Applicant withdraws variance request for second driveway at 355 Appleton Street after board finds no unique hardship

MD Riaz Mohammed withdrew his request for a variance to add a second front-yard driveway at 355 Appleton Street after members of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals said they could not find the first of four statutory variance criteria was met.

Mohammed told the board he and his wife, Disha Jahan, sought a second driveway because the home's existing basement-access driveway is narrow, steep and difficult to use in winter. "Both me and my wife has herniated ticks and we have back pain," Mohammed said, explaining why maintaining the downhill driveway is hard for them and why they sought a level parking space at the front of their lot.

Board members questioned whether the property's condition — a two-foot drop from the street to the base of the driveway, created when the house and basement garage were constructed — qualifies as a topography-based hardship unique to the lot or district. "A two foot drop doesn't seem that extreme," said Member Patrick Hanlon, and several other members said similar basement-driveway conditions are common in Arlington and across the zoning district.

Members suggested alternatives for the applicant to consider before seeking zoning relief, such as reconfiguring or removing the existing driveway and returning that area to permeable open space, changing the curb cut to a wider but level flat area that leads to legal parking, adding a safety mirror to improve sight lines, and pursuing utility or street-tree removal through separate town procedures. Neighbor Steve Moore told the board that adding a second driveway near the curve on Appleton Street would worsen an existing safety problem and urged permeable surfacing if changes are made.

After a straw poll the board concluded it could not find that the property met the first variance test (relating to soil, shape or topography) and the chair offered the applicant the option to withdraw or proceed to a denial that would bar refiling the same variance for two years. Mohammed asked to withdraw the application. The board moved to accept the withdrawal and, by roll call, all full members voted yes.

The chair encouraged the applicant to pursue design solutions outside the variance path and suggested contacting the select board or town manager about street-tree or pole relocation procedures. The withdrawal means the board will not issue a denial and the applicant retains the option to return with a revised proposal.