Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bolton ZBA grants variance to allow 18x30 pool at 68 Country Club Road over one dissent
Summary
The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance on June 13 allowing the installation of an 18-by-30-foot in-ground pool at 68 Country Club Road that will encroach 9 feet into the rear setback; the motion passed 4-1 amid debate over whether the lot’s placement constitutes a legal hardship.
The Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4-1 on June 13 to grant a variance allowing an 18-by-30-foot in-ground swimming pool at 68 Country Club Road.
Attorney Louis Spadaccini, representing the applicants, told the board the applicants had "modified their request and have decided against the in-law suite. They would like to install the pool only." He said the proposed kidney-shaped pool and adjacent patio would "only encroach 9 feet beyond the setback," and that the 400-square-foot pool is "comparable to many in the neighborhood" and was the smallest size recommended by contractors.
The board’s debate focused on whether the applicants had demonstrated a zoning hardship. Board member Jonathan Treat asked what the hardship was and questioned whether the house’s placement on the lot alone met the legal standard; Treat suggested that topography, rather than lot placement, might be the controlling constraint. Spadaccini replied that the house is set back farther on the lot than neighboring homes and that the applicants lack the larger side yards other properties in the area enjoy.
Board member Bill Anderson argued that "purchasing a house on its own is not a self induced hardship" and noted that the town’s regulations require builders to leave room for septic options rather than for pools. Joshua Machnik said he agreed with Anderson and characterized the applicant’s lot configuration as a real hardship. Mary Terhune asked whether the applicants had considered a rectangular pool; Jason Vaillette said the smallest rectangular option would be wider than their proposed kidney-shaped pool and that they had no plans for additional expansions such as an outdoor kitchen or in-law suite. Vaillette also provided letters from neighbors endorsing the project, which were entered into the record.
After closing the public hearing, Machnik moved to grant the variance "based on the hardship of the house being set back further on the lot than others in the neighborhood," seconded by Bill Anderson. The motion passed with four votes in favor and one against; Treat cast the lone dissent.
The variance permits the pool to encroach 9 feet into the rear setback as presented. The board did not record any additional conditions beyond the variance language, and no further appeals or administrative actions were discussed at the meeting.
