A controversial zoning petition proposed by Cambridge resident Doug Brown looks unlikely to stand after meetings of Planning Board and Ordinance Committees. On July 14, the Planning Board’s five members voted unanimously to submit a negative recommendation for the petition back to the city council. A week later, the Ordinance Committee, which includes all city councillors, voted 7-2 to pass along a negative recommendation as well, with only councillors Tim Flaherty and Cathie Zusy voting against. The city council meets August 3, when it will likely officially reject the petition.
Some ideas reflected in Brown’s petition, like increasing setback requirements, are already being considered by council as a part of a slate of recommendations proposed in June by the Community Development Department. Many of Brown’s proposed restrictions, though, would institute new height maximums that significantly undercut the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), adopted in its first form in 2020, and the Multifamily Housing Ordinance (MFHO), passed last year.
At both meetings, Brown spoke about the motivations behind his petition. Brown said that he supported the idea of allowing multifamily housing in all residential districts but disagreed with the additional heights and relaxed design requirements laid out in the MFHO, which allow developers to build taller and closer to the lot line, including in areas that used to exclusively be single-family homes.
“I’m not proposing we go all the way back to what we had,” Brown said during the Ordinance Committee meeting. “I’m just introducing some sensible adjustments so that these buildings are a little more neighborly.”
But Planning Board members and councillors said Brown’s petition would have far-reaching effects on ongoing plans for new housing, which haven’t had enough time to come to fruition in the year-and-a-half since the MFHO was passed.
“My feeling about this petition is that it’s really too soon,” said Planning Board member Ted Cohen during last week’s meeting. “We have such a housing crisis that we can’t stand still, and this petition to me feels like a rollback.”
“Natural” Affordability
Brown’s petition, while almost certainly doomed, has nevertheless reinvigorated debate around the MFHO, causing many people to question whether the uptick in developer activity around the city in the 17 months since it was enacted will lead to more affordable units.
Opponents say the new rules incentivize the teardown of “naturally affordable” residential housing — alluding to apartment buildings that are older, have fewer units, and are owned by individuals or families rather than large property management companies. These are the types of buildings — according to opponents of the MFHO — most likely to be purchased by developers and converted into brand new (thus likely more expensive) units.
While the AHO, MFHO, and inclusionary zoning requirements for larger buildings provide incentives for developers to create Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for residents that make below 80 percent of the area’s median income, Brown and others are worried about the “missing middle” — residents that make too much to qualify for affordable housing, but not enough for the new market rate units.
But some councillors think reverting to more restrictive requirements will stifle overdue progress on upgrading the city’s housing stock.
“One of the issues with naturally occurring affordable housing, is that they’re typically older buildings, they’re typically apartments that are not up to current market rate standards, right?” Councillor Marc McGovern asked Brown during Tuesday’s meeting.
“I would have a hard time telling that to the four families that were evicted,” Brown shot back, in reference to plans for a project across the street from his home.
But easing the incentives for turnover could come at the expense of units in new projects as well. Sara Barcan, the executive director of affordable housing developer Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI), said Brown’s amendments would reduce the number of units slated in plans for one of its projects by two thirds. Because the profit margins on affordable units are smaller, new potential restrictions could affect the ability to get financing without the special allowance to build larger due to the AHO.
“The project would be completely infeasible,” Barcan said. “I urge the council to reject this petition.”
She also emphasized the demand for affordable units. She said HRI expects to receive 1,100 applications for a 29-unit project at 4 Mellen Street, slated to open in January.
Don’t say the P word
One of the biggest changes Brown proposes would be to re-institute on-site requirements for developers of new buildings, such as one parking space for every two units. In 2022, Cambridge became the first city in Massachusetts to abolish parking minimums in all areas of the city. As a result, plans for some large projects, including a 56-unit apartment building that has drawn significant anger from neighbors near Wyman Road, provide no on-site parking at all.
