Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendments Nonconforming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bolton PZC begins drafting rule changes to ease nonconforming expansions, weighs lot coverage and abutter notices
Summary
Chairman Tom Manning proposed language to allow certain vertical or other expansions to nonconforming buildings without a text amendment or costly variance process; commissioners also reviewed lot/building coverage definitions, zone-based percent limits, stormwater considerations, and whether mailed notice should go to property owners within 100 or 500 feet.
At the Jan. 8, 2025 meeting, the Bolton Planning & Zoning Commission began drafting multiple text amendments to simplify how owners may expand nonconforming structures and to reconsider how the town defines and regulates lot and building coverage.
Chairman Tom Manning described a proposed amendment to Section 450-3.3 (Non‑conforming Uses) that would permit a non‑conforming structure to be expanded — including upward — provided the expansion is no closer to the property line than the existing building, does not create a public-safety hazard, and otherwise complies with applicable restrictions. Manning said the change is intended to reduce costs and procedural burdens for residents seeking modest vertical expansions so they are not forced to pursue a text amendment or a variance and pay high survey costs (he cited an example of a $4,000 survey).
Patrice Carson, consulting director of community development, provided draft language examples and a handout comparing "building coverage" and "lot coverage" definitions. Staff noted current coverage percentages (15% in some zones; retirement communities allowed 25%) and recommended the commission consider zone-specific coverage limits to avoid creating new nonconformities if a use or zone changes. Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael D’Amato said the commercial shortage of suitable lots argues for greater flexibility in some zones, while commissioners and staff emphasized stormwater and impervious-surface management as reasons to retain limits in sensitive areas.
Commissioners discussed the "unified village" overlay concept that was created through a prior grant and noted it could be applied as an incentive in targeted locations. Examples from Ashford and Woodstock were cited as precedents for language on nonconforming uses.
The commission also debated its notice rules to abutters: the current regulation requires posting a sign and notifying property owners within 500 feet; staff advised that statutory notice is only required to adjacent owners and that legal standing for an "aggrieved" property owner is limited to those within 100 feet. Commissioners discussed whether to reduce the mailing radius to 100 feet to cut costs and avoid creating false expectations among distant owners who would receive notice but have no standing to appeal; P. Carson recommended soliciting the Town Attorney’s input. Manning asked staff to develop specific amendment language and suggested holding a public hearing in March to consider the consolidated package of changes.
Next steps: staff to draft language for Section 450-3.3 and proposed lot-coverage definitions by zone, consult the Town Attorney on notice/standing, and return to the commission for a public hearing.
