View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version




Applicant and            Eric and Elizabeth Oddleifson

Property Owner:       1 Summit Drive

Hingham MA 02043


Premises:                   1 Summit Drive

Hingham MA 02043


Title Reference:         Plymouth Registry District of the Land Court, Certificate Number 93075, Book 00465, Page 0075



This matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application of Eric and Elizabeth Oddleifson (the “Applicants”) for a front yard setback Variance from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to demolish the existing attached one-car garage area and replace it with a new attached larger living space addition at 1 Summit Drive (the “Property”), a corner lot located in Residence District A.


A public hearing on the application was duly noticed and held on Thursday March 10, 2011, at the Town Hall before a panel consisting of regular members Joseph W. Freeman, Chairman, W. Tod McGrath and Joseph M. Fisher. 



The Applicants are the owners of the pre-existing non-conforming dwelling on the corner of Summit and Harbor View Drive.  The Property is pie-shaped and is 7,949sq.ft.  in size.  Under the Hingham Zoning By-Law a corner lot shall maintain front yard setback requirements for each and every street.  The required front yard setback in Residence District A is twenty-five (25') feet from both streets.  The original one-car garage area was converted to a family room and the Applicants are now proposing to construct a new family room with a master bedroom above. The dwelling will remain as a 1½ story cape and will intrude, at its furthest point, 13’ into the setback along Harbor View Drive (which might be considered the rear yard portion of the lot).


The Applicants represented themselves. No abutters spoke for or against the granting of the Variance.  The Applicant’s submitted a Site Plan dated December 17, 2010 prepared by Cavanaro Consulting along with plans of proposed alterations (3 pages, preparer unknown).


After consideration of the Applicant’s proposal, together with the plans submitted and representation made by the Applicants, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions, shape or topography which especially affect the premises, but do not affect 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 Applicants.


The Board finds that there is no practical way that the proposed addition could be constructed in conformity to the Zoning By-Law’s setback requirements due to the shape of the lot.   The size and scale of the proposed addition is consistent with the size and design of the home.  The placement of the addition in the setback area would not substantially derogate from the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law, as the increase in encroachment is not substantially more than what presently exists. 


The Board also determined that the requested Variance might be granted without detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law.  The Board determined that although the new addition will intrude within the front-yard setback, the proposed structure will not detract from the neighborhood and will be consistent with other residences in the immediate neighborhood.



Based upon the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals as set forth above, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to GRANT the requested Variance from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law to demolish the existing attached one-car garage area and replace it with a new attached larger living space addition.


The Variance is granted subject to the following condition:


  1. That the addition be constructed in substantial accordance with the plans presented in the application and representations made at the public hearing.


The zoning 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.


For the Board of Appeals,




                                                                                    W. Tod McGrath

                                                                                    May 19, 2011