View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version



Applicant/Owner: Paul Devine
76 Kimball Beach Road
Hingham, MA 02043

Premises: 76 Kimball Beach Road, Hingham, MA 02043

Title Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 26185, Page 322

Plan References: Plan entitled, "Plot Plan of Land," prepared by Perkins Engineering, Inc., 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA, dated June 17, 2016 and an architectural plan set entitled, "76 Kimball Beach Road, Hingham, MA," prepared by Aprea RJD Architectural Designs, Norfolk, MA, dated June 10, 2016, Sheets A-1 - A-3


This matter came before the Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") on the application of Paul Devine (the "Applicant") for a Variance from § IV-A of the Zoning By-Law (the "By-Law") and such other relief as necessary to reconstruct and extend an existing attached garage within an area under an existing overhang, resulting in a 1.7’ side yard setback where 15’ is required at 76 Kimball Beach Road in Residence District A.

A public hearing was duly noticed and held on August 17, 2016 at Hingham Town Hall, 210 Central Street. The Board panel consisted of its regular members Joseph W. Freeman, Chairman, and Robyn S. Maguire, and associate member Michael Mercurio. The Applicant appeared to present the application. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted unanimously to grant the requested relief from the side yard setback requirements 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.


The subject property contains 8,292 SF of land located on the southerly side of Kimball Beach Road. The lot has an unusual, trapezoid-like shape. The property is improved by a nonconforming single-family dwelling and an attached garage. The second floor of the residence cantilevers over the first floor and the shed-style roof of the garage similarly overhangs the first level. While the garage foundation is set back a minimum of 3.4' from the southerly side yard, the existing second story overhang is located 1.7' from this property line.

The Applicant plans to replace the existing, undersized garage with a larger single-car garage. The proposed construction would extend the existing garage footprint both forward and under the area presently occupied by its overhanging shed-style roof line. The proposed extension would result in a 384 SF addition. Additionally, the architectural design of the garage would be made more consistent with the style of the residence. Specifically, the shed style roof would be replaced with a 8/12 sloped roof with the gable end facing the southerly property line.

Pursuant to Section III-I, 2. of the By-Law, the so-called Hatfield Amendment, the attached garage may be extended by right within 3.4' of the side property line. As a result, only a small triangular portion of the proposed construction in the area under the existing garage's shed-style roof overhang requires relief.

During the hearing, a direct abutter to the property expressed support for the proposed project. No one else appeared to comment.


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, which has an unusual, trapezoid-like shape, is improved by a nonconforming single-family dwelling (ca. 1927) and an attached garage. The existing garage includes a shed-style roof design that overhangs the first floor by approximately 1.7'. The garage foundation and overhang are respectively set back 3.4' and 1.7' from the southerly side property line. 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 and existing improvements on the lot limit by-right location of a functional accessory structure. Absent relief, the Applicant would be prohibited from making an improvement to the property intended to improve both the functionality and appearance of the single-family dwelling and attached accessory structure in a manner is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The hardship demonstrated is appropriate for dimensional variances, particularly where a dimensional nonconformity presently exists.

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 in terms of noise, traffic, or other negative impacts, and there will be no harm to the public good resulting from the proposed garage extension.

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 attached garage. The resulting incursion beyond that permitted by the right under Section III-I, 2 of the By-Law is de minimis. Relief will permit construction of a functional single-car garage, 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.


Upon a motion made by Michael Mercurio and seconded by Robyn S. Maguire, the Board voted unanimously to GRANT the requested Variance from § IV-A of the By-Law to reconstruct and extend an existing attached garage within an area under an existing overhang, resulting in a 1.7’ side yard setback where 15’ is required at 76 Kimball Beach Road in Residence District A.

The Variance is granted subject 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.

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,

Joseph W. Freeman, Chairman
August 19, 2016