After protest and some drama, Cambridge councillors advanced the first set of proposed revisions to the citywide multifamily housing zoning passed last year. The changes aim to preserve more open space, protect trees and discourage projects that use the new zoning to build much larger homes without adding many units.
The City Council’s Housing and Neighborhood and Long Term Planning committees voted at a joint meeting Wednesday to recommend that the full council consider changes that include larger setbacks between new buildings and property lines and an increase in required permeable open space from 15% to 20%.
The proposed changes respond to concerns that have emerged since the council passed the Multifamily Housing Ordinance (MFHO) in February 2025, eliminating single- and two-family-only zoning and allowing four-story multifamily buildings by right across the city’s residential neighborhoods, with six-story buildings under certain conditions.
Community Development Department officials stressed Wednesday they view the zoning overhaul as successful and are suggesting targeted adjustments.
“The ordinance is doing a lot of things right, but there are some impacts that can be addressed,” Assistant City Manager for Community Development Melissa Peters said. “The proposed amendments represent thoughtful incremental adjustments to expand housing supply, while also advancing other key city priorities, including climate resiliency, socioeconomic diversity and high-quality urban design.”
Less room to build
The proposed changes, which largely mirror those CDD first presented in June, would leave intact the ordinance’s four-story height limit for most multifamily projects and six-story limit for projects that meet the city’s inclusionary housing requirements, but give new buildings less room to spread across their lots.
Under CDD’s proposal, buildings would generally have to sit farther from their property lines. Setbacks on the sides of a building would have to sum to at least 15 feet, up from 10 feet, with at least five feet on either side. Front and rear setbacks would similarly have to sum to at least 25 feet, with at least five feet at either end.
The setback changes are intended to reserve more room for requirements such as stormwater infrastructure, electrical equipment, accessible entrances and tree protection. Officials said the relaxing of setback requirements in the MFHO had caused confusion among developers, who expected to be able to build out to the minimum setback line without considering other building code requirements.
“On these small sites, even just a few feet can make a big difference,” CDD Deputy Chief of Planning Jen Caira said. “So we’re not proposing dramatic increases in setbacks, but a little bit will help all of these things work together and fit better on site.”
The city also wants to discourage developers from replacing smaller homes with much larger ones without adding more units. One option would restrict buildings with especially large units to three stories; CDD is considering a cutoff of roughly 1,600 to 2,000 square feet per unit. The city could also require those projects to leave more open space around their buildings.
The issue has largely been limited to smaller developments, city data show. Nearly all one- and two-family home projects permitted since MFHO took effect averaged more than 1,600 square feet per unit. By contrast, none of the projects with 10 or more homes did.
Debate over affordable housing implications
After CDD’s presentation,Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem asked whether larger setbacks could discourage projects from crossing the threshold for Cambridge’s inclusionary housing requirements, which make 20% of units affordable for developments with at least 10 units or more than 10,000 square feet of residential space. “Won’t people who are already marginally building inclusionary housing, given how difficult it is in this financial environment, just build nine-unit buildings?” Azeem asked.
CDD officials acknowledged the setbacks could shrink some projects, particularly on smaller lots, but said their projection of 250 to 300 additional homes annually remains unchanged. Peters said the original estimate already assumed developers would leave part of the zoning envelope unused to accommodate stormwater infrastructure, utilities and other requirements.
Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler shared Azeem’s concern and proposed exempting inclusionary projects from the larger setbacks. “If this decreases the amount of affordable housing that’s getting built, I’m not interested in changes, full stop,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said.
Sobrinho-Wheeler then proposed an amendment to the policy order requiring that any proposed changes be “neutral or lead to a net increase in housing units compared to current zoning” and not “reduce the amount of affordable, inclusionary housing units that may be built under current zoning.”
Councillor Marc McGovern also pushed back on criticism that many projects enabled by MFHO are expensive market-rate housing, arguing they can still serve residents caught between subsidized housing and Cambridge’s multimillion-dollar single-family market.
