Planning Board - Planning Board Meeting

September 30, 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: Cambridge Planning Board

Meeting Date: September 30, 2025 Governing Body: Cambridge Planning Board Type of Meeting: Public Hearing Attendees:

  • Board Members Present: Mary Flynn (Chair), H. Theodore Cohen, Mary Lydecker, Diego Macias, Carolyn Zern, Joy Jackson (Associate Member)
  • Board Members Absent: Tom Sieniewicz, Ashley Tan, Dan Anderson
  • CDD Staff Present: Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development), Swathi Joseph, Emily Hutchings (Project Manager, Zoning Project Planner), Daniel Mesplay (Director of Community Planning and Design)
  • Petitioners Present: Martin Bacall, Charles Teague, Heather Hoffman (Attorney)
  • Public Commenters: Jeb Mays, Marina Grow Atlas, Thomas Gouraud

Executive Summary

The Cambridge Planning Board convened for a public hearing to consider a zoning petition by Martin Bacall et al. to amend Sections 4.30 and 4.40 of the zoning ordinance. The petition sought to restrict the increase of paved surfaces in open space districts by prohibiting paved ways greater than 10 feet wide as a principal use and limiting increases in paved area to 2% over a two-year period. While acknowledging the petitioners' laudable goals of preserving trees and addressing climate change, the Board voted unanimously to recommend against the adoption of the petition. The Board concluded that the proposed zoning amendment was an inappropriate tool for addressing these complex issues, citing concerns about ambiguity, unintended consequences, and the need for more flexible, community-driven planning processes.

1. Attendance and Verification

  • Roll Call:
    • H. Theodore Cohen: Present, visible, audible.
    • Mary Lydecker: Present, visible, audible.
    • Diego Macias: Present, visible, audible.
    • Tom Sieniewicz: Absent.
    • Ashley Tan: Absent.
    • Carolyn Zern: Present, visible, audible.
    • Dan Anderson (Associate Member): Absent.
    • Joy Jackson (Associate Member): Present, visible, audible.
    • Mary Flynn (Chair): Present, visible, audible.
  • Quorum: Five planning board members and one associate member were present, establishing a quorum.

2. Community Development Department (CDD) Update

  • Presenter: Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development.
  • Staff Introductions: Swathi Joseph and Emily Hutchings (new Project Manager, Zoning Project Planner) were introduced. Daniel Mesplay (Director of Community Planning and Design) was also present.
  • Upcoming Meeting Schedule:
    • October 7th: Advisory design consultation for an affordable housing overlay project at 2072 Mass Ave (first of two required sessions).
    • October 14th: No meeting scheduled.
    • October 21st: Public hearings on two City Council zoning petitions for rezoning in northern Massachusetts Avenue and Cambridge Street (Inman Square and east).
    • October 28th: Continued public hearing on the infill development concept plan in the MXD zoning district (joint meeting with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority).
    • November 4th: No meeting (Election Day).
    • November 11th: No meeting (Holiday).
    • Any November meetings would be in the second half of the month.
  • Board Welcome: Chair Mary Flynn welcomed Emily Hutchings to the CDD team, noting it brings the zoning staff back to full force.

3. Approval of Meeting Minutes

  • Transcripts Reviewed: Certified transcripts for meetings held on June 10, 2025, and July 8, 2025, were received.
  • Motion to Accept:
    • Motion: Carolyn Zern moved to accept the transcripts as the meeting minutes.
    • Second: Ted Cohen seconded the motion.
    • Roll Call Vote:
      • Ted Cohen: Yes
      • Mary Lydecker: Yes
      • Diego Macias: Yes
      • Carolyn Zern: Yes
      • Mary Flynn: Yes
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

4. Public Hearing: Zoning Petition by Martin Bacall et al.

  • Petition Title: Zoning Petition by Martin Bacall et al. to amend Sections 4.30 and 4.40 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

  • Proposed Amendment: To restrict increasing pavement in open space districts by establishing a category "paved way greater than 10 feet wide" as a principal use within the Table of Use Regulations (Section 4.30), which would be prohibited in open space districts and permitted in all other zoning districts. A footnote (Section 4.40) would provide further clarifications and restrictions on the establishment of paved ways.

  • CDD Staff Presentation (Jeff Roberts):

    • This is a new zoning petition from a group of at least 10 registered Cambridge voters, meeting the state law threshold for proposing zoning amendments.
    • The petition deals with open space zoning districts, which regulate land use in designated parks and public spaces, primarily city or state-owned.
    • CDD staff provided a memo with context and comments.

