An application was received from Duncan MacArthur, requesting permission for a curb cut at the premises numbered 52 Standish Street; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. Response has been received from the neighborhood association with questions that have been answered by the applicant with notification to the neighborhood association. CHARTER EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR NOLAN IN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2022

September 21st, 2022 Dear Councilors, We are writing today as Officers of the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, the recognized neighborhood association for West Cambridge. This letter is in regards to a curb cut request by the MacArthur Construction Company for their recently purchased property at 52 Standish Street. Before indicating approval or disapproval for this project, there are several questions for which we would like to have more information. Our questions are as follows: 1) Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance states that lighting shall be provided to properly illuminate parking areas. What will be done to satisfy this requirement, while also minimizing light trespass towards the neighboring properties? 2) Article 6 also specifies requirements for the screening of parking areas. The application shows only a plan view of the curb cut and driveway, but says nothing about the plans for screening. Can the applicant provide more details regarding their intentions as relates to screening? 3) Flooding, both surface and sub-surface, is a major concern in our neighborhood, and the abutting foundation at 56 Standish Street is located only a few feet away from the proposed driveway. Beyond using porous paving, what else does the applicant propose in order to control runoff from paved areas? 4) As a part of the just-begun renovation efforts at 52 Standish Street, the developer recently installed new storm water and sewer lines to the street. This required excavation within the public way, resulting in Standish Street being closed to through traffic, including City garbage trucks, for over a week. These closures were not announced in advance to the neighborhood, nor was a police detail ever present to redirect traffic. Now that the street has been reopened and the excavations covered with steel plates, what assurances does the community have that street closures will be announced in advance in the future? Also, will the developer pay for a full-width repaving of the excavated section of roadway, or will the neighborhood now be forced to deal with steel road plates and potholes forever?

5) Since the applicant also owns 201.5 Lakeview Avenue, a landlocked property now under construction immediately to the rear of 52 Standish Street, conversion of the driveway at 52 Standish Street into an access corridor for 201.5 Lakeview would eliminate any potential parking benefits of the curb cut to the Standish Street neighborhood, as well as increase car noise to the immediate abutters at all times of the day. As such, we would request that the applicant be clear and honest with all concerned parties regarding his true intentions for this curb cut. In short, what are the applicant’s long-term intentions as relates to a potential driveway easement servicing the rear parcel? 6) And regarding the matter of concerned parties itself, under state law “Parties in Interest” to be notified in matters related to land use include “owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the petitioner.” Rather than using this higher standard of public engagement, the applicant instead chose to restrict his notifications to the much narrower definition of abutters used in the Cambridge curb cut guidelines, meaning that few if any neighbors were informed of his plans. This has been a continuing issue with this applicant. Going forward, we would ask that he explain how he intends to better inform neighbors of his intentions. 7) Finally, we would also note that this proposal received a letter of disapproval from abutters on both sides of the property. It is a general policy of the FPRA to support the amicable settlement of disputes and disagreements among neighbors. As such, we believe that the applicant must negotiate further with his abutters in order to reach an agreement on the matter, and that unless the applicant and his neighbors are able to amicably resolve their current differences, that you as the governing authority should deny approval of this proposal. Thank you for your time and attention in this important matter. Sincerely, Ann Sweeney Mike Nakagawa Doug Brown Officers, Fresh Pond Residents Alliance