Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

July 8, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Meeting Minutes of the Cambridge Planning Board

Governing Body: Cambridge Planning Board Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Meeting Date: July 8th, 2025 Attendees:

  • Mary Flynn, Chair
  • H. Theodore Cohen
  • Mary Lydecker
  • Diego Macias
  • Ashley Tan
  • Carolyn Zern
  • Dan Anderson (Associate Member)
  • Joy Jackson (Associate Member)
  • Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department (CDD)
  • Megan Bayer, City Solicitor
  • Patrick Yerby, Tymon Davis and Duffy (representing Lubavitch of Cambridge)
  • Christopher Hall (representing Lubavitch of Cambridge)

Executive Summary: The Cambridge Planning Board convened on July 8th, 2025, for a regular meeting. The primary focus of the meeting was the continued public hearing on a zoning petition by Mujla Marrazzo et al. to amend sections of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance related to religious uses. The Board discussed the legal opinion provided by the City Solicitor regarding the Dover Amendment and RELUPA, heard additional comments from the petitioner, and received public input. After extensive deliberation, the Board voted to send comments to the City Council regarding the petition, without a positive or negative recommendation, highlighting planning concerns, particularly regarding intensity of use and the lack of public benefit for increased height, while acknowledging the legal complexities.

I. Community Development Department Update

  • Upcoming Meetings:
    • July 22nd: Primarily in-person meeting at 344 Broadway, 2nd-floor meeting room, with hybrid (Zoom-only remote) format.
      • Focus: Discussion of planning and zoning recommendations from the Massachusetts Avenue Planning Study and Our Cambridge Street Planning Study.
      • Goal: Bring zoning petitions for these areas to the City Council in the fall.
      • Expected: Review of some BZA cases.
    • August 5th: Remote (Zoom-only) public hearing.
      • Public hearing on a city zoning petition related to short-term rentals.
      • Design review for an affordable housing overlay development proposed at 28-30 Wendell Street.
    • August 19th: Scheduled meeting; agenda to be updated on the website.
  • City Council Updates:
    • City Council is on hiatus; next meeting is August 4th.
    • Two pending zoning petitions could be voted on at the August 4th meeting:
      • Biomed zoning petition (along Charles Street), which the Planning Board gave a positive recommendation.
      • The zoning petition discussed tonight (Mujla Marrazzo et al.).

II. Approval of Meeting Minutes

  • Motion: To accept the certified transcript for the meeting held on April 15th, 2025, as the meeting minutes.
  • Mover: Diego Macias
  • Seconder: Ted Cohen
  • Roll Call Vote:
    • Ted Cohen: Yes
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Mary Flynn: Yes
  • Outcome: Motion passed (6-0).

III. Continued Public Hearing: Zoning Petition by Mujla Marrazzo et al.

Petition Details: To amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in sections 5.2821, 8.22.1, 8.22.2, and Table 5.1 to:

  • Remove gross floor area and floor area ratio limitations for religious uses.
  • Permit conforming additions to non-conforming structures without limitation for religious uses.
  • Permit religious uses with the same dimensional limitations as residential uses, except that in a Residence C-1 District, permeable open space would not be required.
  • Buildings would be permitted up to six stories and 74 feet above grade without meeting inclusionary housing requirements.
  • Buildings taller than 35 feet and three stories above grade would not be required to notify neighbors and hold a meeting.

A. Overview and Update by CDD (Jeff Roberts):

  • This hearing was opened on May 20th.
  • The Board requested a legal opinion from the Law Department, which has since been provided.
  • The Ordinance Committee held a continued hearing on June 16th, referring the petition to the full City Council with no recommendation.
  • The City Council passed the petition to a second reading on June 30th, making it eligible for a final vote on August 4th.
  • The Ordinance Committee asked staff to look at potential modifications regarding open space, neighborhood notification, and clarifying language for inclusionary housing and height limitations.
  • The Planning Board's role is to consider the legal opinion, discuss the petition, and decide whether to transmit a report to the City Council.

