Town of Arlington, MA - ZBA decision (Viewig, Cooperson) 05/08/2001

PETITION FOR VARIANCE OF

DONALD F. VIEWEG, JR. AND

DANA COOPERSON DOCKET NUMBER 3155

ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS

APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT AND

PETITION FOR VARIANCE

Hearing: May 8, 2001

Decision: May 8, 2001

OPINION OF THE BOARD

The Petitioners appealed the decision of the Inspector of Buildings who refused to issue them a building permit to construct a two story addition as well as rebuilding the front porch and entranceway of their home located at 12 Shawnee Road, Arlington.

The construction would require a Special Permit from Section 6.08, i.e., Large Addition in a Residential District, a Special Permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.02D - Extension of a non-conforming structure and a Variance in accordance with Section 6.00, Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations of the Arlington Zoning Bylaw.

Statutory notice was given and a hearing was held at Town Hall, Arlington on Tuesday evening, May 8,2001.

Appearing in behalf of the Petitioners at the hearing was Attorney Robert J. Annese as well as the Petitioners, Donald F. Vieweg, Jr. and his wife, Dana Cooperson.

A Memorandum of Fact and Law was submitted to the Board by Attorney Annese and construction plans were also submitted to the Board detailing the construction plans of the Petitioners, said plans drawn by Leslie Saul Associates, Incorporated, an architectural firm with offices at 1972 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140.

The construction plans consisted of a title sheet and drawing index, demolition plans, a floor plan for the basement at the structure, a floor plan for the first and second floors of the proposed addition, a wall section detail and elevations. Said plans were numbered A00 through A40.

In addition, a Memorandum was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Alan

McClennen, Jr., Secretary Ex-officio of the Planning Department/Redevelopment Board for the Town of Arlington, said Memorandum dated May 7,2001, the substance of which addressed the requested zoning relief with respect to Applicants’ construction plans.

No one appeared in opposition to the Application/Petition.

FINDING OF FACT AND DECISION OF THE BOARD

Petitioners acquired title to their single family home at 12 Shawnee Road, Arlington, on November 20 of 1997.

The lot consists of 5,224 square feet as shown on a plan of land in Arlington, prepared by Medford Engineering & Survey, dated October 26 of 2000, a copy of which was filed with the Application/Petition for zoning relief.

Petitioners’ house is located in a residential zone and is described on the aforementioned plan as a part of Lot 27 and part of Lots 2 and 3.

Petitioners propose to reconstruct the front entry and overhang in the front of their home, rebuilding the existing slab entry way and placing a roof over the slab.

The existing slab is seven feet wide by four feet deep and totals 28 square feet. The conforming standard in the Bylaw is 25 square feet. There will be no increase in square footage with respect to rebuilding the existing slab and placing a roof over the existing slab.

Petitioners’ structure is non-conforming by virtue of inadequate lot size, frontage and front and side yards.

There will be no extension of the slab porch into the front or side yards of Petitioners’ lot with regard to a reconstruction of the entranceway and roof overhang beyond the pre-existing non-conforming dimensions of the entranceway and porch/entranceway as shown on the plan of land prepared by Medford Engineering & Survey, dated October 26 of 2000 filed with Petitioners’ request for zoning relief.

The two story addition which Petitioners propose will take place to the rear of their home, replacing a wooden deck located at the rear of their home. There is a significant drop in slope to the rear of their home, therefore, the construction when completed will result in a three story house although the height of the construction will not exceed 35 feet taking into account the slope of the land upon which the structure is located.

Section 6.00, Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw provides that the maximum height for a single family detached dwelling in a residential zone is 35 feet.

Information furnished to the Board at the hearing indicates that there is an existing basement at the Petitioners’ home and that when one computes the slope differential from the front of Petitioners’ lot to the back of Petitioners’ lot, the basement is approximately 4 feet 6 inches above the averaged finish grade of the lot.

That calculation has been made by taking one-half of the height of the basement measured from finished floor to finished ceiling and that calculation demonstrates that the basement is in fact 4 feet 6 inches above the averaged finish grade of the lot. The aforementioned calculation was submitted to the Board at the time of the Zoning hearing.

As a result, Petitioners’ structure is presently a three story structure which does not exceed the height limit of 35 feet when one takes into account the drop in slope with respect to their property and the basement calculation mentioned previously.

Petitioners’ existing structure contains 1300 square feet and the additional space on the top floor will be used for a master bedroom and bath and on the first floor, the existing kitchen size will be enlarged and a dining room and a sunroom will be created.

Petitioners would use space in the bottom level of their home for office space. The total additional living space requested by Petitioners is 950 square feet and the need for the additional space arises because Petitioners’ home is quite small and they have two young children and expect the birth of a third child shortly.

In connection with Section 6.08, i.e., the large addition section of the Zoning Bylaw, it is the position of Petitioners that the proposed addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity of their home when the Zoning Board considers the dimensions and set backs of the proposed addition in relation to abutting structures and uses.

The provisions of Section 9.02, further Subsection D, would be satisfied because the Board can find and does find that the proposed addition will not cause the structure to violate the dimensional and density regulations of the District in which it is located.

Furthermore, the height of the structure will not change, i.e., will not be over the 35 foot height limitation contained in the Zoning Bylaw.

In addition, the Sections of 10.11 of the Zoning Bylaw are satisfied for the following reasons:

1. The use requested is listed in the Table of Use Regulations as a Special Permit in the District for which application is made or is so designated elsewhere in the Zoning Bylaw.

2. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare.

3. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety.

4. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage, sewer system or any other municipal system to such an extent that the requested use or any developed use in the immediate area or in any other area of the town will be unduly subjected to hazards affecting health, safety or the general welfare.

5. Any special regulations for the use, set forth in Article 11, are fulfilled.

6. The requested use will not impair the integrity or character of the District or adjoining Districts, nor be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare.

7. The requested use will not, by its addition to a neighborhood cause an excess of that particular use that could be detrimental to the character of said neighborhood.

With respect to the Variance request of Petitioners, the Board finds as follows:

1. Hardship relating to Petitioners’ land exists upon the facts presented in that there is a significant drop in slope to the rear of their home with the result that their lot is significantly different than other lots in their Zoning District. Petitioners’ lot drops four feet from the street to the rear of the rear lot line. It is the loss in elevation which lowers the average finished grade of the lot which causes the proposed addition to violate the Bylaw. (See Memorandum of the Planning Department/Redevelopment Board, dated May 7, 2001)

2. There would be no detriment to the public good if a Variance is granted to Petitioners with regard to their addition because the addition will be in keeping with other lots and structures within the Zoning District in which Petitioners’ property is located.

3. There will be no derogation from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw because the requested relief seeks to simply add an addition to Petitioners’ existing home and does not seek in any fashion to change the use of their home.

Following the hearing, the Board voted unanimously to grant Petitioners’ Petition for Special Permit and Application for Variance with construction to occur in accordance with the plans of Leslie Saul Associates, Incorporated mentioned previously and which are incorporated by reference into this Decision.

The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all of its proceedings relative to this appeal; sets forth the reasons for its decisions and findings; directs that this record be filed in the Town Clerk’s Office and shall be a public record; and that notice of this decision be made forthwith to each party in interest.

Appeal of this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Zoning Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A), shall be filed within twenty days after the date of filing of such decision in the office of the Town Clerk.