Gordon Brummer, who owns 44 Dow Ave., appeared before the board that evening to explain what he has in mind. "We have a porch, a small porch in front of our house that's currently uncovered," he said. "We'd like to just kind of build a covering on that porch to prevent water from getting on our mail and packages, as well as preventing the sunlight from heating up the door. We've got two young kids, and in the afternoon it can get pretty hot because there's no shade." [1]

The board closed the public hearing unanimously and directed Vice Chair Patrick Hanlon to draft a written decision in favor of approval. A vote on that decision is scheduled for the board's next meeting, Tuesday, Aug. 11. [2][3]

Why a Special Permit Is Required

On a standard interior lot, covering an existing front stoop can often be done without board approval, provided the structure stays within the bylaw's size limits. The Brummers' situation is more complicated.

Under Arlington Zoning Bylaw Section 5.3.8, a corner lot must maintain front-yard setbacks on both street-facing sides — not just one. [4] In plain terms: 44 Dow Ave. sits on a corner lot — one side fronts Dow Avenue, the other abuts a paper street, a road that the town accepted at the original subdivision but that was never physically built. Because both sides legally count as street frontages, the town treats both as front yards, each requiring a 25-foot setback. [5]

Chair Christian Klein described the paper street situation as "rather interesting to note," explaining that because the town accepted the street at the original subdivision, the property technically qualifies as a corner lot even though no road was ever constructed there. [5]

The existing front steps and landing already sit within that setback. Section 5.3.9(D) of the bylaw states that any steps or landing already within the required setback cannot be covered, extended, or built upon except by special permit from the ZBA. [4] Klein called it "something the board often sees." [6]

Brummer acknowledged the geometry created the complication: "Because of that corner, it doesn't kind of fall under the category of something we can just do." [7]

What the Brummers Are Proposing

The proposed addition is modest in scale. The existing house has a mud room at the front entry; the Brummers want to extend the roofline forward over the top step, supported by brackets on the edges of the existing landing, with the sides left open. Klein summarized it this way after reviewing the drawings: "On the edge of the landing, we'll have posts and we'll see this open gable, and then on the sides it will just be open." Brummer confirmed that description. [8]

The contractor — whose name was not clearly captured in the meeting recording — explained that the overhang extends 3.5 feet and was deliberately sized to stay within the bylaw's 25-square-foot threshold. An earlier design had called for columns, but columns would have pushed the projection to four feet, exceeding that limit. The team scaled back to 3.5 feet and switched to brackets instead. [9][9]

The open gable will not extend beyond the footprint of the existing landing. [8] Other work underway at the property — connecting two gable dormers with a shed dormer on the front elevation and adding a rear window — does not require ZBA approval and was not before the board. [5]

Board Discussion

Board member Roger DuPont raised a question about a dimensional discrepancy in the application: the application listed the front yard depth as 21.1 feet, while the site plan showed measurements of 26.8 feet from one corner and 23.4 feet on an angle. [10] Klein resolved it: the 21.1-foot figure represents the distance from the front of the mud room to the property line, combining the 17.7-foot and 3.5-foot dimensions at a slight angle. DuPont said he "just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything of significance tucked away." Klein replied: "No." [10]

No members of the public attended or commented on the application. [11]

Board's Findings

Walking through the seven required findings under Bylaw Section 3.3.3 — the standard the board applies to all special permit applications — Klein concluded the project meets each one. [11]

The covered porch provides shelter to occupants entering the home and "creates a more welcoming front to the home for the neighborhood," Klein said, noting the feature is "very commonly seen in this neighborhood and also other places in town." [11] He found no traffic or pedestrian safety impact, no effect on public utilities, and no additional impervious surface. [12] On neighborhood character, Klein noted that covered porches "in most cases do appear to be within the front yard setback," making this application consistent with the surrounding district. [12]

"I think the board can find that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh the beneficial impacts to the resident and to the community in general," Klein said. No board members raised questions on the findings. [2]

The board voted 6-0 to close the public hearing. [3]

Administrative Items

The board handled three administrative matters before opening the Dow Avenue hearing.

July 14 meeting minutes were approved unanimously, 6-0. [13][13]

Docket 3905, 87 Grandview Road: The board voted 5-0 to approve the written decision granting a special permit for a large addition under Sections 5.4.2(B)(6) and 3.3.3 of the zoning bylaw. The decision was drafted by board member Adam LeBlanc. [13][14]

Chair signing authority: The board voted 6-0 — including associate member Nick Rosenberg — to authorize Klein to sign all written decisions on behalf of the full board. Klein described it as a practice the board has followed for several years to avoid having to collect individual signatures from each member. The authority expires when he leaves the chair role. [14][14]

Docket 3908, 15 Janet Road: A written decision drafted by Hanlon was approved unanimously at the end of the meeting after a brief delay — the wrong document had been distributed earlier in the evening. The corrected decision, distributed at 7:44 p.m., grants a special permit for an enclosed entrance and covered landing under Sections 5.3.9(A), 5.3.9(D), and 3.3.3 of the zoning bylaws. Hanlon noted that a 2024 special permit for the same property remains technically in effect and will lapse by October 2027 if unused; the two permits will coexist, which he described as legally acceptable even if "awkward." [13][15][16]

What's Next

The Aug. 11 meeting will be brief. Clerk Colleen Ralston confirmed no new cases are scheduled; the only business will be the vote on the 44 Dow Avenue written decision and a training session with town counsel on three recent changes to Massachusetts zoning law: new notification requirements, changes to vested rights for special permits, and an overhaul of the state's variance section — including a provision allowing use variances for residential uses in all communities. Town counsel had been scheduled to lead that training on July 28 but was unavailable; he will attend Aug. 11 and is preparing a memo on the changes in advance. [17][notebook:51][notebook:52]

Klein noted he will chair the Aug. 11 meeting remotely from Minneapolis. [18] Three new cases are expected on the Aug. 25 agenda. [notebook:53]