 in‑law apartment at 68 Country Club Road. The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to the following month to allow the applicant to provide additional information and verify property lines.
Vaillette, the applicant, told the board that he and his family moved to Bolton two years ago and plan to build the in‑law apartment and a pool. He said certified notices were mailed to abutters and that at least one neighbor, Donald Fish, had visited the property and did not object. Vaillette said the location of an on‑site well and the current siting of the house force the proposed additions into the setback area and that the combined projects would require a 24‑foot variance to proceed as proposed.
The board pressed Vaillette to identify a legal hardship that would justify a variance. "Wanting something is not a hardship," Chairman Mark Altermatt said, noting that zoning law typically requires proof that a parcel differs materially from nearby lots. Jonathan Treat cited Section 19E of the town's zoning regulations as relevant to the variance analysis; Treat later told the applicant, "you bought the house," when Vaillette said the house siting limited his options.
Members discussed possible alternatives, including placing the pool in a different location, changing the pool orientation, or siting the in‑law unit to the right of the garage to preserve more backyard space. William Pike observed inconsistencies in the handwritten setback dimensions submitted with the application and said that if the application were only for the pool the required variance might be smaller.
Board members reported visiting the site (all except Treat) and raised concerns that the rear property line shown on the applicant's plot plan could be incorrect. Member Morris Silverstein suggested the applicant obtain a new licensed survey to confirm lot lines and asked the board to consider how a future owner might be affected if one of the two projects were built before the other.
After reviewing the discussion, Vaillette displayed a photograph of a stone wall at the rear of his property and described measurements from the proposed pool to that wall. He asked for a continuance so he could obtain clarifying measurements and documentation. Member Morris Silverstein moved to continue the public hearing until next month; Member Jonathan Treat seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5–0–0.
The board took two brief procedural votes before adjourning. Member Mary Terhune moved and Member Jonathan Treat seconded to accept the January 10, 2023 minutes as presented; that motion passed 5–0–0. Member Morris Silverstein then moved to adjourn at 7:56 p.m.; Terhune seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
The public hearing on application #ZBA‑23‑1 has been continued; the board requested a verified survey and clarified setback measurements before taking further action.
