Board of Zoning Appeals
Councilor Kelley's Opposition to Continued Case #9703
Dear Board of Zoning Appeals Members:
I write in opposition to Continued Case #9703, a variance request for 307-313 Cambridge Street. As I understand it, having attended a meeting of the East Cambridge Planning Team on this subject, the variance request is to allow an extension of the building in the rear of the lot. This extension would include a basement and a ground level floor, increasing the FAR considerably and resulting in a building that, if ECPT members have their numbers right (the proponent had no readily available FAR numbers at the meeting) would exceed the allowable FAR by about 50%.
I have been to many ECPT meetings over the years and I have found this group of Cambridge residents to be one of the most level-headed, reasonable groups of individuals I have ever encountered. They do not react to proposals in a knee-jerk oppositional fashion and, in fact, have often supported projects that would be considered gargantuan in other parts of Cambridge. That the ECPT was so solidly and so strongly against this proposal says more about the application's lack of substance than I could properly say myself. However, I will try to summarize and note that members of the ECPT expressed concern that:
The adjacent church, and especially its stained glass windows, might get damaged by the proposal's foundation work. Even if a bond were issued to compensate for any damage done, people worried that remuneration for any damage would not be spent on the church in an era of shrinking dioceses.
The property has been an eyesore in a variety of ways for years. Although the owner has made various attempts to rectify that problem, the consensus seemed to be that the efforts were too little, too late.
The proposal lacks the basic requirements of hardship for a variance. That the owner may make more money and expand business opportunities by expanding her property in excess of what the zoning allows seemed to many to give all, or at least most, of the benefit to her while passing the risk of damage to the church and overdevelopment onto the greater community.
The proposal would take away light from the church's Parish Hall.
The proponent's business plan on how this extra space would be used was vague and made little sense.
There was not adequate explanation of environmental issues that might impact the property, such as potentially contaminated groundwater.
The proponent did not have solid numbers to explain FAR increases and so forth.
The proponent's engineer could not adequately explain how the soil conditions, the depth to ledge, the strength of the walkway and other aspects of the project would mitigate damage to adjacent property.
If I have learned anything from the ECPT, it is that this is a group of people who do their homework and who look at all projects from a neutral perspective. A good project gets their support, other projects don't. This project did not get their support, nor does it get mine and I hope that the BZA will not approve the application.
Should you have any questions about this issue, please feel free to contact me at 354-8353 or via email at Craig@Craigkelley.org.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
Craig A. Kelley
Cambridge City Council
6 St. Gerard Terrace
Cambridge, MA 02140