|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Board of Appeals
NOTICE OF DECISION
VARIANCE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Owner/Applicant: Jeffrey and Wendy Swett
Premises or Property: 71 New Bridge Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Zoning District: Residence B Zoning District
Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry, District of the Land Court, Certificate No. 98674, Document No. 476534
Plan References: Plan entitled, "Existing Conditions Plan,
71 New Bridge Street," prepared by MacKenzie Engineering Group, Inc.,
180 Longwater Drive, Suite 101, Norwell, MA, dated December 9, 2013,
and two undated, unstamped plans depicting the locations of the onsite
septic system and the proposed pool house, received March 18, 2015
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Board of Appeals (the “Board”) on the
application of Jeffrey and Wendy Swett (the “Applicants”) for a Variance
from Section IV-A (side-yard setback) of the Hingham Zoning By-Law
(the “By-Law”), to construct a pool house.
Public hearings were duly noticed and held on December 17, 2014 and
March 13, 2015 at the Town Hall, 210 Central Street. The Board panel
consisted of its regular members W. Tod McGrath, Chairman, Joseph M.
Fisher and Joseph W. Freeman. The Applicants were represented by
Attorney Jeffery A. Tocchio. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance from the side yard setback
requirement under Section IV-A of the By-Law, subject to the conditions
listed below.
Throughout its deliberations, the Board has been mindful of the
statements of the Applicant and the comments of the general public, all
as made or received at the public hearing.
BACKGROUND
The Property is a 57,737 +/- SF parcel improved with a single-family
dwelling. An in-ground pool and deck are currently under construction
to the rear of the dwelling. The parcel has 214 feet of frontage on
New Bridge Street, at its highest point, and narrows to an 82-foot
width at the rear of the lot, which fronts upon a 20’-wide right of way
that is associated with the More-Brewer Reservation. The lot
topography drops by 20-feet from the front of the existing home to the
rear of the lot to the west. The land to the west of the pool is
significantly lower than the pool deck, is level and lawn, and is used
as a play area. The play area is immediately adjacent to the 20‘-wide
right of way. The abutting lot to the south runs the entire length of
the subject property, and narrows to only 15’ in length for over 200’,
also providing a connection to the 20’-wide right of way. That 15’
strip of land consists of heavily wooded hills, and is unbuildable
according to the Applicant. The owners of that abutting lot submitted a
letter to the Board indicating their support of the Applicant’s
request.
Prior to the pouring of the pool presently under construction, the
Property was improved by an older in-ground pool with stone retaining
walls, situated perpendicular to the length of the lot, and which
intruded into the 20’ side yard setback. The Property was serviced by
a “leaching pit” septic system, which was located less than 10’ from
the pool. Beginning in 2013, the Applicant began the process of
permitting and constructing a deck, pool, and pool house with enclosed
shower. The pool permit was issued on February 25, 2014 by the
Building Department and work began to demolish the existing pool and
stone retaining wall system. In July of 2014 the Board of Health
determined that a set of steps to be installed by the Applicant to
accommodate the grades presented would be too close to the existing
septic tank. While exploring the ability to move the tank, the
Applicant discovered that the leaching capacity of a part of the system
was at 30%, and the Applicant redesigned the entire project, and
installed a new, modern septic system at significant expense. The
Applicant informed the Board that installation of the new system north
of the pool would prevent the use of this area for locating a proposed
pool house.
Upon the setting of stakes adjacent to the poured pool walls, the
Applicant determined that placement of the proposed pool house in strict
conformity with the 20’ side yard setback would result in a tight
distance between the accessory structure and pool edge, in that the
narrowing lot shape (and thus narrowing lot setback) would cause a
conforming structure to be “pinched” towards the center of the lot.
The Applicant demonstrated that this placement would block views of the
lower rear portion of the lot from much of the patio area. The lowered
rear play yard area is adjacent to the right of way and the
reservation, and Applicant sought to preserve such views for security,
given the presence of hikers and wildlife immediately adjacent to the
play area. The low, depressed topography of the rear yard area renders
this area impractical for the siting of a pool house.
The Applicant originally sought a variance to locate the pool house
seven (7) feet from the southerly sideline. The Board requested that
the Applicant re-visit the design to determine the absolute minimum
variance required to avoid the demonstrated hardship. The Applicant and
its engineers arrived at a design that moved the proposed pool house
closer to the pool, thus reducing the variance requested to only 4.3’.
