|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
 TOWN OF HINGHAM
Board of Appeals
NOTICE
OF DECISION
VARIANCE
IN THE MATTER OF:
Owner/Applicant: Matt
& Stacy Havens
5 Westview Circle
Hingham,
MA 02043
Premises: 5 Westview Circle, Hingham, MA
Deed Reference: Certificate of Title No. 96020
issued by the Plymouth County Registry District of the Land Court
Plan
References: Site Plan entitled, “Plan of Land,”
prepared by Hoyt Land Surveying, 1287 Washington Street, Weymouth, MA, dated November
13, 2014; and an architectural plans, entitled, "Proposed First Floor
Plan, Proposed Front Elevation, and Proposed Side Elevation," prepared by
Reisen Design Associates, 32R Essex Street, Cambridge, MA, dated May 20, 2015.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS:
This matter came before the Board of Appeals (the “Board”) on the
application of Matt and Stacy Havens (collectively,
the “Applicant”) for a Variance from § IV-A of the Zoning By-Law (the “By-Law”)
and such other relief as necessary to construct a portico resulting in a 19.4’
front yard setback where 25’ is required at 5 Westview Circle in Residence
District A.
A public hearing was duly noticed and held on July
20, 2016, at the Town Hall, 210 Central Street.
The Board of Appeals panel consisted of regular members Joseph W. Freeman,
Chairman, Robyn S. Maguire and Joseph M. Fisher. The Applicant appeared to present the request.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted unanimously to grant the
requested relief from the front yard setback requirement under § IV-A of the
By-Law, subject to the conditions contained herein.
Throughout its deliberations, the
Board has been mindful of the statements of the Applicant and the comments of
the general public, all as made or received at the public hearing.
BACKGROUND
The
subject property consists of approximately 20,000 SF located on the westerly
side of the Westview Circle cul-de-sac. The lot shape is affected by this
location such that the bulb of the cul-de-sac curves in toward the lot. The
remaining area is roughly shaped like a trapezoid. The property experiences
significant grade changes with an approximate 22' drop in elevation from the
front of the lot to its midpoint. A 20'-wide utility easement runs along the
southerly side property line.
The
property was previously improved by a single family dwelling (ca. 1973), which
is Garrison in style. As a result of this building design, the second story
cantilevers over the first by approximately 1.5'.
The
proposed plan would locate a portico (10'x5') over the existing front door and
partially under the cantilevered portion of the second story. The proposed
construction would result in a 19.4' front yard setback and a 50 SF incursion
where a maximum of 30 SF would be allowed by the projections exemption under
Section IV-C, 7. of the Zoning By-Law.
The
Petitioner represented to the Board that three of the five homes located on
Westview Circle have similar covered front porch entries.
FINDINGS
Based
upon the information submitted and received at the hearing, the Board has
determined that:
1.
Circumstances related to soil, shape, or topography especially
affect the land or structures in question: The lot shape is affected by its
location at the end of a cul-de-sac such that the roadway curves in toward the
lot. The remaining area is roughly shaped like a trapezoid. The property
experiences significant grade changes with an approximate 22' drop in elevation
from the front of the lot to its midpoint. A 20'-wide utility easement runs
along the southerly side property line. Finally, the property is previously
improved by a single family dwelling (ca. 1973), which is Garrison in style. As
a result of this building design, the second story cantilevers over the first
by approximately 1.5'. These circumstances in
combination do not generally affect the neighborhood.
2. The literal enforcement of the
By-Laws would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise. The lot shape, topography, and
existing improvements on the lot limit by-right location of an accessory
structure. Absent relief, the Applicant would be prohibited from making an
improvement to the property intended to redirect water flow at the entryway in
a manner is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
3. A Variance may be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good.
The proposed project would be consistent in design with others in
the neighborhood. There will be no
adverse effects and there will be no harm to the public good resulting from the
proposed covered front porch.
4.
A
Variance may be granted without nullifying or substantially derogating from the
intent or purposes of the By-Law. The
resulting structure would be located partially under an existing cantilevered
portion of the single family dwelling. The resulting incursion beyond that
permitted by the projections exemption under Section IV-C, 7. of the By-Law is
de minimis. Relief will permit
construction of a portico, which is an allowed accessory structure in
residential districts. The granting of a dimensional variance in this instance
is consistent with the purposes of the By-Law.
DECISION
Upon a motion made by
Joseph M. Fisher and seconded by Robyn S. Maguire, the Board voted unanimously
to GRANT the requested Variance from § IV-A of the By-Law to construct a
portico resulting in a 19.4’ front yard setback where 25’ is required at 5
Westview Circle in Residence District A, subject
to the following conditions:
1.The rights
authorized by this Variance shall expire one year from the date this Decision
is filed with the Town Clerk, unless exercised or extended in accordance with
the terms of M.G.L. c. 40A, § 10.
2. The Applicant
shall construct the Project in a manner consistent with the approved plans and
the representations made at the hearings before the Board.
This Decision 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 Town of Hingham
Board of Appeals,
________________________________
Joseph
W. Freeman
July
26, 2016
|