Planning Board favors multifamily zoning idea, but details of petition bear too many concerns (updated)

The general concept of citywide multifamily zoning for Cambridge got Planning Board support Tuesday, but not a specific zoning proposal that would allow for six-story buildings in all residential areas, among other changes. The board voted unanimously to send a memo detailing which aspects lacked full support.

“We strongly recommend that multifamily be allowed in all districts,” Mary Flynn, chair of the board, summarized after three hours of discussion, “but we are concerned about the framework of this particular petition.”

Cambridge zoning laws allow for single- and two-family zones, which are generally in western parts of the city. The proposal eliminates such zones, which city leaders have called “exclusionary zoning,” and introduces a citywide six-story height limit. 

The main concerns on Tuesday revolved around the loosened project review process, removal of setback requirements and the height of the buildings.

Along with Cambridge’s zoning board, the Planning Board is responsible for approving project review special permits with the goal of ensuring that construction is “consistent with the urban design objectives of the city.”

Currently, projects of more than 50,000 square feet require a project review special permit. The multifamily zoning proposal, would raise that threshold to 75,000 square feet, reducing the number of projects requiring a special permit.

Special-permit concerns

Multiple Planning Board members hesitated over the specific reduction of special permit requirements, saying they provide incentive for developers to pay attention to neighbors’ concerns during construction.

“If a developer is working with their neighbors and abutters and trying to hear their concerns and meet their needs, they won’t be sued,” board member Ashley Tan said.

“The worst thing that will happen is that we’ll get a project that’s awful, and then public sentiment will swing radically against it,” associate member Daniel Anderson said. “Then we’ll get a downzoning that will set housing production back. That is a foreseeable outcome. I think some form of special permit is a way to handle that.”

Theodore Cohen, who was first appointed to the board in 2007, reminded members of the lawsuits associated with special permit review processes that often delay the construction process.

“The project at St. James Church on Mass. Ave. was repeatedly sued and probably took a good 10 years from when it was first approved to when it was ultimately built,” Cohen said, noting that the city’s relatively new Affordable Housing Overlay zoning also exempts eligible developments from review. “I suspect that if a lot of the AHO units that have been built had required a special permit, they may not have been built. They would still be tied up in litigation.”

“It’s a difficult issue – I realize people don’t want to see certain things next to their houses, but I think that for many of the developments, there should not be a special permit,” Cohen said.

Six stories or “four-plus-two”

The current zoning proposal allows for six stories citywide as-of-right – meaning, six stories without special approval or stipulations. Another option that the Community Development Department explored was a “four-plus-two” plan, which allows for four stories as-of-right with an additional two stories allowed if the unit includes enough affordable units.

Community Development predicts that the six-story plan would create 4,880 units (1,630 of them affordable) by 2040, whereas the four-plus-two plan would create 4,475 units (1,490 affordable) in the same time. The board was split between supporting a six-story plan and a four-plus-two plan.

“The urban form section of Envision clearly supports the continuation of existing development patterns,” said Flynn, referring to a planning process called Envision Cambridge that ended in 2019 as the city’s “roadmap to the year 2030.” Flynn was more in favor of a four-plus-two plan.

“I appreciate the diversity of building types throughout the city. I think it’s really great,” Cohen said, arguing that having six-story buildings in lower density areas is not necessarily a negative.

Setbacks and tree canopy

Multiple members also expressed concern about the removal of setback requirements, along with the potential for decreasing the city’s tree canopy. Some members spoke in favor of a 5-foot side setback to allow for trash cans, bicycles and walkways.

Although the proposal would remove specific setback requirements, a 30 percent open space requirement remains. Some of the board wanted more details on how the proposal would affect green space.

“As the petition stands, it is in conflict with Envision Cambridge and the Urban Forest Master Plan’s aspirations for urban canopy cover,” member Mary Lydecker said. “I think it’s important to recognize how strategies can mitigate that. For example, maybe that tree canopy will not be on residential lots – well, then, it’s incumbent on the city to think about expanding public open space.”

The recommendation to the City Council eventually included a request for further analysis on canopy cover along with a mitigation approach.

Agreement on squares and corridors

Although this specific zoning proposal does not address increasing density in Cambridge’s squares and corridors – for example, Massachusetts Avenue – the board agreed that focusing on developing squares and corridors would be beneficial.

“I’d like to see height increase along corridors and squares. I’d like to see the opportunity for larger housing projects where we can easily make it happen,” Andersen said.

Tuesday’s hearing was the board’s last on the zoning proposal, unless it is refiled. The proposal will be next discussed by the Ordinance Committee on Jan. 7 and 16, after which the council will vote in February whether to adopt changes.

“We’re not elected, and the thoughtful neighbors need their elected officials to summarize the mood of their constituents and make decisions and inform the zoning from there,” member Tom Sieniewicz said. “It’s time for the city councilors to do what they’re elected to do, and good luck to them.”

This post was updated Dec. 22, 2024, with a new headline and first sentence meant to clarify the meaning of Planning Board actions.

A stronger

Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.

We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.

Please consider a recurring contribution.

Donate now