Planning Board Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the September 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Cambridge Planning Board. My name is Mary Flynn and I am the vice chair acting as chair So into Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by the Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the City is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge Planning Board. All board members, applicants and members of the public will state their names before speaking. And all votes will be taken by roll call. Members of the Public will be kept on mute until it is time for public comment. instructions for public comment at that time, and you can also find instructions on the city's webpage for remote planning board meetings. This meeting is being video and audio recorded

and is being streamed live on the City of Cambridge online meeting portal, and on cable television channel 22 within Cambridge. There will also be a transcript of the proceedings. I'll start by asking staff to take board member attendance and verify that all members are audible. Jeff?

Thank you, this is Jeff Roberts from Community Development. H. Theodore Cohen, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you? Thank you, Ted. Mary Lydecker, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Thank you Mary. Diego Macias, are Thank you, Diego. Ashley Tan, are you present and is the meeting visible and audible to you?

Present, visible, and audible.

Present, visible and audible.

Thank you, Carolyn. Dan Anderson, associate member, are you present? Is the meeting visible and Audible to you?

Hi, Jeff. Yes, present, visible, and audible Thank you.

Tomasinovic, the chair is absent as noted. And so we have Six planning board members present and I'm sorry, Mary Flynn, can you just confirm that the meeting is visible and audible to you?

It is both visible and audible, yes.

Thank you Mary just uh confirm that um so that means we have six planning board members present plus one associate member

Okay, thank you Jeff. The first item on tonight's agenda is an update from the Community Development Department. I'm going to turn that back over to Jeff and Jeff if you would just introduce any staff who are present with you at the meeting.

Yes, absolutely. My name is Jeff Roberts. I'm the Director of Zoning and Development for the Community Development Department. And with me on the zoning and development team are Swathi Joseph and Mason Wells. That's all the staff we have currently. Just for some quick updates, looking at the calendar not much has changed from the last time We do have a public hearing on the schedule. We'll be talking about that in a second, and we have a couple of general business items coming up which we may get to later Sooner Than Expected. But we'll get there. The next meeting we have scheduled is October 6th. That means there's no meeting next week. On the 29th, October 6th, we have a continued public hearing on a case at 9 and 25 Birch Street and 30 to 36 Bay State Road. A residential project review special permit proposal.

and we have a review scheduled of the signage plan at the Cambridge side PUD development, which is one of their design review related conditions on that project. That's all we have on the calendar at this point. And I don't believe there's any updates from last week as some of us were talking about it was certainly nice to have an in-person meeting last week Unfortunately, we'll be back to remote for a little bit as we still try to work out some of the technical issues in our normal room. But we're hopeful that

Great, thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? No, okay seeing none then let's move on to agenda item number one which is a public hearing on a zoning petition by Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. to amend Article 13 and the zoning map with the intent of establishing the Technology Square Transfer Receiving District, and amending Section 13.59.42 to allow for the transfer of 250,000 square feet of gross floor area to that receiving district in exchange for the conversion of the existing brick and beam structure And I'm going to turn this right back over to Jeff who will update us on the status of the hearing.

Thanks. So this is a new zoning petition, but before we get into it I should note that we did receive a letter from the petitioners team requesting a continuation of the hearing. So I thought that before we get into it, we should start with that request. We have James Rafferty from representing the petitioner who's available if there's any questions.

Okay, do board members have any questions for Attorney Rafferty or from the staff? And we don't have a specific date that we're extending this too, correct?

Not at this time but there is plenty of time. It's a zoning petition so it's A little bit more open-ended. There isn't really a hard decision deadline like a special permit, so we can be somewhat flexible.

Okay, great. Thank you. Ted, do you have a question?

I was just wondering is there a rationale or reason for the request?

Mr. Rafferty, do you want to answer that or Jeff?

I can let the representative speak to it, but really, I think we characterize as a procedural issue that has come up that we need to make sure gets resolved just to make something that happens from time to time and causes us to look back

Okay, thank you. Thanks. Thank you for that. Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none then we need to take a motion This is a motion for full board members only. Could I have a motion to continue the hearing?

This is Diego, so moved.

Thank you, Diego. Is there a second please?

Ted, second.

Thank you Ted and Jeff may we have a roll call vote please.

On that motion, Ted Cohen Yes Mary Lydecker?

Yes.

Diego Macias? Yes Ashley Tan? Yes Carolyn Zern? Yes And Mary Flynn?

Yes

That's all six members present voting in favor.

Very good. All right, thank you and Mr. Rafferty we will see you in the future.

I'll look forward to that. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is a request for an extension of time to apply for a building permit on Plenty Board case PB 390, which is located at 57 JFK Street. CDD staff are going to provide an update on this. And for that, we're going back once again to Jeff.