  • Petitioner Presentation (Martin Bacall, Charles Teague, Heather Hoffman):

    • Introduction: Martin Bacall, Charles Teague, and Attorney Heather Hoffman presented as petitioners.
    • Core Argument: The petition aims to amend the zoning code to encourage preserving and planting trees and reduce impervious surfaces, aligning with the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP).
    • Proposed Language (direct quote of key passages):
      • "Add the following inside in table 4.30 under transportation below 4.32. Paveway greater than 10 feet wide is not allowed."
      • "Add the following to the footnotes in the table, table use regulations. Baved includes all forms of paving material permeable, impermeable, including but not limited to concrete, continuous concrete, stone, curbstones, pavers, bricks, stone dust, wood, plastic, and metal. So ways in all forms, remember these are specifically ways for transportation, all forms of ways, including but not limited public ways, private ways, streets, roadways, highways, driveways, sidewalks, all forms of paths, pathways, walkways, alleys, courts, and any curbs, curbstones, and paved shoulders thereof. It should be in an open space district or contiguous area of open space bounded by trees, roadways, highways, or non-open space districts. The area of paved ways within said area should not be increased by more than 2% of the total of, say, a contiguous area within a two-year period."
    • Clarifications:
      • The petition does not include play courts (basketball, tennis) in its definition of "paved ways." "Courts" refers to endpoints like Tyler Court.
      • ADA minimum walkway width is 3 feet; minimum shared path is 10 feet. The 10-foot limit aims to encourage planting.
      • Unpaved or mulched sections of paths are not defined as pavement.
    • Rationale - UFMP & Tree Canopy Loss:
      • UFMP (created after Envision Cambridge) highlighted collapsing tree canopy.
      • Cambridge lost 18% of its tree canopy between 2009 and 2018.
      • Trees provide shade, release water vapor (transpiration) for cooling (e.g., 86°F under a tree vs. 96°F in sun).
      • Case study: Worcester's loss of 30,000 trees due to Asian longhorn beetle led to a 15% increase in electricity use for cooling the following summer.
      • City Council policy orders (2021-2023) recognize trees as essential infrastructure, climate emergency, and the need for canopy replacement strategies and deep paving. Petitioners argue these are not being implemented effectively in public spaces.
    • Rationale - Speed and Safety:
      • Wider paths encourage faster speeds, particularly for motorized bicycles (mopeds), which are legally allowed on public ways (Mass General Law Chapter 90, Section 1) and can reach 30 mph.
      • Petitioners cited speed studies on Linear Park clocking speeds of 24-26 mph.
      • Narrower paths promote safety for all users (pedestrians, wheelchairs, strollers, cyclists).
    • Rationale - Tree Root Protection:
      • Pavement requires excavation, disturbing critical root zones (CRZ).
      • CRZ is approximately 1 foot per 1 inch of tree diameter (Boston Tree Protection Ordinance standard).
      • UFMP task force recommends design changes if CRZ disturbance exceeds 25%.
      • Example: Linear Park expansion plans could significantly disturb tree roots.
      • Street trees differ from park trees in root structure and longevity.
    • Permeable Pavement: While permeable pavers allow water infiltration, they still require significant excavation and can contribute to the heat island effect. Maintenance is also a concern for the DPW.
    • Legal Argument (Heather Hoffman): Argued that concerns about lawsuits over paths are "specious" as legal standing requires a "legally cognizable injury," which is unlikely for path disputes.

  • Public Comment:

    • Jeb Mays (175 Harvey Street, North Cambridge):
      • Lives in Cornerstone Co-Housing, abutting Linear Park, Russell Field.
      • North Cambridge is a "heat island"; trees make a huge difference.
      • Linear Park plan to widen from 10 ft to 14 ft (plus 2 ft stone dust on each side, totaling 18 ft) is concerning. Stone dust compacts and becomes impermeable.
      • 10-foot width discourages speed and encourages respect among users.
      • Speed studies on Linear Park show speeds of 24-26 mph for motorized vehicles.
      • Parks are for enjoyment, not commuter throughways; widening paths makes them less safe.
      • Urged approval to preserve tree canopy and park user safety.
    • Marina Grow Atlas (37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge / 49 Newton Street, Belmont):
      • Mother of a toddler, native plant gardening advocate, environmental health scientist.
      • Supports the use of permeable pavers based on scientific methods pioneered in Cambridge and used in Somerville and Watertown.
      • Permeable pavers can handle pedestrian and bicycle use, support carbon-neutral transportation, and cannot support cars.
      • Warned against plastics and tire shreds in some permeable materials due to PFAS, petrochemical, and microplastic pollution.
      • Advocated for rock options for carbon sequestration, tree cover, and open space.
      • Emphasized supporting open space preservation, biodiversity, environmental restoration, air/water pollution reduction, and green infrastructure (deep-rooted native plants, berms, swales, root space).
      • Offered to share resources on depaving studies and programs.
    • Thomas Gouraud (37 Pleasant Street):
      • Resident for almost 60 years.
      • Strongly supports maximizing permeability due to rising groundwater tables and increased rainfall.
      • Overbuilding and paving lead to basement flooding and sewage backups.
      • Cambridge needs a long-term strategy for groundwater management.
      • Bicycle paths should be integral to infiltration strategies, using permeable pavement.
      • Acknowledged potential need to widen paths for increased bicycle traffic but stressed maintaining permeability.
      • Urged Cambridge to monitor groundwater and ensure all developments make the city more sustainable.

