COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
in the matter of
MARK MCALLISTER and
RUTH M. MCALLISTER
RE: REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT
59 HAWTHORNE AVENUE
ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
DOCKET NO. 3180
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
Hearing: Tuesday, June 11, 2002
Decision: Tuesday, July 23, 2002
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Members present:
Joseph Tulimieri
Patrick D. Dignan
Susan M. McShane, Esquire
OPINION OF THE BOARD
The Applicants, Mark McAllister and Ruth M. McAllister appealed a Decision of the Inspector of Buildings, who refused to issue them a building permit to construct an addition to their single family residential dwelling located at 59 Hawthorne Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts, because the addition would increase the size of the building above 750 square feet, therefore, requiring a Special Permit from Section 6.08 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Statutory notice was given and a hearing was held at Arlington Town Hall, 730 Massachusetts Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts, on Tuesday evening, June 11, 2002.
The Applicants acquired title to their real estate on March 22 of 2002 by Deed recorded at Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds as instrument number 381 of March 22 of 2002 and will soon have two children with one child being approximately two years of age and another child due to be born shortly.
As a result, the Applicants are in need of additional living space for their growing family.
Appearing in behalf of the Applicants at the hearing was Attorney Robert J. Annese, and each of the Applicants was present at the hearing as well. No one appeared in opposition to the Special Permit application.
A Memorandum of Fact and Law was submitted to the Board by Attorney Annese and in addition, a Memorandum was received from the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Arlington Redevelopment Board from Alan McClennen, Jr., Secretary Ex Officio, dated June 7 of 2002, the substance of which was in favor of the Applicants’ requested zoning relief.
The Applicants submitted building plans with respect to their proposed construction, said plans consisting of plans A through 5 and plans S through 3 with Plan A-i consisting of a basement foundation plan, Plan A-2 consisting of a first floor plan, Plan A-3 consisting of a second floor plan, Plan A-4 consisting of elevations and Plan A-S depicting a typical building section with respect to the construction.
Plan S-1 consisted of a first floor framing plan, Plan S-2 consisted of a second floor framing plan and S-3 consisted of an attic floor framing plan.
Plan A-4, i.e., the elevation plan depicts a future deck at the subject real estate. At the time of the hearing the Applicants indicated that they were not pursuing relief with respect to a future deck with respect to their building plans, therefore, the Board will take no action in connection the issue of the future deck as depicted on Plan number A-4.
The subject real estate actually consists of two lots of land, one identified as Lot #72 on a “Plan of Lots in Arlington dated August, 1926 by C. H. Gannett, C.E.” and the other described as Lot #71 on the same plan.
Lot #72 contains 4,726 square feet of land and Lot #71 contains 4,543 square feet of land.
Applicants’ construction plans depict a new addition to the left side of their existing home which will consist of a family room and a living room on the first floor of the addition, and a master bedroom with a home office on the second floor of the addition.
The new addition will be in excess of 750 square feet with the additional square feet being 1,610 square feet, therefore, a Special Permit is required in accordance with the provisions of 6.08 of the Zoning Bylaw, i.e., permission to construct a large addition in an R-1 zone.
Applicants’ construction plans will comply with the provisions of the Zoning bylaw in that the combined lots have 110 feet of frontage while the Zoning Bylaw requires 60 feet of frontage, the front yard setback will be 20.8 feet while the Zoning bylaw requires 25 feet, (the front yard setback is non-conforming), the left side yard is well in excess of 10 feet, and the right side yard is 14.8 feet while the Zoning Bylaw side yard requirement is 10 feet.
In addition, the rear yard setback will be 25 feet and the minimum rear yard setback as contained within the Zoning Bylaw is 20 feet.
The height of the structure will be 2 1/2 stories, in compliance with the requirement of the Zoning Bylaw.
Both of the lots combined contain well in excess of the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size requirement.
The provisions of Section 6.08 of the Zoning Bylaw provide that no addition shall be permitted to an existing structure in an R1 district which increases the size of a building by 750 square feet or more of the gross floor area or by 50% or more of the original building’s gross floor area, unless there is a finding by the Special Permit granting authority acting pursuant to Section 10.11 of the Zoning Bylaw that the addition is in harmony with other structures and uses in the vicinity of the structure.
In addition, in making its determination the Zoning Board shall assess, among other relevant facts, the dimensions and setbacks of the proposed alteration or addition in relation to abutting structures and uses in determining its conformity to the purposes set forth in Article 1, Section 1.03 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Section 10.11 of the Zoning Bylaw provides that the Zoning Board must make specific findings in connection with any grant of a Special Permit with due regard to the nature and condition of all adjacent structures and uses in the district within which the property is located, and must find that the following general conditions are fulfilled with respect to the Special Permit Application:
a. 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 this Bylaw.
b. The requested use is essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
c. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety.
d. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or 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.
e. Any special regulations for the use, set forth in Article 11, are fulfilled.
f. 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.
g. The requested use will not, by its addition to a neighborhood, cause an excess of the particular use that could be detrimental to the character of said neighborhood.
Applicants suggest to the members of the Zoning Board that the proposed addition is in harmony with both the district in which their home is located, as well as structures abutting their home, and they also suggest to the Board that the requested addition to their home will not impair the integrity or character of the district, or adjoining districts, nor be detrimental to the health, morals, or welfare of abutting homeowners and/or other residential structures within the zoning district in which their home is located.
The Memorandum of the Arlington Redevelopment Board states the following, “The design of the addition is unremarkable and in keeping with the design of the existing structure. The addition is proposed for the left side of the house. The Board should be able to find that the resulting structure is in harmony with other structures and uses in the neighborhood.”
After consideration of the material submitted to the Board at the Hearing, including the Applicants’ construction plans, their plot plan and the oral argument of counsel for the Applicants and in consideration of the substance of the Memorandum of the Arlington Redevelopment Board mentioned previously, the Board finds that the proposed addition is in harmony with both the district in which Applicants’ home is located as well as structures abutting their home and the Board also finds that the requested addition to Applicants’ home will not impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining districts nor be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of abutting home owners and/or other residential structures within the zoning district in which their home is located. The Board finds that the
provisions of Section 6.08 and 10.11 of the Zoning Bylaw are satisfied in full with respect to the Applicants’ request for Special Permit.
For all of the above reasons, Board voted unanimously to grant the Applicants’ Application for Special Permit for the construction of the addition to their home requested in their Application for Special Permit.
The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its proceedings relative to this Appeal; sets forth the reasons for its decision and findings; directs that this record be filed in the office of the Redevelopment Board and in the office of Town Clerk and shall be a public record; and that notice of this Decision be made forthwith to each party in interest. Appeals to this Decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Zoning Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A), and shall be filed within twenty (20) days after the date of filing of such Decision in the Office of the Town Clerk.
Joseph Tulimieri
Patrick D. Dignan
Susan M. McShane, Esquire
| 