Thank you. So this is A special permit that was granted by the planning board on October 25th, 2022. It authorizes a residential addition to currently a commercial building which has been known as The Crimson Galleria in Harvard Square. And the decision requires the permittee to obtain a building permit within two years of the special permit being granted An extension has already been granted, a two-year extension granted in 2024. And the permittee has provided a letter requesting an additional four-year expansion of that time until October 25th, 2030. Rashna Balakrishna is the representative of the permittee if the board has any questions.

Okay, thank you Jeff. Do board members have questions? Ted.

Yes, I think probably a question for Jeff or staff I don't recall ever giving a four-year extension in the past. Have we done that? It seems to me they've usually been one or two years at most, which I mean, I remember the application and the permit. And given I don't have any objection to an extension, but four years seems to be too long and I would prefer one or two years.

Thank you. Sorry, Mary, if I can go ahead and answer that. Yes, go right ahead. It's a good question. I also don't recall granting a four-year extension We did look into the state statute on this just to ground ourselves after we got this request. And the state statue says that A period of time can be specified after which a special permit will lapse, except for good cause. So it doesn't really specify what the allowable extension of time is But I think as a matter of practice, we have kept it to two or one years.

Since the idea is to extend it for cause, there may be some foreseeable issues that require another year or two to obtain a building permit. But It may be more difficult to determine cause if we're looking that far out. That's typically a bit further than would be needed The zoning statute does provide that cities can allow that time to lapse up to three years. But it doesn't say anything about extensions, but we would probably recommend Something more like a one or two year extension as was granted before and probably no more than three years, given that the even though the state statute doesn't say it an extent.

I would consider that kind of a guideline of kind of maximum timeframe.

Any other questions, Ted?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Can I speak to that?

No, not just yet. We're just doing planning board questions, Mr. Dunn. Any other questions from board members? Okay, let me do we have questions for the applicants? All right, Mr. Danda you may speak but please keep it to a few minutes.

I will keep it short. A short history of this project is that in 2022, we had actually begun to do the preliminary versions of the construction and Hingham Savings Bank pulled a fast one on us and they basically prevented us from not only going forward, but going forward for significant length of time. At this moment, I can tell you the following our mortgage with them expires in 29, I believe late 29. And

At that point, we would be totally free to move forward with this project. It will be a magnificent and with the current zoning changes, we probably will be able to add one more floor in between. I've spoken to Sarah Burke have spoken to everybody or several people in the planning department. And that's what we intend to do. It's honestly not our doing. It's the bank's doing and if we were to move forward, they would default us on a

Very, very attractive 10-year mortgage that expires in I believe it's 29. So my thought is that perhaps by 28, early 29 we will start to do all the prep work and the minute the mortgage expires or we make a deal with them and We move on and they move on maybe a little sooner. Let me show you this. This will be the most spectacular moment addition of housing for the Harvard Square Community.

Really, I don't know if there's a better one and with the zoning change that has already happened, I spoke to Sarah and we will be able to add even one more floor, which will be wonderful for frankly the community and us. So I would really ask for the request we've made if we are denied that much time I understand that's a lot of time. We'll just come back again. I would ask that we understand the request.

Yeah, I appreciate the background. That's very helpful to know the situation with the bank. Do board members have thoughts or comments that they would like to make? All right. Well, Ted.

I understand what Mr. Donda is saying, but I am hesitant to change our policy from the past and to start a new precedent. I think two-year extension is in keeping with what we've generally done. And as he says, if the situation is the same in two years... He could come back and there would be good cause for further extension. and as we've seen, zoning has changed quite a bit in the past couple of years. And who knows what city council might do with intervening I'd say two years so I would opt for a two-year extension rather than anything longer.

Okay, thank you. Ashley?

I was also going to say the same. I think a two year is appropriate. I noticed that the last time we had granted and Extension Renters Project was two years. And that matches what the state has allowed through the Permit Extension Act, so that's what I'm comfortable with.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with that also because we do have that precedent and we don't have any examples of going further than that. So as you did state, Mr. Donda, you can always come back in two years because... Many, many things can change between now and then. Do any planning board members have other thoughts or concerns about a two-year? Extension. Okay, seeing none then I would like someone to make a motion to agree to a two-year extension of time on this Case PB 390.

Is Ted so moved?

Thank you, Ted. Could I have a second please? This is Carolyn. Second? Thank you very much. And Jeff, now a roll call vote please.

On that motion, Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lydecker? Yes Diego Macias? Yes Ashley Tan? Carolyn Zern, Mary Flynn. That's all six members voting in favor. I suppose I probably should have done this before the roll call but since This is a special permit action. It may be appropriate to appoint associate member to vote to create a full board.