B. Legal Opinion Update by City Solicitor (Megan Bayer):

  • The petition is separate from ongoing litigation involving Lubavitch of Cambridge.
  • State Law (Dover Amendment - M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 3):
    • Prohibits zoning ordinances from prohibiting religious and non-profit educational uses.
    • Allows municipalities to impose "reasonable dimensional regulations."
    • Cambridge's special legislation (1979) allowed restrictions in districts requiring 1,200 sq ft/dwelling unit.
    • Multifamily zoning eliminated lot area per dwelling unit in C-1 districts, rendering the special legislation inapplicable.
    • Updates to institutional use regulations are needed to reflect this change.
    • "Reasonable regulation" is determined case-by-case, considering whether it impedes usefulness, imposes excessive costs, or impairs character without significant municipal gain.
    • Example: Mormon temple steeple in Belmont exceeding height limits for religious purposes.
  • Federal Law (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - RLUPA):
    • Prohibits land use regulations that impose a "substantial burden" on religious exercise unless the government shows a "compelling government interest" and uses the "least restrictive means."
    • "Substantial burden" can include restricting facility size if more space is needed for religious practice.
    • "Compelling government interest" must relate to public health, safety, or welfare (e.g., traffic concerns, but denial of permit may not be least restrictive means if mitigation is possible).
    • Prohibits treating religious uses on "less than equal terms" than non-religious uses (e.g., allowing secular schools but not religious schools).
    • RLUPA claims can result in damages, attorney's fees, and invalidation of permits.
  • Takeaways:
    • This petition could limit potential city liability by putting religious uses on equal footing with residential uses.
    • With multifamily zoning allowing six stories for residential, it's harder to argue a compelling government purpose for more restrictive height limits on religious uses.
    • Even without this petition, religious uses could still build beyond current limits through case-by-case analysis and zoning relief.
    • If passed, a religious use might still seek relief for heights exceeding six stories (e.g., a steeple).

C. Questions for City Solicitor:

  • Ashley Tan: Inquired about the Ordinance Committee's request for staff to review changes to footnotes 1 and 37 (permeable open space, neighborhood notification, and inclusionary housing clarification).
    • Megan Bayer/Jeff Roberts: Confirmed the requests:
      • Adding non-binding neighborhood review (like multifamily zoning).
      • Adding permeable open space requirement (like multifamily zoning).
      • Clarifying that the inclusionary housing exemption for six stories would only apply to religious uses, not other mixed uses.
  • Ted Cohen: Asked about inclusionary housing requirements for non-residential uses in C-1 districts.
    • Jeff Roberts: Inclusionary housing applies to residential uses (10,000 sq ft or 10+ units). The confusion arises because C-1 allows six stories for residential if inclusionary housing is met. Clarification is needed to ensure this doesn't extend to non-residential uses or partially residential buildings without meeting inclusionary requirements.
  • Carolyn Zern:
    • Asked if there's a "religious space crisis" analogous to the housing crisis.
      • Megan Bayer/Jeff Roberts: Not aware of a general crisis; religious uses are distributed throughout the city.
    • Clarified that mitigating litigation risk means reducing case-by-case petitions, not necessarily mitigating discrimination.
      • Megan Bayer: Confirmed this, as it would reduce the need for religious institutions to seek zoning relief.
  • Dan Anderson: Asked about less restrictive means for mitigating height impacts (light, air, shadow).
    • Megan Bayer: If the city allows six stories for residential, it's harder to argue a compelling government interest in protecting light for abutting properties that would restrict religious uses to lower heights.
  • Ted Cohen: Asked what constitutes a "religious use" if a religious organization builds housing not restricted to its congregants.
    • Megan Bayer: Just because a religious institution builds something doesn't automatically make it a religious use under Dover or RELUPA. A case-by-case, fact-dependent analysis is needed to determine if it serves a religious purpose (e.g., housing for nuns vs. general housing).

