26 Winter Street Statement of HardshipStatement of Hardship for 26 Winter Street
26 Winter St - R2 zone
Parking Requirements
Petitioners:
North of Common, LLC - operated by Shelby Soloff and Jeremy Schwartz
The petitioners, North of Common, LLC, are seeking:
1) Relief from Section 5.1.8 to provide fewer parking spaces than required
2) Relief from Section 5.1.6(2) to allow parking spaces less than 2’ from the property line
3) Variance from Section 5.1.5(6.b) to allow a driveway entry less than the minimum width
required
____________________________________________________________________________
The petitioners respectfully request Variance and Relief from parking regulations in Section 5.1
as meeting the regulations stated therein would significantly alter the nature and character of
the existing property that is on the National Register of Historic Places and would cause
detrimental effects to the neighborhood by requiring the removal of tall hedges and mature trees
along Winter St.
The only means to provide for all 12 required spaces would be to convert the existing landscape
of the southern portion of the property into a 9 vehicle parking lot adjacent to Winter St. with the
remaining 3 vehicles parked in the existing spaces along Oliver St. Such a lot would require
removing significant tall hedges and mature trees along Winter St. in addition to others within
the property that would negatively impact the streetscape of the neighborhood. As such, the
petitioners have a hardship in meeting the number of parking spaces required in Section 5.1.8.
The existing condition for the entry to the parking space(s) on Oliver St. north of the garage is
less than 2’ from the property line due to the existing building footprint and the entrance to the
building that requires a landing and stair to grade. As the building footprint and entrance to the
building are remaining, there is no additional space available to alter the existing condition to
provide 2’ from the property line for the parking space(s). As such, the petitioners have a
hardship in meeting the 2’ minimum distance from the property line as required in Section
5.1.6(2).
The existing condition for the entry to the thru-drive on Oliver St. is between 2 existing
structures, one of which is the building at 26 Winter St and the other is 2 Oliver St. The space
between the 2 existing structures is over 12’-0” but the existing drive lane is approximately
11’-2”. It would be a significant expense to demolish and rebuild the wall of the property along
the drive to increase the drive lane by 10”. The cost would make the venture unaffordable and
as such is a hardship for the petitioners to meet the 12’-0” minimum width required in Section
5.1.5(6.b).