Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway And Impervious Surface topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks second driveway at corner lot on Heath Road; ZBA closes hearing to draft decision
Summary
Property owner requested a second driveway (9 ft x 38 ft) at 25–27 Heath Road; town staff said engineering flagged no water‑mitigation issue for under 350 sq ft of impervious surface and recommended tree‑warden review. The ZBA closed the public hearing and will vote on a drafted decision July 14.
Mario Berlin Gary, who identified himself as the property owner of 25–27 Heath Road, asked the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals for a special permit to install a second driveway on this corner lot.
Mario described the proposal as a 9‑foot by 38‑foot driveway with a roughly 10– to 12‑foot curb cut on Heath Road; the existing driveway faces Hilton Street. "The most feasible space available is on the other side of the house ... it faces Heath Road with sufficient property to create the additional space," Mario said.
Staff and the applicant told the board that the town’s engineering division reviewed the plan and saw no need for additional water‑mitigation measures because the new impervious area would be below 350 square feet. Staff also summarized the town’s updated criteria for second driveways adopted at the 2025 town meeting (section 6110A2), which require the board to consider factors such as traffic volumes, sight lines, proximity to intersections, protected trees, and neighborhood character.
Board members and staff asked about potential conflicts with utility poles and whether a row of overgrown arborvitae would need removal; the applicant said the driveway location avoids poles but the hedges would be removed to preserve sight lines. Staff recommended a condition that the applicant coordinate with the tree warden to confirm whether any street trees are affected.
Resident Steve Moore asked what standards the ZBA now uses for a second driveway; staff summarized the new requirements at length and said the site’s dead‑end street location and limited traffic weighed in favor of the application.
The board voted to close the public hearing and directed staff to draft a written decision for the July 14 meeting. No final permit decision was made June 23.
