ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 3204
IN THE MATTER OF
53 HAWTHORNE AVENUE
ARLINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS
GREGORY PORFIDO & TATIANA WILCKE PETITIONERS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
INITIAL HEARING: MARCH 11, 2003
DECISION OF THE BOARD: APRIL 15,2003
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Joseph F. Tulimieri, Chairman
Susan M. McShane, Esq.
Patrick D. Dignan
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The applicants Gregory A. Porfido and Tatania Wilcke originally sought a variance and/or a Special Permit seeking to construct an addition to the existing dwelling located at 53 Hawthorne Avenue, Arlington, Massachusetts. The proposal would require either a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements as set forth in Section 6.00 Table of Dimensional and density regulations of the zoning by bylaw for the Town of Arlington or a Special Permit for a large addition in excess of 750 square feet as set forth in Section 6.08.
Statutory notice was given, publication was duly made and a public hearing was held on March 11,2003.
The following submissions were presented:
1. Plot plans prepared by surveyors and architects providing various locations for the proposed residential addition;
2. Photographs showing the site and neighboring properties;
3. Proposed plans for the addition;
4. Memorandum from Alan McClennen, Jr., setting forth the Planning Department's position regarding the application;
5. Memorandum in support of dimensional variance or special permit submitted by petitioners' counsel, Richard Keshian.
6. A petition signed by 9 neighbors and abutters supporting the proposal.
After the Chair opened the public hearing and the Board voted to waive the reading of the published hearing notice the applicant outlined the proposal to add a residential addition to an existing dwelling at 53 Hawthorne Avenue.
The land and buildings owned by the petitioners are at the comer of Hawthorne Avenue and a "paper street" so-called, known sometimes as Irwin Road and sometimes as Puritan Road (herein, Irwin Road). The lot has an area of about 5,487 square feet with a frontage of about 32.96 feet and 39.66 feet at Hawthorne Avenue and the intersection of the paper street. The line continues along the paper street for 68.08 feet.
The applicants outlined a case for the granting of a variance and/or a Special Permit.
The Board reviewed all of the submissions and testimony with the applicants and their Attorney. Without deciding on the necessity of a variance, which the applicants fairly established, the Board indicated that Irwin Road was a paper street with only one other abutter and with only a dead end at a public park, Robbins Farm. It is clear that Irwin Road would never be developed as a public way since it would not be in the public interest to have a public way extending some 90 feet from Hawthorne Avenue to the public park. No vehicular access to the paper street or to the public park would be in the public interest, although pedestrian traffic is welcomed along Irwin Road.
The applicants presented four separate and distinct plans for the location of the addition on the lot, all but one of them having considerable disadvantages. The one plan presented which is the most desirable and acceptable (and which is attached to this decision) calls for the addition to be built around the existing dwelling in the shape of an "L". This plan would leave the addition about 10 feet from the side line of the paper street.
The Board was extremely sensitive to the needs and desires of the petitioners and the neighbors and abutters who signed the petition, all of whom were shown the various options for the addition and all of whom enthusiastically endorsed the proposal which we have adopted, as well.
In view of the fact that the construction of the residential addition using any of the other schemes for the addition would turn out to be more detrimental to the neighborhood, it seems prudent to adopt the option which creates the most attractive and desirable result for all concerned. The less intrusive and more sensible location of the addition 10 feet from the sideline of the paper street leads the Board to conclude that the addition proposed by the petitioners will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, as previously stated, the Board specifically finds that the location of the residential addition in the form of the general footprint in the attached plan is the best possible solution for the petitioners and for the neighborhood. Accordingly, the Board assesses that the
dimensions and proposed setback of the addition in relationship to abutting structures and uses is entirely in conformity with the neighborhood and is the best possible result for the neighborhood.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The proposed addition as discussed in the Statement of the Proceedings is in harmony with other structures and uses in the neighborhood and the vicinity. The Board, as set forth above, has assessed and considered all relevant facts including dimensions and setbacks of the proposed addition in relation to abutting structures and uses and the Board has determined its conformity to the purposes set forth in Article 1, Section 1.03 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Accordingly, the Board grants the Special Permit for the construction of the addition in the approximate dimensions of the attached sketch, such addition to be no closer to the paper street side line than 10 feet, and imposes the following conditions;
1. The footprint location of the addition will be approximately as shown on the attached plan, but in no event closer than 10 feet to the property sideline to the paper street.
2. The petitioners will provide parking for two vehicles within the property lines of the dwelling as enlarged.
3. The petitioners will provide at least 700 square feet of open space.
The Board is of the opinion that all conditions required for the grant of the special permit for a large addition in accordance with the bylaw have been met. Therefore, the Board voted unanimously to grant the petition as requested.
The Board herein makes a detailed record of its findings relative to this decision; sets forth the reasons for its decision and findings; directs that this decision and record be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk and in the Office of the Redevelopment Board and shall be of public record; and that notice of the decision shall be given forthwith to each party in interest. Appeals of this decisions, if any, may be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Zoning Act (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A); and shall be filed within 20 days after the date of filing of such decision in the Office of Town Clerk.
By the Board:
Joseph F. Tulimieri, Chair
Patrick D. Dignan
Susan M. McShane, Esquire
| 