Oh, okay, sure. All right. Well, I will appoint Dan then to be a voting member on this special program.

Thank you. Okay. So then we'll before I call it. So

May I make a final comment?

Yes.

I assure you, you will not be disappointed When this edition happens, it'll be a very gorgeous... Thank you.

All right, thank you. We look forward to seeing you in another two years, Mr. Redonda, if not sooner. I hope so. Then moving on... to item number three, which is review of abortive zoning appeal case to be heard by the BZA on September 24th, 2026. This is a matter of general business and our action is to decide whether or not to make any recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeal on these cases. The case under discussion is BZA Case 1225403 variance request to reduce the front yard setbacks along Mount Auburn and Story Streets, and to increase the commercial side setbacks on the first, second, and third floor of the building at 127 Mount Aubern Street. CDD is going to provide some background on this.

We do also have a memo from them, but I'm sure and then Pat Barrett is here also as the petitioner so let me turn it first over to Jeff for a summary.

Thank you, Mary. And as you noted we did something we don't normally do for BZA cases which we provided a brief memo and it was all just focused on the procedural aspects of this case because it's a little bit different than what we normally see when we're doing BZA case review with the planning board. Usually, it's and the planning board gives comment. This is a little different, it's actually subject to several different jurisdictions. It's subject to historical commission jurisdiction which was explained a little bit in the memo The BZA variances, it is subject to planning board review and we're expecting that it will be under the new planning board advisory consultation procedures. As the planning board looks at this case, and of course the planning work could decide to send a recommendation to the BZA or not.

We wanted to make sure it was clear to the Planning Board what procedures applied So we're happy to answer any more questions about that. And as you mentioned, Patrick Barrett is here representing the applicant.

All right, let me start off by asking the board if you have any questions for staff on that memo or the procedures. There is quite a bit of review that will be attached to this project. Ted? You're muted, Ted.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that memo. I apologize for that. I was wondering if staff could just explain a little more about the procedures that's going to be followed. My question was whether it was going to come back to the planning board at some time. and I'm glad to hear that it is. But procedurally, where does it stand now? And if the BCA does grant The variance is what would the next steps be?

So to kind of summarize it as briefly as I can, So the relief that's being sought is dimensional relief having to do with setbacks. That is relief that at this time under the zoning can only be granted by a variance. There's no special permit provision for it that would send it to the BZA or or to the planning board under the special permit provisions. It is also assuming that the project is above 50,000 square feet in gross floor area but does not trigger the threshold for a Project Review Special Permit. then it would be subject to a planning board advisory consultation and that's the process where it's in some ways similar to a special permit review there's submission requirements plans it's focused on urban design.

There's no TIS requirement, no transportation impact study requirement but there is plans that need to be submitted. It comes to the planning board for An initial review for comments to the developer and design team. gets a report of those and then comes back to present any changes that were made as part of the planning board's input. So it's entirely an advisory process and the BZA process is a variance process, so it's a decision that has to be issued to grant the relief that's requested. At this time, we don't have a... And we have met with the applicant on a number of occasions. As part of the preliminary... Thank you for joining us.

Thank you for joining us. But because we don't have the plain-of-word advisory consultation materials and the BZA Hearing is upcoming. We wouldn't have that hearing until after the BZA at least opens the hearing process.

I guess my other question is, at some point does it go back to the Historical Commission or have they signed off on what they've seen so far?

My understanding, and Mr. Barrett can give the applicant's representation of that because I haven't been directly involved in all the historical permission review but as it has been explained to me received a kind of conceptual approval and will need to return to the Historical Commission for more detailed review. I think that's a condition of the approval they received.

and that I would assume would be after the planning board. But Mr. Barrett, why don't you go next? Maybe you can explain this complicated process a little bit more to us and maybe just quickly summarize the relief that you're seeking

Yes, ma'am. So we received a certificate of appropriateness for this project in October last year. It did have conditions on it and we will be working with Charlie and the Historical Commission throughout This project was very contentious. It was one of the first larger projects to make use of the multifamily housing zoning, it's also a mixed-use project It also carries with it on the site a very important historical building that has been at least approved for landmark, the Harriet Jacobs House. Part of the issue that we faced in designing this project is we're out of corner and the multifamily housing zoning did not really addressed that issue in terms of contextual setback, which was more rigid in terms its application. We were required to have 10-foot setbacks on side facing streets, which had the effect of pushing the building further into the neighborhood

One of the conditions in our certificate of appropriateness was, and we made this pretty clear to the neighbors as well that we would try to in some way alleviate the five foot 8 foot and 5 foot setback. Just imagine a five-sided lot on the sides to alleviate that pressure on their properties if possible. There's no legal vehicle for that. Other than a traditional variance, which under the old standard I didn't feel comfortable bringing that to the board even though I think we might actually fit the old standards. The appeal process is arduous and You know all the details of that. So in July of this year, the state legislature changed what it means to get a variance and lowered the threshold for what a variance is statewide It actually has far-reaching applications to it.

