Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
TOWN OF HINGHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant andRichard and Jill Blake
Property Owner:10 Parker Drive
Premises:10 Parker Drive
Title Reference:Plymouth County Registry of Deeds
Book 37612, Page 130
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Board of Appeals on the application of Richard and Jill Blake (the “Applicants”) for side and rear yard setback Variances from §IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to demolish the existing 18' 6" X 20' detached garage and construct a new 22' X 21' detached garage with an attached 10' X 18' storage bay at 10 Parker Drive (the “Property”), in Residence District A.
A public hearing was duly noticed and held on June 10, 2010 and continued on July 8, 2010, at the Town Office Building before a panel consisting of regular members Joseph M. Fisher, Chairman, Joseph W. Freeman and W. Tod McGrath.
The Applicants were represented by architect Sally Weston.No other Town agencies or departments had any comment on the application.Public comments were solicited at public hearing and the Board did receive a letter in support of the requested Variances from the Applicants abutters at 20 Malcolm Street.
The Applicants are the owners of the existing dwelling located at 10 Parker Drive in Residence District A.The Property is approximately 13,000 sq.ft. and is improved with a single family dwelling built in 1875, a small guest house and a 528 sq.ft. detached garage built in the 1960’s.The Applicants are presently renovating the existing single family dwelling and desire to renovate and enlarge the existing detached garage.
The detached garage is located 2.3’ from the side yard setback and 5’ from the rear yard setback on the southerly portion of the Property.These measurements were confirmed on June 5, 2010 when the Applicants submitted an Existing Conditions plan dated September 30, 2009 prepared by James Engineering, Inc. stamped by Gary O. James, Civil RPE.
In Residence District A the minimum side and rear yard setback required is 15’.The Applicant’s proposed detached garage will be larger than the existing garage but will be located the same distance from both the side and rear yard lot lines on the southerly portion of the Property.Plans are to the demolish the existing detached garage and replace it with a new detached garage that will be 3.6’ wider and 1’ longer than the existing garage, along with an attached 10’ wide by 18’ long storage bay. The new detached garage will not exceed the roof height of the existing garage nor will it encroach further into the exiting side and rear setbacks.
During the course of the first hearing, a number of abutters spoke about their concerns with the Applicants proposal.Although most were in agreement with the proposed plans, they were concerned with the bulk and height of the structure, in particular with the storage bay portion of the structure.Abutters spoke about the size of the lots in the area and the fact that many detached structures are extremely close to the existing lot lines. One abutter spoke in particular about preserving an existing view corridor from his property across the applicant’s property towards Hingham Harbor.The proposed rebuilt garage would intrude slightly into this view corridor.The Applicant’s representative noted that landscaping on the property was modified from the original plan to eliminate potential blocking of the view corridor.
Based on the discussion, the Applicants agreed to scale back the size of the storage bay area and the first hearing was continued in order for new plans to be drawn.New plans were submitted on June 30, 2010 which shows the storage bay to be 8’ wide by 18’ long with a hip roof.
The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the possibility of the Applicant erecting a new garage in a location that would conform to all setback requirements, but recognized that the changes in topography, along with ledge outcroppings on the property constituted a hardship that made such a location impractical.The Board also determined that although the proposed garage is larger than the currently existing garage it will not encroach further into the side or rear yard setback than the existing garage and will not detract from the neighborhood nor will it impose on the abutting properties.The Board further finds that a literal enforcement of the minimum setback requirement would impose a hardship to the Applicant as a substantial amount of earth and ledge would have to be removed which would make the project cost prohibitive.Changes to the topography of the Applicants Property could also substantially cause drainage issue on the Applicants property and abutting properties.
FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Board voted unanimously to GRANT the VARIANCES. 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 existing conditions on the Property, specifically the location of the existing detached garage and the changes in topography, including ledge outcroppings, create a hardship in that there is no reasonable alternate placement for the proposed garage.The Board also determined that although the proposed detached garage and storage bay is larger than the currently existing garage it will not encroach further into the side or rear yard setbacks than the existing garage and will not detract from the neighborhood nor will it impose on the abutting properties.The Board further finds that a literal enforcement of the minimum setback requirement would impose substantial hardship to the Applicant as a substantial amount of earth and ledge would have to be removed along with possible draining issues make the project cost prohibitive.
The Board further determined that the requested Variances might be granted without detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Zoning By-Law.
The Variances are granted subject the following condition:
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
July 28, 2010