|
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Board of Appeals
NOTICE OF DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant and People's United Bank
Property Owner: 850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Applicant Joseph M. Antonellis
Representative: 288 Main Street
Milford, MA 01757
Premises: 13 Baker Hill Drive
aka Lot 45 Christine Hill Estates
Hingham, MA 02043
Deed Reference: Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 42762, Page 156
Plan Reference: Plan entitled, "Plot Plan in Hingham ,
Mass.," prepared by P.N Associates, Inc., 310 Oak Street, Shrewsbury,
MA, dated October 14, 2014
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter came before the Board of Appeals (the “Board”) on the
application from People's United Bank (the "Applicant") for an
Administrative Appeal of the Building Commissioner’s determination,
dated September 25, 2014, that the principal use on the lot is a Public
Utility Building/Pump Station and a single-family dwelling cannot be
an accessory use to the pump station nor can the pump station be an
accessory use to the single-family dwelling at 13 Baker Hill Drive in
Residence A. In the alternative, the Applicant requested a Use Variance
from the Hingham Zoning By-Law (the "By-Law") to allow two principal
uses on one lot.
The Board of Appeals heard the application at a duly advertised and
noticed public hearing on November 19, 2014. The hearing was continued
at the Applicant's request to February 23, 2015. This session was held
concurrently with a hearing on an application filed jointly by the
Applicant and Aquarion Water Company for a Special Permit A1 to maintain
a public utility building on the same Premises. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Applicant requested a withdrawal of the Variance
application and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Special
Permit A1 and Administrative Appeal.
The Board of Appeals panel consisted of its regular members W. Tod
McGrath, Chairman, Joseph M. Fisher and Joseph W. Freeman. During the
hearing, the Applicant was represented by Joseph Antonellis, Esq.
Throughout the public hearing and its deliberations the Board has
been mindful of the statements of the Applicant, their representative,
and comments of the general public, all as made or received at the
public hearing.
BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION
Lot 45 in the Baker Hill Subdivision consists of approximately
116,510 SF. It is an irregularly shaped lot, as are many of the lots
within the subdivision. The property is improved by a pump station that
is 20' x 30' in size. The By-Law allows "public utility buildings" by
Special Permit A1. Though the structure received a building permit in
2005, there is no evidence in Town records that the water company, as
owner of the public utility building, ever applied for or received the
required Special Permit.
In September 2014, the Applicant made an inquiry to the Building
Commissioner seeking a determination as to whether Lot 45 could be used
for the purpose of a single-family dwelling. The Commissioner issued
his determination on September 25, 2014 that a variance would be
required to locate a single-family dwelling on the lot since there is
already a principal use on the property. The determination also
indicated that a single-family dwelling could not be accessory to a
public utility building. The Building Commissioner's letter of
September 25, 2014 is the basis of the appeal.
The Applicant argues that the By-Law does not prohibit multiple principal uses on a single lot.
He noted that there are many examples of industrial and
business-zoned properties with multiple uses on a property. Even within
residential districts, it is not clear that otherwise allowed uses such
as agriculture, commercial breeders, riding stables, daycares, would
be prohibited if a single family home already existed on lot. It is the
Petitioner's position that by requiring a special permit, the By-Law
anticipates that a public utility building or structure can be
established on the same parcel as a dwelling. If the By-Law is read
otherwise, then any telephone/cable distribution center or other
utility structure would require its own lot of 20,000 - 40,000 SF in
residential districts, and potentially more in other zones.
The Board reviewed the By-Law and determined that there was no
prohibition against two principal uses of the Applicant’s lot, provided
that both uses were otherwise permissible. The Board noted that the
By-Law prohibits more than one dwelling on a single lot (Section IV-C,
4.), but the Applicant was not proposing multiple dwellings. A member
referenced the decision in Hooper v. Goddard, 1 LCR 122 (Mass. Land
Ct. 1993), where the Court had conducted a similar analysis of the
Zoning Bylaw for the Town of Manchester by the Sea, concluding that
there was “no prohibition in the Bylaw against having two principal
structures on a lot” associated with two permissible, principal uses.
The Board observed that a Special Permit is required for "public
utility buildings and structures" under Section III-A, 3.10, and that
the conditions associated with the issuance of such a Special Permit
might, or might not, impose restrictions on allowing a utility building
and a single-family dwelling to coexist on the same lot. Accordingly,
before proceeding further on the Applicant’s Appeal and/or Variance
requests, the Board turned to the Special Permit application that was
concurrently pending before the Board, voting unanimously to grant the
requested Special Permit A1 for the pump house. The Applicant then
requested a withdrawal of the variance without prejudice.
FINDINGS AND DECISION
Based on the information submitted and presented during the hearing, the Board made the following findings:
- Single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the Residence A zoning district.
- A public utility building is a use allowed by Special Permit A1
in the Residence A zoning district. The Board granted a Special Permit
A1 to maintain the exiting public utility building, consisting of a 20'
x 30' pump house, on the Premises on February 23, 2015.
- The Hingham Zoning By-Law does not prohibit more than one principal, permissible use at the premises.
- Construction of a single-family dwelling on the Premises is not
inconsistent with the terms or conditions of the Special Permit A1
issued for the public utility building.
Upon a motion made by Joseph Fisher and seconded by Joseph Freeman,
the Board of Appeals voted unanimously to accept the Applicant's
request to withdraw without prejudice the Variance application and
GRANT the Administrative Appeal such that a building permit may be
sought and issued for construction of a single-family dwelling on the
Premises.
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 M. Fisher
March 16, 2015
|