“These are for people who make too much money for a subsidized unit but can’t afford a $4 million single-family home,” McGovern said. “That is the middle class of Cambridge.”
A last-minute voting scramble
Both committees passed Sobrinho-Wheeler’s amendment, though not unanimously. In the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, Zusy and Councilor Tim Flaherty opposed it. Zusy cast the only opposing vote in the Housing Committee (Flaherty is not on that committee). She argued that exempting larger inclusionary projects from the new setbacks would undermine the changes the policy order was intended to advance.
“I understand why you want to advantage projects with inclusionary units, right? Because we want to provide more inclusionary units,” Zusy said. “But I think at the same time, what we’re seeing are that those inclusionary projects often stuff very, very big buildings on very small sites, and they are problematic overall.” Projects mentioned included 194 Lakeview Avenue and 9 Wyman Road.
There was drama when the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee moved to vote on the broader policy order on setback changes. Azeem initially voted to advance the order with Sobrinho-Wheeler’s amendment, but after Zusy and Flaherty voted no, Azeem asked to change his from yes to no, which would have caused the policy order to fail.
Faced with that possibility, Zusy immediately reversed her own vote from no to yes. Although she strongly opposed Sobrinho-Wheeler’s amendment, she told Cambridge Day afterward that she switched because she did not want the entire effort to amend the MFHO to die.
“It would have killed the whole policy order, and I want to advance the policy order,” Zusy said. “We need to change this zoning as soon as possible.”
She described Sobrinho-Wheeler’s amendment as a “poison pill to the policy order,” but said she would rather see that version advance than leave the existing zoning untouched.
In the end when the clerk repeated the roll call, Azeem switched back to yes. The amended policy order thus advanced 4-1 from the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee, with Flaherty still opposed, and unanimously from the Housing Committee.
Some residents push for stronger changes
Before Wednesday’s hearing, residents who have pushed for changes to MFHO rallied outside City Hall, arguing the proposed amendments are a necessary response to unintended consequences of last year’s zoning overhaul.
“I’ve spoken to hundreds of Cambridge citizens about living in Cambridge and the multifamily housing ordinance,” said Sara Nelson, co-founder of CARE Housing, a group that advocates for “affordable, responsible and equal housing” while protecting the environment in Cambridge neighborhoods, said she’s spoken to hundreds of Cambridge residents and “I’ve not found a single person who does not want to increase affordable housing or disagrees that multifamily homes belong in all neighborhoods of Cambridge. We all share common goals.”
But, she continued, “While there are positive aspects [to the MFHO], it has a lot of rough edges, and those edges are starting to have negative consequences. It needs to be polished down to something that works for all of the citizens of Cambridge.”
Suzanne Blier, president of the Cambridge Citywide Coalition, formerly known as Cambridge Citizens Coalition, one of the leading groups pushing for changes to the MFHO, said after the hearing that she was encouraged that councilors such as Zusy and Flaherty were considering stronger amendments than CDD had proposed.
“I was pleased that there was negotiation,” Blier said. “I was really pleased that a number of people brought up the fact that we could go further.”
Blier opposed Sobrinho-Wheeler’s amendment, saying she already viewed the proposed changes as too modest and believed the amendment would weaken them further.
“I don’t think the policy order went far enough at the beginning,” Blier said. “We need real studies. We need real results, and work around those to create a policy that’s going to be good for the environment, good for housing and particularly affordability, so people can afford to live here.”
What happens next
Wednesday’s votes do not change Cambridge’s zoning. The committees instead recommended that the full City Council approve the amended policy order, which would direct city staff to draft the actual zoning changes.
The policy order is expected to go before the full council at its next regular meeting Sept. 28. If the council approves it, staff could then begin drafting the zoning amendments, which would have to go through a separate approval process before taking effect.
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.