|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Board of Appeals
NOTICE OF DECISION
VARIANCE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Owner/Applicant: 8 Park Circle LLC Agent: Vcevy Strekalovsky
73 Burditt Avenue 42 North Street
Hingham, MA 02043 Hingham, MA 02043
Premises: 8 Park Circle
Hingham, MA 02043
Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds Book 44591, Page 325
Plan Reference: Floor plans entitled, "Proposed
Addition and Alterations to: Johanne
Brown
Residence, 8 Park Circle, Hingham, MA" prepared by Strekalovsky Architecture
Inc., 42 North Street, Hingham, dated October 24, 2014, drawings A.1-A.2 and
elevation plans entitled, "Renovations for Johanne Brown,"
prepared by
Vcevold Otis Strekalovsky, R.A., and dated October 23,
2014.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Board of Appeals (the “Board”) on the
application from Vcevy Strekalovsky on behalf of Park Circle LLC,
73 Burditt Ave, for a Variance from § IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and
such other relief as necessary to construct a front porch
within the front yard setback at 8 Park Circle in Residence
District A.
A public hearing was duly noticed and held on December 17, 2014, 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 Applicant and its Agent appeared to present the
application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted
unanimously to grant a Variance from the front yard setback requirement
under § IV-A of the By-Law.
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 subject property is located the end of Park Circle. The lot is
approximately 13,465 SF in size and includes a single-family dwelling
with nonconforming front and side yard setbacks. The proposed plan
would add a covered porch to the front elevation, which would intensify
the existing nonconformity and result in a front yard setback of 17'
where 25' is required in Residence District A.
During the hearing, the Applicant described the property shape as
uncommon. The arc of the Park Circle cul-de-sac affects the property
indicates that the existing grading makes the entryway difficult to
access without a wider landing. Finally, Vcevy argues that the
incursion is de minimis as it is only 30.31 SF beyond the existing
steps, which currently extend 29.69 SF into the setback. It is unclear
to me whether either of these measurements include the area under the
structures overhang. You might ask the project architect to confirm
since it is difficult to understand how the site plan dimensions relate
to the elevation and floor plans.
A member indicated that the design is an improvement. The Board
calculated the incremental incursion as 60 SF beyond the existing front
steps. The Board agreed that the lot is unusually shaped, particularly
in the front . There appears to be no alternatives to improve the
front entryway. The Board considers this to be a de minimus incursion.
Further, there would be no incursion were it not for the arc of the
cul-de-sac.
FINDINGS
Based upon the information submitted and received at the hearing, and
other information available to the Board, the Board has determined
that:
- There are circumstances relating to soil conditions,
shape or topography especially affecting the land but not affecting
generally the zoning district. The Property is triangular in
shape. The pre-existing nonconforming dwelling was sited parallel to
Kimball Beach Road, but at an angle to the Planter's Lane frontage and
rear property line. In addition, the Applicant represented that the
property has a distinct 20' grade. Surrounding properties do not
generally share these circumstances.
- The literal enforcement of the Bylaws would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise. The
requested relief will allow the Applicant to remodel and expand the
existing dwelling instead of demolishing and repositioning the
structure. A grant of a Variance in this instance will allow for a
reasonable use that is entirely consistent with a single family use in
the Residence A Zoning District;
- 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. In fact, the proposed project will improve
the existing dwelling in a manner consistent with many single family
residences in the surrounding neighborhood. There will be no adverse
effects or harm to the public good; and
- A variance may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purposes of the Bylaw. The
design of the proposed porch and two-story addition (as modified to
eliminate the side yard setback nonconformance) is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood. The requested front yard setback relief
is modest, ranging from approximately 5' to 3' from one side of the
addition to the other. The granting of a dimensional variance in this
instance is consistent with the purposes of the By-Law.
DECISION
Upon a motion made by Joseph M. Fisher and seconded by Joseph W.
Freeman, the Board voted unanimously to 1) accept the Applicant's
request to withdraw without prejudice the side yard setback Variance
and 2) grant the front yard setback Variance from § IV-A of the By-Law
approving construction of an addition at 18 Kimball Beach Road, subject
to the following condition:
- The plans submitted in support of a building permit application
shall be consistent with the front yard setback shown on the approved
plans referenced in this Decision and demonstrate compliance with the
15' side yard set from the east property line as required in § IV-A of
the Zoning By-Law.
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 W. Freeman
|