Zoning Board of Appeals Decisions and Pending Applications

Applicant and Property Owner: Stephen Scullen

5 Charles Everett Way

Hingham, MA 02043

Subject Property: 5 Charles Everett Way

Hingham, MA 02043

Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds

Book 13757, Page 0168

SUMMARY OF PROCEDINGS

This matter came before the Board of Appeals on the application of Stephen Scullen (“Applicant”) for side yard setback Variances from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to construct a 16' x 20' detached structure in the northeast portion of the rear yard at 5 Charles Everett Way, in Residence District A.

A public hearing was duly noticed and held on Thursday, January 8, 2009 at the Town Office Building before a panel consisting of regular members W. Tod McGrath, Chairman, and Joseph M. Fisher and Joseph W. Freeman. The Applicant was represented by land use consultant Jane Santosuosso.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Applicant proposes to build a 16’ X 20’ structure in the rear of the property, to be used for storage and as a workshop. The lot is trapezoidal in shape, narrowing to just under 32’ at the rear lot line. The Applicant’s agent stated that due to the uniqueness and irregular shape of the lot, a Variance was necessary to maintain some useable yard space for recreation. She referred the Board members to the plot plan submitted with the application to indicate the unique shape of the lot and the requested location of the structure with 10’ setbacks on either side. A building permit had been issued for the structure in July 2008 for its location within the legal setbacks, but the Applicant discovered that it would limit the use of the yard and require the removal of a large shade tree, so the location allowed by a Variance would be more reasonable.

The Board questioned the Applicant as to the height of the finished structure. The Applicant’s agent explained that there would be a foundation, plus a 10’ finished space with storage above. Upon review of the building permit application on file with the Building Department, it was determined that the finished height of the structure would be approximately 23’. The Board also questioned the ultimate use of the structure and whether it would have bath facilities. The

Applicant’s agent stated that the structure would be used solely as a carpentry workshop and storage with no bath facilities.

The adjacent abutter expressed concern about the height of the structure, as her home is very close to the lot line between the two properties. Upon discussion, it was concluded that the location of the structure provided by the Variance would be less obtrusive than should the structure be located within the legal setbacks. This abutter also expressed concern about the upper level having visual access into her yard, but it was determined that this part of the structure would be used for storage only. An abutter to the rear expressed an issue with shadows cast by the structure into his summer garden. The Board members concluded that the distance of the structure from the garden coupled with the proposed height of the structure would pose no real shading issue to the neighbor’s garden. Therefore the Board determined that the abutters concerns had been satisfactorily addressed with the structure as proposed.

In granting the requested relief, the Board found that owing to circumstances relating to the soil, shape or topography which especially affect the premises, but do not generally affect the zoning district in which the premises are located, a literal enforcement of the Zoning By-Law would involve substantial hardship to the Applicant.

The Board agreed that owing to the unique trapezoid shape of the lot, a literal enforcement of the By-Law would be a hardship to the Applicant. Further, the Board found that the only practical location for the structure, given the shape of the lot and location of the home and driveway, would be as it was proposed in the drawings submitted by the Applicant. The Board determined that the design was in keeping with the style of the home and that of the neighborhood.

The Board determined that the requested Variance might be granted without detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law.

The relief granted herein shall not become effective until i) the Town Clerk has certified on a copy of this Decision that twenty (20) days have elapsed after the decision has been filed in the office of the Town Clerk and no appeal has been filed or that if such an appeal has been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, and that (ii) a copy thereof has been duly recorded in the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted on the owner’s certificate of title.