Hollis Zoning Board denies variance for garage at 25 Coburn/Colburn Lane

At its June 2026 meeting, the Hollis Zoning Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from John and Tara Mullen to build a detached two‑car garage at 25 Coburn (transcript also records the street as “Colburn”) Lane, saying the applicants did not demonstrate the statutory hardship required for relief.

The application, presented by designer Chris Cramp of CWC Design, asked the board to allow a detached 24‑by‑32‑foot garage sited near the end of the existing driveway. Cramp told the board the lot and house are otherwise conforming and argued that site constraints — including an in‑ground pool, a septic/leach field behind the house and a steep, treed embankment on the opposite side — limit feasible locations for the garage. “We are literally 10 feet from the septic system,” Cramp said, noting the proposed layout would minimize tree removal and keep the new structure low to the ground.

Homeowner John Mullen described family needs that motivated the request, citing storage and parking for a household with three children: “It’s filled with bicycles, e‑bikes, lacrosse equipment, golf bags,” he said, arguing the new garage would create a better entry and more usable space.

Board members focused deliberations on whether the parcel’s physical conditions met the ordinance’s definition of hardship. Some members acknowledged the proposal would improve livability but warned about the scale of the requested relief and the precedent it would set. Member Rick McMillan said he opposed the application, adding during deliberations, “I’m not gonna vote for this,” and warning that granting such a large encroachment could undermine the ordinance. The board discussed alternatives raised during the hearing — attaching a garage to the house, building a smaller single‑car garage, or extending living space on the other side of the house — and weighed the financial and practical tradeoffs of relocating a driveway or removing many trees.

Staff also reported a potential complication for the project: preliminary deed research flagged what may be a drainage easement affecting the lot. A staff member said they would continue researching the deed and that, if an easement exists in the proposed footprint, construction would not be permitted there.

After extended discussion the board adopted findings that the applicant had not demonstrated the hardship required under the town ordinance and closed the case; the chair announced the application failed. The transcript does not record a clear, uncontested roll call tally for every individual voting question, but the board’s final action was to deny the variance and close the case.

The board spent concluding time planning a joint zoning–planning‑board session for September or October to review potential ordinance changes and asked members to draft proposals in advance. The hearing record shows the denial is final for this meeting; the applicant was given staff contact information to inquire about appeal or next steps.

The application was for Case 2026 number 3, described in the record as a variance to “chapter Roman numeral 10 paragraph h 5 d” (minimum side‑yard depth). The transcript contains inconsistent numeric references to the requested relief: it cites a 35‑foot required side setback and also records the applicant saying the proposed setback would be 10 feet, while in one instance the applicant referred to a “15‑foot relief.” The record therefore documents both the requested siting and inconsistent relief amounts; deed/easement research was left open as a condition that could independently prevent construction.