|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
TOWN OF HINGHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant and Walter and Ann Ciovacco
Property Owner: 15 Howe Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Premises: 15 Howe Street
Hingham, MA 02043
Title Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 5033, Page 344
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This
matter came before the Board of Appeals on the application of Walter
and Ann Ciovacco (the “Applicants”) for a front yard setback Variance
from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary in
order to construct a 10' x 20' covered porch on the existing dwelling at
15 Howe Street (the “Property”), in Residence District A.
A
public hearing was duly noticed and held on Thursday, November 18, 2010
with a hearing continuation held on Monday, December 13, 2010 at the
Town Hall before a panel consisting of regular members Joseph W.
Freeman, Chairman, W. Tod McGrath and Joseph M. Fisher. The Applicants
were represented by Joseph Sanfilippo, J.S. Enterprises, Inc.,
Braintree, MA.
BACKGROUND:
The Applicants Property contains
approximately 12,500 sq.ft. and is located in Residence District A.
Although the existing single-family dwelling was built in 1939 prior to
the adoption of zoning and does not conform to the current minimum lot
size requirements for Residence District A, it is conforming in all
respects with the current setback dimensional requirements of the Zoning
By-Law.
The Applicants desire to construct a covered porch on
the front of their existing dwelling. The dimensions of the proposed
porch are 10’ in width by 20’ in length. The front setback requirement
in Residence District A is 25’ with the existing dwelling’s front
setback at 25.9’ according to the surveyed plot plan presented with the
application. Upon construction of the covered porch, the minimum front
yard setback would be 17.4’ as the covered porch will encroach an
additional 8’ into the front yard setback. The covered porch will
conform to all side setback requirements.
Abutters at 16 Howe
Street, directly across from the Applicants Property, spoke in favor of
application, no abutters spoke against the granting of the Variance.
DISCUSSION:
The
Applicants stated they explored the possibility of using the so call
“averaging” provision of the Zoning By-Law (Section IV-B, 9) where the
front setback of the lots can be “averaged” such that the new structure
(or addition) has a front setback that is roughly the equivalent of the
immediately adjoining structures. Although they did not state what the
“averaging” was, the Applicants stated this provision did not help them;
therefore they are requesting relief in the form of a Variance to
encroach 8’ into the front-yard setback.
During the course of
the initial hearing, the Board of Appeals members and the Applicants
explored the possibility of constructing the covered porch on the
southerly portion of the dwelling, where it would not encroach into the
front or side setbacks. The Board suggested the Applicants revisit their
plans, and the hearing was continued.
Prior to the continued
hearing, the Applicants presented an amendment to their application
along with photographs of the existing Property. The photographs show
the existing dwelling sited on a hill, with the lot sloping upward from
front to rear. They also show a significant slope on the southerly
portion of the Property (approximately 5’ in height, 10’ in length). The
Applicants representative also stated that on the southerly portion of
the Property there appears to be ledge, which would prevent footings to
be placed without substantial cost to the Applicants.
FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The
Board voted unanimously to GRANT the VARIANCE. In granting the
requested relief, the Board found that owing to circumstances relating
to the soil conditions, shape or topography which especially affect the
premises, but do not affect generally the zoning district in which the
premises are located, a literal enforcement of the Zoning By-Law would
create a hardship to the Applicants.
The Board determined that
the topography of the lot along with the location of the existing
single-family dwelling limited the practical options for the Applicants
to construct a covered porch. The Board also determined that although
the proposed covered porch will intrude further into the front yard
setback by 8’, the covered porch (i) will enhance the design of the
front elevation of the dwelling, (ii) be substantially in conformance
with similar homes in the immediate neighborhood, and (iii) will not
impose on abutting properties. The Board further 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 Variance is granted subject the following condition:
1.
That the 10' x 20' covered porch be constructed in substantial
accordance with the plans presented in the application and
representations made at the public hearing.
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 W. Freeman
January 18, 2011
|
|