We don't really know exactly what it all means, but it went from a substantial hardship standard to now a practical difficulty standard And I convinced my client who very graciously agreed to allow me to apply for this variance to move the building into the residential setback, if you will, the front setbacks. So the idea, the variance really is moving the building further away from the neighbors. We're able to achieve on our diagram about a five foot to seven foot additional setback to what was already applied which moves it further away from two 80-foot tall pine trees that inexplicably were able to grow in Harvard Square, as well as trying to make good on a promise to the neighbors tried to ameliorate the condition. This was a fully residential building and didn't carry the Harriet Jacobs house, you know, and it wasn't at a corner A lot of ifs.

We would be able to make sure, make use of the contextual setback and probably put it closer to zero anyway and further away but because that option is not available to us it was really only until at end of July this became an option That in a nutshell is the relief that we're seeking. We wanna move the building further away, we're not increasing the building and we're also as part of the second leg of that When they changed the residential zoning, they didn't change any of the commercial zoning. So there's very few districts where this applies. In fact, this site might be the only district in the Harvard Square overlay where there is a C2 district that allows for hotel use but also carries with it a corner in the Harry Jacobs house. The commercial setback is still the formulaic H plus L divided by four or five which would create a 24 to 34 foot cantilever depending on the height and depth of building if we built it traditionally with stacked floors.

So what we're asking is to lower the height of the hotel to three stories behind the Harry Jacobs house, normalize the setback at the residential setback on those floors. And I moved the building forward and that in a nutshell is the relief.

Okay, so do you have a number for what the setback is then on Mount Auburn and Story?

So on Mount, on Story Street we're about 0.2 and on Mount Auburn Street it depends. We're at 5.6 right now and that is really being dictated by the Harry Jacobs House. The relief that we're asking for, allowing us to push it to the maximum. We think 13.8 is achievable on the Hilliard side. And if we're able to increase that, we will. sort of wanted to set where the pins were and then as we designed the building, get it closer to the curb.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions? Good thoughts.

Mary? Great, I had a question on the Story Street side where you're looking to really pull it to the back of the curb basically what would the sidewalk width be

The sidewalk width is unchanged. It's currently about five feet and it's brick. We're gonna have to redo all these sidewalks anyway, which will include, you know Part of what gets frustrated in moving the building forward is we alter the calculation for our cool factor or green factor, whatever that factor. A cool score. So we'll have to look at street tree plantings, but I also think gives us a good opportunity in the back of the building to put a lot of trees. And even though we don't get the same one-to-one A lot of vegetation can go back there now to add some more privacy for our neighbors. But the sidewalk width will remain the same right now If you look at the Harry Jacobs House on Story Street, it has a little bit of an alcove vestibule in the front that's below grade and it goes right to the curb. Right to the side.

And so if that one's say five feet?

No, no, no. The Story Street will be about 0.2.

No, I'm sorry, the sidewalk. I'm kind of just trying to figure out once you pull a building to the back of the sidewalk... The effective width of that kind of ped zone with a taller building is five feet, so it's just trying to identify what is that condition. Now Mount Auburn is a wider sidewalk right today? Do you know how wide that one is?

It's about three feet right now. It'll be about 5.6 when we're done, and that's really dictated by the stairs of the Harriet Jacobs House.

Sorry, again, it's what's the public realm outside. That's what I'm kind of trying to figure out is how the setbacks you're requesting which we'll talk about in discussion but I'm definitely open to them What's the sidewalk condition for a person like in the public realm? So at your property line, it looks like there's maybe a 10 to 12 foot sidewalk on Mount Auburn and maybe a five-foot sidewalk on Story Street. Does that sound right?

It depends on where you are. So at the intersection of Mount Auburn, in the corner there it gets a little bit wider. As you go further up Mount Aubern Street, it gets more narrow and the building that is being taken down on Mount Aubren is about three feet away from the curb there.

Three feet within the sidewalk. Maybe this is a city question, what's your sidewalk width?

The sidewalk is no more than five feet on that side.

But Mount Auburn's a wider sidewalk, is it not?

Not in our drawing, I don't think it is. No? At least not where that building is.

So both sidewalks would remain five feet to the top? Yes. It's a five-foot sidewalk and then the property line either have five more, plus 5 foot 10 inches or 0.2 feet.