  • Board Member Questions:

    • Diego Macias to Petitioners: Asked why permeable pavement was included in the prohibition, given its benefits.
      • Petitioner Response (Martin Bacall): Pavement is pavement; it contributes to the heat island effect. Permeable pavers require deeper excavation, potentially worse for trees. DPW finds them high maintenance and often ineffective over time.
    • Ted Cohen to Petitioners: Asked for clarification on the 2% increase limit in the footnote, especially if a project is ongoing.
      • Petitioner Response (Martin Bacall): The 2% limit over two years is to prevent circumvention (e.g., two parallel 10-foot paths) and to set a numeric limit where none currently exists. It's an arbitrary number that could be adjusted, but aims to prevent unlimited widening (e.g., a "freeway through a park"). Variances are an option for absolute requirements.
    • Carolyn Zern to CDD Staff:
      • Asked about the disagreement between CDD memo and petitioners' definition of "way" and if it includes basketball courts, sports courts, etc.
        • CDD Staff Response (Jeff Roberts): "Way" is not a defined term in zoning or building code. The petition's definition is "fairly all-encompassing," including "courts." This raises questions about whether basketball courts, plazas, or other paved areas would be covered, creating ambiguity and potential navigation issues for zoning.
      • Asked about CDD staff's response to motorized vehicles on paths and efforts to reduce them.
        • CDD Staff Response (Jeff Roberts): CDD's focus was on the zoning petition, not broader transportation issues. Acknowledged state law provisions on vehicles and updates but could not speak to specific regulations or enforcement.
      • Petitioner Response (Charles Teague & Heather Hoffman): "Court" is a legal term for a type of way; a basketball court is not a way. Motorized bicycles (mopeds) are allowed by state law, and the city council could restrict them via ordinance, but no changes are foreseen.

  • Board Discussion:

    • Ted Cohen:
      • Found the petition inappropriate for the zoning ordinance, which deals with uses.
      • Agreed with CDD memo's concerns.
      • Ambiguous definition of "way" could include recreational facilities.
      • The petition limits the city's flexibility to address diverse needs and uses of open spaces.
      • The 2% limit over two years is impractical for projects.
      • Zoning is not the place to address tree loss or speed control; these are complex issues requiring broader city planning, public works, and transportation solutions.
      • Expressed trust in city boards and officials to weigh needs.
    • Mary Lydecker:
      • Echoed Ted Cohen's points, finding the zoning code an inappropriate place for this.
      • The issue is primarily on city-owned land; community engagement and design processes are better suited for trade-offs.
      • The petition's narrow solution (paving definition) might not achieve desired outcomes (e.g., 8-foot paths, but no tree planting).
      • Could inhibit creativity and flexibility in design (e.g., a single 15-foot path vs. multiple 10-foot paths).
      • Plazas, which consolidate foot traffic to protect soil and allow dense planting elsewhere, could be negatively impacted.
      • Acknowledged that public spaces can serve commuters, encouraging sustainable transportation.
      • Supported getting an update on how the city addresses motorized vehicles.
      • Encouraged the city to integrate UFMP goals into zoning more effectively.
      • Permeable paving is a "tough one" due to maintenance, but the city should continue to innovate.
    • Carolyn Zern:
      • Agreed with Ted and Mary that this is not the right tool.
      • Applauded efforts to maintain trees and decrease motorized vehicles.
      • Worried about unintended consequences: developers might create 10-foot paths even where 5-6 feet would suffice, just to avoid future issues, leading to more paved area.
      • Noted that private developers are building more open spaces.
      • Encouraged continued advocacy for trees and multi-use paths.
    • Mary Flynn (Chair):
      • Agreed with the consensus that the petition is not the appropriate place for these issues, despite their importance.
      • Acknowledged the petitioners' efforts to address city concerns.
      • Stated that the Board would send a negative recommendation to the City Council.

  • Motion to Recommend Against Adoption:

    • Motion: Ted Cohen moved that the Cambridge Planning Board recommend to the City Council that the petition not be adopted.
    • Second: Mary Lydecker seconded the motion.
    • Roll Call Vote:
      • Ted Cohen: Yes
      • Mary Lydecker: Yes
      • Diego Macias: Yes
      • Carolyn Zern: Yes
      • Mary Flynn: Yes
    • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

  • Recommendation to City Council: The Board will send a negative recommendation to the City Council, with the accompanying memo incorporating the discussion points regarding ambiguity, unintended consequences, and the need for alternative approaches to address the important issues raised by the petitioners.

5. Adjournment

  • Staff Comments: Jeff Roberts reminded the Board of the next meeting on October 7th.
  • Board Comments: No additional comments.
  • Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned.

Last updated: Oct 6, 2025

Back to Meetings