|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
TOWN OF HINGHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant and Sheila O’Neil
Property Owner: 29 South Pleasant Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Premises: 29 South Pleasant Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Title Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 3651, Page 271
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This
matter came before the Board of Appeals on the application of Sheila
O'Neil (the “Applicant”)for a rear yard setback Variance from §IV-A of
the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary in order to add a
second story to the existing 22' x 22' detached garage at 29 South
Pleasant Street (the “Property”), in Residence District C.
A
public hearing was duly noticed and held on Thursday, November 18, 2010
at the Town Hall before a panel consisting of regular members Joseph W.
Freeman, Chairman, W. Tod McGrath and Joseph M. Fisher. The Applicant
was represented by builder Peter Bickford.
BACKGROUND:
The
Applicant’s Property contains a single-family dwelling and a one-story
22’ x 22’ detached garage on an approximately 9,000sq.ft. lot. The rear
setback of the garage is 2.9’ at its closest point; the rear setback
requirement in Residence District C is 20’. The Applicant is proposing
to remove the roof and add a second story to the garage for office
space. The Applicant is not proposing any foundation work and is not
adding to the current footprint of the garage. The height proposed will
not exceed the requirements of the Zoning By-Law.
DISCUSSION:
The
Applicant represented that the detached garage was built approximately
70 years ago, prior to the adoption of zoning. Thus, when the Town
enacted its Zoning By-Law, the buildings on the lot became pre-existing
nonconforming structures.
During the course of the hearing, the
Board of Appeals members and the Applicant had a lengthy discussion on
the applicability of Zoning By-Law §III-I Nonconforming Uses and
Structures. §III-I , subsection 6, states:
“…the alteration of,
addition to, reconstruction of, extension of, or structural change in an
existing nonconforming Single or Two-Family Dwelling shall not be
considered the extension of a nonconforming use, provided that: a. the
Single or Two-Family Dwelling conformed in all respects to the Zoning
By-Law in existence at the time of its initial construction; and, b. the
alteration of, addition to, reconstruction of, extension of, or
structural change in the nonconforming Single or Two-Family Dwelling
does not further reduce the minimum linear measurement of the existing
nonconforming dimensions.”
Under the Zoning By-Law the garage is
considered an accessory structure and is not afforded the same
protection as a Single or Two-Family Dwelling.
However, because
the garage on the lot predates the enactment of the By-law, it is
covered by the protections of M.G.L. c. 40A, § 6, first paragraph, which
states (in part):
“Pre-existing nonconforming structures or uses
may be extended or altered, provided, that no such extension or
alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit
granting authority . . . that such change, extension or alteration shall
not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming
use to the neighborhood.”
As noted above, the Applicant is not
proposing any foundation work and is not adding to the current footprint
of the garage. The Board determined that the use of the second story of
the garage for office space is an allowed use as an accessory structure
in the neighborhood under §III-A, 1.8 of the Zoning By-Law. The Board
considered the lots and structures of the surrounding neighborhood and
determined that proposed construction would not adversely impact or be a
detriment to the neighborhood.
FINDINGS AND DECISION:
Based
on the information before it, the Board voted unanimously to make the
finding that the proposed construction would not be substantially more
detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.
Therefore, the Applicant could proceed as a matter of right with its
proposed construction, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40A, § 6, provided that
such work proceeded in accordance with the representations made by the
Applicant to the Board. Since the Applicant could proceed as a matter of
statutory right, the Board voted unanimously to DISMISS the VARIANCE
application.
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 County 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
January 26, 2011
|
|