Okay. Do you have any other follow up right now Mary? Or should I move on? Nope, that's it. Okay, great, thanks. All right, Dan, let's go to you.

Thank you Madam Chair. So Attorney Barrett what would the contextual setback be? if one were to continue Story Street?

So that's an interesting question. The way that it currently reads, properties adjacent. So there's no adjacent property to a corner, so it'd be the street. If I was to look at the buildings that are actually on either side of the Mount Auburn or Story Street side It ranges from about zero to about two or three feet, depending on which building you're looking at. And directly across the street from us is the post office, which is at zero. That's a sheer brick wall going up with loading docks.

All right, thank you. I guess my follow-up question which i can reserve for a bit would really be more to staff about trying to understand that because Curious from an urban design standpoint, the rationale makes corners a really peculiar condition and maybe raises some of the conditions for a significant difficulty. for the variants, but I'll hold that for others to ask questions first.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point? So just in terms of process, is there any... particular reason for putting the BZA at the beginning of the process as opposed to going through like the planning board review and then asking for the variants? Because it just seems like, you know, we're going to lock ourselves into a condition before we actually get to reviewing the project.

So we felt because we are... In a conservation district, we have the historical property that we have to preserve and that will be guided entirely by the Historical Commission throughout the process. that a lot of what is being dictated in terms of outward design the building is really being controlled by the Historical Commission. This project is incredibly complicated and without knowing where it sits on the lot, we're kind of stuck So it is unusual we're doing it this way, and I apologize for that. And I didn't know that the law was going to change at the end of July. I didn' think this would be possible. So then it's kind of like—and I explained that to the neighbors and some of them are happy. I think some of the most concerned about the project, but it's an unusual which is very unusual But that's how we thought the process should work. I think we're able to adjust the project in terms of planning board advisory consultation as much as the historical commission will weigh on it,

So I think there's some synergy between those two processes, but I don't think it forecloses a larger discussion. It just – I can't design it without knowing where it is.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions? And if not, then we'll move to discussion or discussions. And so we need to decide whether we are going to make a recommendation to the BZA on this, as you know. We don't have to, but if people feel board members feel like they would like to we can certainly consider that. So who would like Their suggestions for how we would proceed. Dan?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think... I'm not sure and don't want to dictate how we might respond to BZA at the moment, but I do have questions about sort of the urban design precedent and the way that staff are thinking about corner lots, because I know that I've addressed this and have run into similar issues not to the extent of requiring variants. I mean in this case you know there's significant improvement to the neighbors in their neighborhood by being able to give them a greater setback which they would appreciate but just sort of thinking about the street wall, about the kind of Public Life, as Mary pointed out in terms of widths of sidewalks and such. We have probably More zero lot line setbacks in a lot of cases than we have setbacked.

So I'm really kind of curious to hear from staff about the thinking behind maintaining that 10-foot baseline set front yard setback. Given that you can't really calculate a contextual setback, in my opinion there's a lot of more contextual closer to sidewalk and closer to zero setback corner conditions particularly if you look at other not only throughout Harvard Square but historically, East Cambridge. So I'm just trying to balance off what What we are tasked to kind of think about from an urban design standpoint, what buildings look like compared to a practical difficulty of requesting a variance.

Hopefully that question is clear enough for staff to give a little bit of thinking about why this condition kind of kicks in.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have anybody from Urban Design with us this evening. But Jeff, I do not know if you sat in on the department review and whether you feel comfortable answering that or trying to answer it?

Well, it sounds like the question is more about kind of backing up and explaining the zoning and how the zoning got to be where it is which I could talk a little bit about but maybe not too much because We might have that discussion if we're talking about any kind of future zoning amendments or with city council. We did spend a lot of time working on Thank you so much for joining us. contextual front setback provision. In fact, we had formula setback requirements which required pretty extensive setbacks on all sides especially in districts like this

You know, higher density residential district. And so you know as part of that effort contextual setbacks were introduced but as As the representative discussed, it only talks about something being built on a lot where there's two buildings on either side and and then it could be averaged out. So that was, it was carried from, that existed in some zoning districts before the multi-zoning reform and that was expanded to kind of include all zoning districts but it didn't didn't account for every scenario. It is something that I think has to be, just my own opinion, it has to looked at carefully because there are lots of places where You know, there might be competing interests. Trying to maintain the

The urban context as it's developed historically is one of the city's main urban design objectives, and so that speaks to having flexibility to be able to do that at the same time. And maybe some of Mary Lydecker's questions got to this sometimes there's existing conditions around the sidewalk that maybe you know for one reason or another we don't want to maintain and you know maybe there's even if historically that's the way it's been, there might be reasons why we would want a setback in some cases versus others. I think at this point, where we are is it's just the case that setback requirements can't be changed except through a variance and then there's So we're in a bit of uncharted territory, all of us and figuring out how to move forward. And I think the question about how do we adapt our zoning in the future to try Thank you for joining us.

