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:
Robert A. and Charlotte M. Visser
21 Huntley Road
Hingham MA 02043
Plymouth Registry District of the Land Court Certificate 47133, Book 235, Page 133
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals on the application of Robert A. and Charlotte M. Visser (“Applicants”) for front and side yard setback Variances from Section IV-A of the Zoning By-Law and such other relief as necessary to construct a 10-foot by 20-foot addition to the existing attached one-car garage at 21 Huntley Road, in Residence District B
A public hearing was duly noticed and held on May 20, 2010 hearing and deliberations were conducted by a panel consisting of Joseph M. Fisher, Chairman and W. Tod McGrath and Joseph W. Freeman.
The Applicants are the owners of the existing dwelling located at 21 Huntley Road. The size of the property totals approximately 10,000 square feet, and the property is non-conforming with the current Residence B minimum lot area requirement of 20,000 square feet.The lot was created around 1950.An existing single-car garage is located on the northwest side of the residence.
The Applicants’ proposal is to extend the existing garage 10-feet further to the northwest, extending approximately 3.1 feet into the side yard setback (20-feet in Residence B) and approximately 15.7 feet into the front yard setback on Huntley Road (35-feet in Residence B).The layout and size of the lot limit the practicable options for construction of the garage extension in compliance with the setback requirements.Ten feet is the minimum practical width for a single car garage, and the existing driveway already serves the existing garage structure, requiring only a minimal widening to accommodate the new garage bay.The Applicants’ plans indicate that the garage addition would be similar in style to the existing house and single-car garage and would have a similar roof line.
There is no practical location on the property to construct a single car garage that would be in compliance with setback requirements.The lot is a corner lot, located at the southwest corner of Huntley Road and Forest Lane; therefore there are two front yard setbacks on the property along both the Huntley Road and Forest Lane frontages.There is an existing cesspool and overflow pit located in the rear yard, which restrict construction of a single car garage structure in that location, due to the requirement to construct a Title V-compliant septic system upon a property transfer. The requirement for a septic leach field and reserve area would likely require use of much of the existing rear yard. Mature trees along the northwest property boundary and an existing deck to the rear of the existing garage further limit the placement of a single car garage in the rear yard.
A site plan submitted with the application (Hoyte Land Surveying, March 16, 2010) indicates that the existing residence extends into the front yard setbacks on the Huntley Road and Forest Lane.
Numerous abutters and neighbors expressed support for the proposal, both in writing and in person at the hearing.
After consideration of the Applicant’s proposal, together with the plans and diagrams submitted by the Applicant, and the support expressed by the abutters, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the existing conditions on the lot, specifically the small lot size in combination with the location of the existing cesspool and mature vegetation along with the location of the lot on a corner combine to create hardships with regard to the placement of the proposed garage addition.The combination of these factors is unique to the Applicant’s property, but such combined factors do not apply generally to the zoning district
The Board of Appeals further finds that because of the combined factors noted above, a literal enforcement of the minimum side yard and front yard setback requirement which would prevent the encroachment upon the side yard and front yard setbacks would impose substantial hardship to the Applicant.Construction of single car garage to the rear of the existing garage would entail additional construction costs for an extension of the driveway, and likely require removal of mature vegetation which presently screens the abutting property.
The Zoning Board of Appeals also finds that granting the requested Variances to allow the encroachment upon the side yard and front yard setbacks would not be substantially detrimental to the public good, nor substantially derogate from the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law.Numerous abutters supported the granting of the Variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals also finds that the proposed size, mass and design of the proposed garage addition is in keeping with the neighborhood, and is consistent with the nature and location of other garages in the neighborhood.
Therefore, based upon all of these factors, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the granting of the Variance would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law, and would not nullify or substantially derogate from the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-Law.
RULING AND DECISION:
Based upon the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals as set forth above, the Zoning Board of Appeals has voted unanimously to GRANT the Applicants the requested Variance from the side yard and front yard setback requirements as set forth in Section IV-A of the Zoning By-Law, with the following condition:
The Building Commissioner, as Zoning Enforcement Officer, shall determine if the garage addition is built in substantial conformity with the plans as submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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 Zoning Board of Appeals,
June 10, 2010Joseph W. Freeman