Finding a place to park has become increasingly difficult for holders of street passes. Without parking minimums, residents who live near single-family houses slated to become large apartment buildings have expressed worries during meetings about the scarcity of spots and overall street congestion as a result of these projects.
“Parking, it’s an issue. It’s the P-word,” Councillor Patty Nolan said.
Despite public pushback, councillors balked at the idea of bringing back parking minimums, saying the expense it poses to developers could hinder new projects. “We led on that,” Nolan said. “I’m not backing off on that.”
Councillors may be coalescing around a much different tack.
During the June 22 city council meeting, the Cambridge Department of Transportation unveiled a proposal to restrict residents of new buildings in areas close to transit from applying for a street parking permit. Because nearly all of Cambridge is in a “transit-rich” area, (being half a mile from a T stop or a quarter of a mile away from a bus stop), this would effectively freeze the maximum number of permits that can be issued.
Brown said this may not go over well with residents of new buildings who plan to bring their cars.
He said denying parking passes to tenants of new buildings is “probably going to be necessary, but it’s not really going to solve the problem. It’s just going to put the burden on new people,” including residents of new AHO buildings.
Changes to the city’s parking permit process would require the council to vote on new ordinance language. It is unclear whether that has been drafted yet, or if it will appear on council’s agenda for its August 3 summer meeting.
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.
Preventing residents of new buildings that lack off-street parking from getting parking permits is intended to reserve street parking for longtime residents, many of whom have driveways. And permits also allow parking in other parts of the city, a great convenience for people lucky enough to be eligible. The new residents aren’t here yet, so nobody has to worry about upsetting them while this proposal is considered.
It’s a great idea, if you believe the purpose of laws is not to promote equal rights and the greater good, but to hog public resources for politically connected people at the expense of the disadvantaged.
@L M N O, Somerville has had street permit restrictions like those described in this article since 2019, and it works out quite well.
Also, parking is not a right, it’s a privilege, so there’s no loss of equal rights. Rights don’t require paying for a permit, y’know?
Before construction of significant multi-unit housing, it often takes a couple years (or more) of expensive pro formas, purchase options, design, engineering, and public reviews before a project can anchor its place in the permitting process. But if Cambridge zoning is unstable — a steady stream of petitions, amendments, and counter-proposals (This! Not that! Yes! No! Charter right! Yes! No! …) — then developers and banks are discouraged from spending anything on the run-up process. New construction stalls out.
I have my own opinions on Cambridge zoning, but right now, my top advice for the Council is, Think hard, pick something, and stick with it. Zoning is a long-term plan, not an endless series of micro-battles.
Philip Dowds
Rights don’t require paying for a permit? ??? In Massachusetts, any two consenting unwed adults have the *right* to bond themselves in marriage. But a marriage license still costs $50.
Philip Dowds
The Planning Board voted 5–0 and the Ordinance Committee 7–2 against this petition for good reason. The MFHO is only 17 months old, barely enough time for projects to break ground, let alone to evaluate outcomes.
Rolling back height allowances now, before the pipeline it enabled has delivered units, isn’t a “sensible adjustment.” It’s preemptive sabotage.
Reinstating parking minimums under the guise of “neighborliness” also gets the priorities wrong. Cambridge was right to eliminate them in 2022. Every square foot devoted to parking is space not used for housing, and every unit lost to parking requirements intensifies competition for the remaining supply. When HRI says this petition would cut a project’s unit count by two-thirds, that translates directly into fewer homes for real people, not an abstract tradeoff.
Cambridge is in a housing crisis. This is the wrong moment to undermine one of the few policies that is beginning to expand supply.
Framing parking as “equal rights” or “the greater good” misses the reality that many people can’t afford cars at all. Parking requirements primarily benefit those wealthy enough to own one or more vehicles, while everyone else pays the cost through higher housing prices, more pollution, and less safe streets. What’s often presented as fairness is really a defense of convenience for a relatively privileged group, regardless of who bears the consequences.