This is where the zoning stands. And in terms of this particular case, I would say echoing Mary and forcing we don't have urban design here to review it. We've We've looked at different iterations of this project. The latest iteration we only looked at recently, so would probably need more time to do a thorough kind of write-up that the urban design team would often do for a project. And again, we don't typically do that for the BZA because the BCA is typically applying a hardship test rather than applying urban design criteria to a proposal. So it's It's a funny process, and the planning board does get an opportunity to do the urban design review. It just is in an advisory capacity rather than the kind of binding review that the BCA has to do.

Thanks, Jeff. I guess just a follow-on question and maybe this is a topic for future zoning discussions but is there a precedent for let's say allowing a corner condition instead of being governed necessarily by setbacks and the variants, but instead be a special permit process that would give more consideration to I run into this professionally in lots of cases and had to have chased variances for things that urban design staff has strongly supported and successfully. But are there other mechanisms in terms of a particular setback that could be addressed more through a special permit process?

That would require an amendment to the zoning ordinance, so it could be done by the city council. I don't really want to get too freewheeling at this time into discussions about what possible zoning amendments might That would be an allowable

Zoning Amendment if it were made. So there wouldn't be a prohibition about having a special permit in regard to a particular setback.

We'd have to study and review it and have the law department look at it. But I think in principle, if there were dimensional relief that were made available through a special permit... There are instances already in the zoning where some I don't have any further questions.

Okay, so Mary has a question. Mr. Garrett did you want to clarify something in this last?

I don't want to prolong the discussion and thank you, Madam Chair. But I wanted just to point out that when Cambridge Street was redone and Mass Ave was redoned there is a provision by a special permit to do this to change some element of the zoning. Also that the new language for the variance, I haven't analyzed it and looked at with other attorneys. I think it's actually a lower threshold than a special permit is now. So it's unclear to me It's very wide open.

Yeah, uncharted territory. We seem to have a lot of that these days. Okay, thank you. Mary, what is your question? Thank you. So it's not a question.

I think this is the discussion portion. So I thought the materials that were provided through the BDA were very extensive and that was super helpful. I think it benefited the 2025 document you did for the Historical Commission because it gives a clear idea of what you're trying to do Pages 16 and 17, I think are the most helpful to me at least from others here if you look at that in order to evaluate what I think we're here today to talk about. And Jeff, you correct me if I'm wrong but right now we're trying to decide is this setback variance what's our thoughts on that to let the PCA make a decision and I appreciate that the applicant you know is trying to not You know, try to do something and get so far down the design lane and then find out that this basic thing is not even allowed. Right? So when I go to 1617 and I'm going to help you out your Mount Auburn Street sidewalk is 10 feet wide. That is a wider sidewalk. Your Story Street sidewalk is five feet.

So on Mount Auburn, the existing building that you're taking down I think it's close to that property line. It's closer than your previous Thank you for joining us. sort of an active use, right? We hope that that is street on the street energy people coming and going things like that. So that one I would say in my opinion, I would recommend to BZA as they think about this, that that one seems more straightforward to me. is a 10-foot sidewalk. You have the building slightly closer, you also have that hotel. You only have a small piece of the taller building that close Story Street is a little bit harder because it's only a five foot sidewalk and if you look in street view, it's pretty narrow. And I think to Dan's point as you move along the street, the buildings step back

Now, either fortunately or unfortunately the building across the street from you as you know is really like a zero lot line building. So if you do it on this side That's, I think when I start to have the question mark about how do those neighbors feel about that zero lot line? I'm not sure. They seem to have snuck in street trees. Are they going to do well? I don't know. It's very narrow. So that's the one where I almost feel like collectively I'd rather see what the design is for that edge before I could make a recommendation to allow for that zero lot line, if only because it's pinching the sidewalk. The setback, part of that purpose is to give kind of the vibe of more space. Even if you planted it or it's not accessible, it's just the vibe with more air and space

The other thing I would maybe pass along from planning board relative to this topic is you talked about how pulling away from the adjacent residences and buildings came out of a process, right? Where they really asked for that. So certainly I would hope the BZA... you know that public they can come to that kind of a hearing right um i would recommend that they really listen to what that feedback was right how the community If I were one of those property owners and felt very strongly about it, this move that you've done, especially to Mount Auburn, if it's giving the single lots the 13 foot 8. Sure, I could buy that. So that's kind of my take on it and holding it really strictly to the request to think about the setbacks nothing else about the design which will eventually come back to us as a review

Okay. Diego?