This was accomplished by moving the structure from 15.8’ to 12’ from
the pool. As a result only a small 23 SF corner of the structure will
project into a 20’ setback to an unbuildable wooded strip of land.
FINDINGS
Based upon the information submitted and received at the hearing, the Board determined that:
- There are circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or
topography especially affecting the land but not affecting generally
the zoning district. The stretch of New Bridge Street where the parcel
of land is located was historically situated between the country club
and the More-Brewer Estate known as “Great Hill”. There are no house
lots located to the north of the Property, and, as shown by the
Applicant, the Property and abutting lands were created as a part of
the donation of the More-Brewer Reservation to the Town of Hingham in
1980. The Property is affected by (i) the downward slope of roughly
20’ of elevation from the front of the Property to the rear, (ii) the
narrowing “wedge-like” shape of the Property caused by the connection
of an abutting property to the 20’-wide former carriage path right of
way, and (iii) by the existence of the right of way and related use of
that area by the public. The abutting lot to the southeast was
extended to the right of way by a thin neck of land, 15’-wide, that
extends southwest for roughly 200’. This neck is topographically
varied; significant earth work would be necessary in order to
facilitate vehicular access and it appears to be too narrow to
accommodate the construction of any habitable structure. The creation
of this neck is a contributing factor to the narrowing “wedge” shape
of the Property. Finally, as noted herein, both the west and south
sides of the pool are not suitable for the construction of the pool
house due to setbacks associated with a new septic installation, and
the grade differential between the pool deck and the lower rear yard.
The existing home is located to the north and east of the house,
leaving the southeast yard as the feasible location of the proposed
pool house.
- The literal enforcement of the Bylaws would involve substantial
hardship financial or otherwise. If the Pool house were constructed
without the requested Variance, the pool house would be located close
to the pool in the central portion of the lot, thus impeding views
required for safety, and causing an overcrowding of structures and
activities into a small portion of the lot. The congested siting of the
pool house and pool area and deck in a central area would create
substantial hardship, including the obstruction of views of the lower
rear yard and surrounding open conservation areas that are important to
the safety and security of users of the Property.
- A variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good. The proposed project will not create any noise, traffic,
or result in other similar negative impacts. The Property is bounded
by significant wooded land and the Pool house would be entirely hidden
from view from outside properties. The proposed Pool house project is
consistent with single-family residential use in the Residence B Zoning
District, and the Pool house will allow for the storage of items that
would otherwise clutter land adjacent to the More-Brewer Reservation.
Furthermore, the owners of the neighboring lots on either side have
viewed the proposed plans and have expressed support. The Applicant
has demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact on the neighbors
and there will be no harm to the public good.
- A variance may be granted without nullifying or substantially
derogating from the intent or purposes of the Bylaw. The Applicant is
requesting a Variance of only 4.3’, or 23 total square feet, to allow
for the placement of a back corner off the structure. The Variance
would permit the Applicant to locate the pool house slightly within the
side yard setback. Therefore, a grant of Variance will not negatively
impact the intent of the By-Law to avoid overcrowding of land and the
undue concentration of population.
DECISION
Upon a motion made by Joseph M. Fisher and seconded by Joseph W.
Freeman, the Board voted unanimously to grant a Variance from § IV-A of
the By-Law approving construction of a pool house with a 15.7' side
yard setback where 20' is required at 71 New Bridge Street, subject to
the following conditions:
- The Applicant shall construct the Project in a manner consistent
with the approved plans and the representations made at the hearings
before the Board.
- The Applicant shall provide an “as-built” plan to the Building
Commissioner fixing the location of the proposed pool house in relation
to the side yard lot line.
This decision shall not take effect until a copy of the decision
bearing the certification of the Town Clerk, that twenty (20) days have
elapsed since the decision has been filed in the office of the Town
Clerk and no appeal has been filed, or that if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismissed or denied, is recorded with the
Plymouth Registry of Deeds and/or the Plymouth County Land Court
Registry, and indexed in the grantor index under the name of the record
owner or is recorded and noted on the owner’s certificate of title.
For The Board of Appeals,
___________________________________
Joseph M. Fisher
|
|