D. Petitioner's Presentation (Patrick Yerby & Christopher Hall):

  • Christopher Hall: Summarized previous points and highlighted that the final zoning petition will likely not contain proposed amendments to footnotes 1 and 37, meaning religious uses would still abide by permeable open space requirements and non-binding neighborhood meetings.
  • Key Points from Petitioner:
    • The amendment applies only to religious uses, which have extra protection under RELUPA.
    • Cambridge's unique relationship with educational uses differs from religious uses.
    • Religious uses are spread throughout the city; new buildings are rare but have RELUPA/Dover protections.
    • The proposed amendment helps manage city liability and smooth the review process by putting religious uses on equal footing with residential uses.
    • The "intensity of use" argument (from public comments) is rejected; religious institutions do not necessarily have a more intense use than residential buildings, especially considering 24/7 occupancy of residential vs. periodic use of religious facilities.

E. Public Comment:

  • Deborah Epstein (36 Bank Street): Expressed concern about the City Solicitor consulting the petitioner's lawyer for legal interpretation. Questioned the city's legal expertise in RELUPA cases, suggesting the city is "without experienced legal representation." Argued that the city has more latitude than represented. Highlighted the "compelling government interest" of intensity of use, noting that institutional buildings can have 10x the occupancy of residential buildings of the same size (e.g., 2,000 people vs. 200).
  • Alan Joslin (36 Bank Street): Reiterated concerns about intensity of use, stating it was the original driver for limiting institutional development in residential neighborhoods. Emphasized the 10x occupancy difference between institutional and residential buildings. Warned against complacency, noting that the Chabad community owns over 10 properties that could undergo radical FAR changes if the amendment passes. Advocated for case-by-case review and zoning related to institutional development that is equal for religious and educational institutions.
  • Helen Walker (43 Linnean Street): Asked if the city is actively seeking a new basis for exemption from the Dover Amendment, beyond just updating regulations to reflect the loss of the previous exemption.
  • Heather Hoffman (213 Hurley Street): Corrected the City Solicitor's statement about the C1 district not being covered by the Dover Amendment exemption. Argued that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause is implicated, citing the Grendel-Den case. Stated that the proposal has a primary effect of advancing religion, which violates the Establishment Clause.
  • Marilee Meyer (10 Dana Street): Expressed resentment over the process, lack of due process, and perceived lack of communication with neighbors. Cited concerns about the petitioner's alleged pattern of using "subtle threats of lawsuits" and the city's deliberation being "based on fear." Questioned how a six-story building (when the original project was three stories) constitutes a "substantial burden," suggesting it's a "windfall." Noted the organization owns more than 10 properties and opposed citywide zoning changes.