I agree a lot with what Mary just said. I kind of reiterate the fact that They're moving closer to Story Street. To give more setback is just something that I've been hearing a lot that people appreciate, so I think that's great I also vaguely remember from the urban design guidelines that having a building closer to the street is good. I'm not talking about like zero lot line, but I do remember seeing something like that and if I think about the width or the length that zero lot line is happening, right? And I think we've seen sort of massing for projects, for like residential projects that you have to break it up at like 40 feet or something and you have a recess. So I think that length I know in that realm, it's not the entire length of the Story Street elevation.

That is zero lot line. So just from that initial perspective, it doesn't offend me so much from a design It's also really hard to do this without a formal designer view, because I think some of the elevations show that there might be ventilation at street level. Where that zero lot line is, which if that happens, you know, that's another thing to consider. But yeah it's a complicated project but that's just my take on that zero-lot line aspect

Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Okay. Mr. Barrett, let's go back to you then.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize to board members Diego and Mary. I understand how you guys are used to seeing things, and I understand that generally speaking you want to see it more fleshed out Thank you for joining us. The building goes right back to where it was. And that project will go through design review, its advisory and we'll take as much information from you as we can and try to implement the project but those setbacks will not change So my only comment is My client is taking an enormous risk in trying to do something that I think most developers would not do. They take the buy-write project, they would not seek a variance under any condition nor listen to their attorney advise them to do so. Now, I understand the street is tight

But on Story Street, if you were to walk down Story Street and lean against the railing where the Harry Jacobs house sticks out to, you'd fall into a 10-foot pit where there's currently like tables and chairs. And I think a few people kind of just like hang out during the day at. It does go to the street line. Now, Tim Mansfield from Cambridge 7 who's the architect is a very accomplished architect and I think the design that we were able to get a certificate of appropriateness from the commission kind of speaks for itself The new standard for variances, it's an odd one. It's a balancing test between benefit to us and benefit to the neighbors. And while I understand pinching the street at Story Street about half the length of that story street facing side is tight. The other condition, If we were not to get the variants, we're now eight feet away from the property land. We're five feet away form 80-foot tall pine trees that most certainly have a root system they go through into our properties.

There is a public realm piece to this that's not facing the street. It's actually in the back, and these two inexplicable giant trees that we're doing our best to protect. We're also looking potentially at cantilevering underneath the foundation, which I don't Thank you for joining us. But we'll come back with the design review piece. The ventilation things that you're seeing right now, you're saying a loading zone and you're probably where a transformer would normally go? If we can move the building forward We will still have a loading zone, but the transformer will now go on the Mount Auburn setback because we now have enough width to put it in a vault underground. Which is I think a huge benefit of the project, but again like all things We have our load litter out to Eversource.

This is part of the process, and I don't like things to be this messy, but this is one of the messiest projects I've been on board in trying to piece all these things together and address all these social issues that people seem to have interest in. That being said, I do believe we meet the new standard for a variance. I think we meet old standard and I'm not asking you guys to bless this project. This project is tall. It's got some other things we need to talk about but I am asking you though is to bless giving the neighbors the relief that they've been asking us to give them. And that's really the crux of this. I didn't expect to give a presentation, so I'm sorry. I talked to Swathi this morning and she said this was just an informal conversation, I'm sorry about Mary, did not mean to misrepresent the width of the sidewalk. I was looking at it online and I was like dang it! But that is the crux of the project. That's all we're asking the BCA to look at

I understand all the trepidation you guys have, but if we're not able to do this... We have a letter of support from Charlie. And we have a Letter of Support from the Harvard Square Advisory Committee and I know those are different than your purview. Design guidelines are guidelines. We hit some notes, we don't have an imperfect process but we're doing our best weekend. And I think this is the best option for this project and the best options to the neighbors. Sorry to go on, Mary.

Thank you.

No, that's fine. Okay. All right. Carolyn or Ted, do you have anything you want to add to this?

I had a question, but it was asked and answered. Okay. Yeah, I generally agree with the points that were made from Dan and Mary.

Okay, Ted.

I guess I'll say that I was fairly convinced that weighing the benefits and the detriments, getting the variants was a greater benefit. I do have some design issues and I'm Glad to hear that it will come back to the planning board for design Even though it's only advisory, it will come back for design review by this board. But I'm reasonably comfortable with saying that this is a better solution. Thank you for joining us. I'm fairly agnostic on that issue.

I think I would oppose a denial of the variance from this board. But, you know, I personally think I Members feel strongly, otherwise then I would say we should just take no position.

