COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
in the matter of
224 SYLVIA STREET
ARLINGTON, MA
KATHLEEN AND GEORGE MCNEIL
Petitioners.
0DOCKET NO. 3182
PETITION FOR A VARIANCE
HEARING DATE: JULY 9, 2002
DECISION: AUGUST 15, 2002
DECISION OF THE BOARD
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Joseph F. Tulimieri, Chair
Susan McShane, Esquire
Steven Reynolds, Esquire
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Petitioners are Kathleen and George McNeil, the owners of certain land and buildings, referred to as 224 Sylvia Street, Arlington, MA (“the Premises”). The “ Premises is a single family, residential structure located in a Residence (R-l) zoning district. The Petitioners’ request is for the issuance of a variance in order to construct a wrap-around porch extending slightly into the front yard setback. The structure presently is in compliance with Section 6.00 Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations.
Proper statutory notice was given and a public hearing was held in the Hearing Room, located on the second floor of the Robbins Town Hall, 730 Massachusetts Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts on Tuesday, July 9, 2002 at 7:45 P.M.
Submissions were presented to the Board for its consideration, as tbllows:
1. Application for a Variance, executed by the Petitioner and received by the Town Clerk’s Office on June 13, 2002.
2. Building drawings, all dated May 13, 2002, prepared by Curtis Morgan, Morgan Construction Services consisting of the existing and proposed plot Plan, pier location plan, floor plan, framing elevations, roof plan, front and Side elevations.
3. Memorandum, dated July 5, 2002, from Alan McClennen, Jr. Secretary Ex-Officio of the Arlington Redevelopment Board.
The Petitioners seek to construct a one-story covered porch on the front and the left elevations of a single-family structure. A portion of the porch extends slightly into the front yard and hence a variance is required. The Petitioners indicated that the porch was required in order to provide front door access for their disabled, wheel chair bound adult child. Petitioners stated that the lot upon which their home was built has an irregular shape which results in the slight front yard setback encroachment. Petitioners also stated
• that without the porch, the wheelchair bound adult child does not have access to the front of their home or to the front door. Further, the Petitioner indicated that the proposed porch would be in harmony with the neighborhood.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
In order to qualify for the relief sought, the Petitioner is required to demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction that it meets all three (3) of the following criteria as provided for in Section 10 of The Zoning Act (MGL Chapter 40A):
1. Owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or structures, and especially affecting the land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which the property is located;
This lot is generally rectangular in shape with a flat topography and slightly larger than abutting lots. However, the front lot line follows the curve of Sylvia Street and it is this curvature which causes the straight edge of the proposed porch to extend into the curving edge of the front yard setback. Consequently, one of the circumstances, effecting the proposed porch structure is the shape of the lot. As noted in the above-cited Memorandum, the proposed porch could not be modified without negatively impacting the design or utility of the porch. That is, if modified to eliminate the front yard setback encroachment, the porch would not serve the needs of a wheelchair-bound person.
2. a literal enforcement of the bylaw would result in substantial hardship, financial or otherwise;
Without the proposed porch, the Petitioners wheelchair-bound child cannot have the use of the front of the house nor access to the front door. The lack of enjoyment of being able to view activity in the front of the house and to have access to the front door constitute a substantial hardship. Also, the literal enforcement of the By-law would limit the depth of the porch in the front of the building to such an extent that it would be unpleasant from a design perspective, would render the space unusable and places an undue hardship on the Petitioners.
3. relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the Bylaw.
As indicated on the plans, the proposed porch is almost completely outside the front yard setback and does not encroach into the sideyard setback at all. In addition, the porch will provide frill enjoyment of the Petitioners’ property, but cannot be categorized -- on the other hand -- as a detriment to the abutting properties. Clearly, the granting of a variance in this case will not substantially derogate from the intent or purpose of the By-law.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board opines and finds that the three (3) criteria which must be met in order to grant a variance have been satisfied by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Board, by unanimous vote, grants the Petitioner’s request for a variance and imposes the following conditions:
· The proposed improvements shall be installed in accordance with the plans, dated May 13, 2002, submitted to the Board.
· The rights granted herein shall be exercised within one (1) year of the date of this decision.
The Board herein makes a detailed record of its findings relative to this decision; sets forth the reason for its decision and findings; directs that this decision and record be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Redevelopment Board, and shall be a public record; and that notice of this decision shall be given forthwith to each party in interest. Appeals of this Decision, if any, may be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Zoning Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 48) and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of such decision in the Office of the Town Clerk.
By the Board,
Joseph Tulimieri
Susan M. McShane, Esquire
Steven Reynolds, Esquire
| 