F. Board Discussion:

  • Diego Macias: Followed up on intensity of use. Asked if passing the amendment removes the city's ability to use "compelling government interest" on a case-by-case basis to limit occupancy.
    • Megan Bayer: Confirmed that if the amendment passes, religious uses would be allowed with the specified dimensions, removing case-by-case analysis for those dimensions. This is a policy decision for the Board and Council.
  • Mary Flynn: Asked the petitioner and city staff to clarify how the intensity of use for religious institutions is considered "the same" as residential, given the phrasing that impacts are similar.
    • Christopher Hall (Petitioner): Rejected the assumption that religious institutions necessarily have a more intense use than residential buildings. Argued that theoretical maximums under building codes don't reflect actual use. Compared 24/7 residential occupancy with periodic religious services, suggesting religious institutions often generate less traffic and intensity.
    • Mary Flynn: Asked about the process for reestablishing a Dover Amendment exemption and its relation to this petition.
    • Megan Bayer: Not aware of internal discussions about seeking new special legislation for a similar exemption. Current internal discussions focus on updating zoning to reflect the loss of the previous special legislation.
  • Dan Anderson: Asked if administrative offices or housing for educators/staff of a religious institution would be regulated similarly, and if such housing would be exempt from affordability requirements.
    • Christopher Hall (Petitioner): From a RELUPA standpoint, a parish hall or religious school would qualify as religious uses, but a substantial burden would still need to be shown. A six-story office space for a religious institution is unlikely.
    • Megan Bayer: If the petition passes, any religious use (including office space or housing for religious leaders) could use these dimensional requirements. Housing for religious leaders, as part of a religious use, would not be subject to inclusionary housing requirements.
  • Diego Macias: Asked about the Planning Board's role in considering liability vs. planning concerns, especially regarding intensity of use.
    • Jeff Roberts: The Planning Board's role is to advise the Council from a planning perspective.
  • Mary Flynn: Proposed requiring a special permit for religious/educational institutions to go from four to six stories, allowing for consideration of impacts (traffic, etc.) and mitigation. Asked if this is possible or would be seen as singling out religious institutions.
    • Megan Bayer: Possible if there's a rational reason. However, a religious use could still argue it's a substantial burden and seek a variance or argue for additional height. It would provide an opportunity for the city to address impacts.
  • Ashley Tan: Expressed agreement with the Ordinance Committee's stance on open space and neighborhood notification. Believed boards and staff can adequately handle case-by-case reviews without discrimination. Leaned towards sending comments without a specific recommendation.
  • Mary Lydecker: Noted that multifamily housing changes were driven by affordable housing needs and community advocacy, with significant debate over massing and impacts. Stated that expanding this without community input is concerning. Leaned towards remaining neutral and sharing comments. Pleased by the likely removal of open space and neighborhood meeting exemptions from the petition.
  • Dan Anderson: Agreed with previous comments. Preferred regulations to match residential, with compelling community benefit for additional height. Advocated for a more timely and cautious approach. Supported the special permit idea due to intensity of use concerns. Leaned towards a "more neutral than negative" comment, highlighting potential unanticipated consequences and the more lenient zoning for religious institutions compared to housing.
  • Diego Macias: Expressed planning concerns about intensity of use and the rushed feeling of the process compared to multifamily zoning.
  • Carolyn Zern: Agreed with Mary Lydecker and Ashley Tan. Believed city boards can manage RELUPA concerns case-by-case. Leaned negative but not committed.
  • Ted Cohen: Leaned towards making no recommendation but sending comments. Acknowledged the difficulty of separating planning from litigation risk. Believed RELUPA and Dover Amendment necessitate some changes, but not necessarily all proposed. Supported the need for permeable open space and non-binding meetings. Recognized the burden on boards for case-by-case review. Emphasized that the City Council, with legal advice, will make the political decision.

G. Board Decision:

  • The Board decided to send comments to the City Council without a positive or negative recommendation.

  • Summary of Comments to be Sent:

    • Support for the Ordinance Committee's recommendation to retain requirements for permeable open space and public notification for religious uses.
    • Highlight the context of the multifamily housing amendments, emphasizing their intent to address affordable housing needs and the difficult decisions made regarding increased height, which were not universally supported.
    • Express planning concerns regarding the intensity of use for religious institutions, noting that it is not regulated under the proposed amendment and could have significant impacts on neighborhoods.
    • Point out that the proposed amendment offers more lenient zoning for religious uses (e.g., six stories without inclusionary housing requirements) compared to residential uses, without an equivalent public benefit.
    • Acknowledge the legal complexities and challenges posed by RELUPA and the Dover Amendment, recognizing the potential burden on city boards for case-by-case review.
    • Suggest considering a special permit option for religious institutions seeking to build between four and six stories, to allow for public review of potential impacts and mitigation measures.

  • Motion: To provide comments to the City Council on the proposed petition, stressing the planning concerns raised during the meeting while noting the legal issues, without a positive or negative recommendation.

  • Mover: Ted Cohen

  • Seconder: Ashley Tan

  • Roll Call Vote:

    • Ted Cohen: Yes
    • Mary Lydecker: Yes
    • Diego Macias: Yes
    • Ashley Tan: Yes
    • Carolyn Zern: Yes
    • Mary Flynn: Yes

  • Outcome: Motion passed (6-0).

IV. Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned.

Last updated: Oct 6, 2025

Back to Meetings