Okay great thank you. Dan?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one minor comment as I was kind of flipping back and forth between these that wasn't really talked about but it was prompted by Mary's comment about the public realm. There's some considerably larger building separation that happens between the Harry Jacobs House and the proposed plan in this revised scheme that I think Thank you. There's kind of greater building separation. The previous scheme really kind squishes the hair of Jake's house on the corner. And this allows some greater light and air around that, An attractive feature. So not to take a decision one way or another, but again from a kind of benefit standpoint

The reconfiguration does some nice things for that proposed hotel renovation.

So my thoughts are the benefits to the neighbors do really kind of offset the negatives. And I'm comfortable with Mount Auburn Street, I think Story is a different situation It's not a great situation now walking down there, so I don't know that we're going to make it any worse. But I guess my preference would be that we send... Kind of like a mini report to the BZA, just saying that we've talked about it. We can see the advantages to the neighborhood of shifting the building We're a bit more comfortable with the way that Mount Auburn Street can be handled. We're

Thank you for joining us. and I think just generally promote the good pieces of it but highlight the fact that we do want to focus on that edge realizing that it's going to be narrow and it's gonna need to be handled very thoughtfully. Mary, what are your thoughts?

I would recommend also that, and for the applicant, I don't think it's like either the neighbors get it or the sidewalk gets it. That side setback went from 10 to 0. So I think another fair recommendation to BZA as you're describing it sounds like The Harvard Historic District, they've all reviewed it. We haven't done it in that way so I think it would also be fair to say we're almost deferring on that piece Thank you for joining us today. We don't know yet. We haven't reviewed anything, and I think Mary you framed it there are some questions about it anyone would acknowledge that's a narrow sidewalk condition and so

saying without that information that we're not exactly agnostic, but we're certainly I would say pivot to those other groups that have had a more thorough review of the application and really understand the context of this area.

You summarized that beautifully. Jeff, does that make sense to you that we just kind of Talk generally about the positives and concerns, but as Mary said, defer to neighbors or others that have had more opportunity to take a look at this.

Yes, it is perfectly appropriate for the planning board to just send comments to the BZA. That's fairly routine. I think the comments, I've got them written down and I think it generally makes sense. One of things that we might be interested in doing is having our Communication also provided just so the BZA is on the same page as the planning board with the review process and what would be required for this. If that was a question, if the board would be... I was asking but maybe more suggesting would attach the CDD memo that just explains the process so that the BZA also has the same information about that.

Yeah, I think that would be totally appropriate. Okay, so I think then that unless somebody objects to moving in that direction. that we would go with a motion to send comments as have been discussed tonight highlighting the The urban design and public realm concerns along Story at Mount Auburn, but also realizing that there are benefits to the broader community and taking their opinions into account since as Mary said we haven't even seen this project yet other than Then what we've seen tonight. And then we would attach the CDD memo as well. So... If people are comfortable with that, then I would ask for someone to make a motion that we send our comments as they were described.

I will note that Ashley has left the meeting. She needed to recuse herself from this particular project, so just for the record, I just wanted to state that. So If everybody's comfortable with that, could I have a motion to send the comments and the CDD memo as described and discussed this evening to the BCA?

This is Ted, so moved.

Okay. Is there a second please?

This is Diego, second.

Thank you. Okay. All right, any other thoughts or questions before we do the roll call? I'm seeing some people looking a little uncomfortable Ted, would you like more clarity?

No, I'm fine.

Okay, okay.

I made the motion.

I know you did, but I'm just thinking in terms of the legal notes.

I'm fine with it the way you and Mary have framed it.

Okay, thank you. Jeff then can we have a roll call please?

Yes. Ted Cohen? Yes. Mary Lydecker? Yes Diego Macias? Yes Ashley Tan is absent, Carolyn Zern? Yes And Mary Flynn?

Yes

So that's all five full board members present voting in favor.

Great, okay. Well, Mr. Barrett, good luck at the VZA and we look forward to seeing the project further down the road It does have a lot of public benefits and it is a complicated project, so I wish you well. So that concludes the business on our agenda. Any additional comments from staff?

Yes, I actually have one. This is Jeff and it was something I forgot to note in the update I mentioned last week that there is a posting up for planning board, for interest in joining the planning board. For applicants or people who want to be on the board and that has been extended I got a message, October 12th. So I think that posting was set to expire sometime this week and it's been extended so if anyone is still tuned in you still have time to apply to be on the planning board.

Great. Thank you for noting that.

Madam Chair, I just have a question. Where would I find the staff memo about this Mount Auburn project?

Ted, I can resend that to you today.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's nothing else then I would say that we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time and attention and we'll see you next time. Good night everybody.

Thanks.