. . . On a wider note, granting a variance under these conditions . . . would tell us all that our zoning regulations are really only guidelines, to be followed when convenient and to be ignored, through variances, when not convenient . . .
I write in opposition to the variance request in case #9495 for 202 3rd Street. Bluntly put, there is no legal justification for granting the requested variance relief as enforcing the current zoning, zoning that has been in effect for years and on which numerous people have based home investment decisions, would not result in undue hardship to the proponent. Furthermore, the neighbors, who rely on the protections given them and their property by our zoning code, do not want this zoning relief to be granted and will suffer damages if it is granted against their will. This lack of undue hardship for the proponent and the neighbors' dependence on the current zoning to protect their interests makes it clear that this relief application should be denied.
As immediate abutters, the neighbors clearly have standing to both oppose this request at the BZA and to challenge any variance granted in court, but I hope it does not come to that. The desire of a property owner to convert a use in order to make more money does not rise to the level of requiring approval in the face of neighborhood opposition. Again, I must emphasize that there is simply no legal basis for approval. Also, as the neighbors point out, the proposed unit that a variance would permit would detract from their own bundle of property rights, in particular their expectations of privacy that they reasonably have under the current zoning. The proposed unit would also increase the burden of a 1996 access easement that was not planned to accommodate such a use, which further detracts from the neighbors' bundle of rights. The neighbors have invested in their property based on the reasonable expectation that their rights and their investment would be protected by the City's zoning laws and they should not have those rights and their investment in a home sacrificed because their neighbor wants to do something the zoning does not allow.
On a wider note, granting a variance under these conditions sends the wrong signal to everyone in Cambridge. It would tell us all that our zoning regulations are really only guidelines, to be followed when convenient and to be ignored, through variances, when not convenient. People, whether they be homeowners or business owners or investors, need to be able to depend on our laws to protect their rights and their investments. For a homeowner whose largest single investment is probably his or her house, the thought that the appropriate zoning could be ignored without good reason and take value from their investment is a chilling one. While there are times when a variance would be appropriate, especially in a dense city like Cambridge, when there is neighborhood opposition the BZA should only approve variances if there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so. In this case, there is no such compelling reason. Accordingly, the request for relief should be denied.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions you might have concerning my views on this issue.
Thank you very much for you attention to this matter.
Craig Kelley
6 Saint Gerard Terrace
Cambridge, MA 02140
617-354-8353