[00:00:01]
SO, UM, SO WE MOVE[UPDATE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT]
FROM THERE AS WE ALWAYS DO TO IMPLEMENTATION AND TO THE NEXT ZONING THING.UM, THERE IS ALSO, UM, I'LL JUST MENTION, I, THIS IS SORT OF GOING BACK TO THE SCHEDULE, UM, THAT THE, THE ZONING PETITION THAT'S GONNA BE HEARD TONIGHT WILL BE HEARD AT THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, STARTING AT 11:00 AM.
UM, SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON WITH ZONING AT COUNCIL AT THE MOMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL THE UPDATES I HAVE FOR THIS EVENING, SO I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR.
UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR JEFF FROM, UH, BOARD MEMBERS? IF SO, STATE YOUR NAME AND POSE YOUR QUESTION.
NONE SEEM TO BE INDICATED, JEFF.
[ADOPTION OF PLANNING BOARD MEETING TRANSCRIPTS]
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS AN APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE MEETINGS HELD ON DECEMBER 16TH, 2025, AND JANUARY 6TH, 2026.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME.
NOBODY'S INDICATING ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN SEE.
UH, SO ONLY FULL BOARD BOARD MEMBERS WILL ACT ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TRANSCRIPTS AS THE MEETING MINUTES? REMEMBER TO SAY YOUR NAME.
ALL SEVEN MEMBERS VOTING IN FAVOR.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING PETITION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND SECTION 4.50 TO PERMIT THE USE OF LAND FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES, AS OF RIGHT IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ON LAND OWNED OR LEASED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES, SUBDIVISIONS OR BODIES POLITIC OR BY A RELIGIOUS SECT OR DENOMINATION, OR BY A NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION AND A CHILD CARE, UH, CARE CENTER, SCHOOLED AGE CHILDCARE PROGRAM, A FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME OR LARGE FAMILY CHILDCARE HOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION ONE A OF CHAPTER 15 D OF THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS.FIRST CITY STAFF WILL BEGIN BY PRESENTING THE PETITION, THEN WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN THE PLANNING BOARD WILL DISCUSS THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO TRANSMIT RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, JEFF ROBERTS, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS PETITION.
UM, THIS IS A CITY COUNCIL'S ZONING PETITION.
IT INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WERE DEVELOPED BY STAFF TO DEAL WITH A, A FAIRLY SPECIFIC ISSUE WHERE THE CAMBRIDGE ZONING ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED WITH STATE LAW.
IT'S, UM, IT'S FAIRLY SPECIFIC, UM, AND IT'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, SO I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO EXPLAIN IT AS SUCCINCTLY AS I CAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN TELL, I, I'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT UNDER THE WEATHER AND I I'VE BEEN HAVING A TENDENCY AT TIMES TO LOSE MY VOICE, SO I'M GONNA HOPE I MAKE IT THROUGH THIS.
IF I DON'T, I MIGHT NEED TO FIND SOME WAY TO SEMAPHORE THE PRESENTATION TO YOU, BUT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE, UH, IF I CAN BE AS, UH, WORD EFFICIENT AS I'M USUALLY NOT.
UM, JUST A BACKGROUND ON THIS, UM, WHAT ARE INSTITUTIONAL USES? SO THESE, UM, OR, UH, TYPE OF USE GENERALLY REFERS TO USES THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL OR AT LEAST NOT PRINCIPALLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT THEY'RE ALSO NOT COMMERCIAL.
UM, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE REGULATED AS A GROUP WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
THIS PETITION REALLY ONLY FOCUSES ON A FEW TYPES OF INSTITUTIONAL USES, UM, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL KIND OF LUMPED INTO THIS INSTITUTIONAL USE CATEGORY.
UM, THE STATE LAW IN QUESTION, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE DOVER AMENDMENT.
UM, IF YOU SEARCH FOR THE DOVER AMENDMENT IN STATE STATUTE, YOU WON'T FIND IT.
THAT'S JUST HOW PEOPLE REFER TO IT BASED ON ITS, ITS HISTORY.
UM, BUT IT'S A SECTION IN THE ZONING ACT, WE CALL IT 40 A SECTION THREE, THAT,
[00:05:01]
UH, THAT SECTION ESSENTIALLY PUTS LIMITS ON WHAT CITIES AND TOWNS ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE THROUGH THEIR ZONING ORDINANCES.AND AMONG THE USES THAT, UH, UNDER THIS LAW, CITIES AND TOWNS CAN'T REGULATE THROUGH ZONING ARE RELIGIOUS USES ISSUE WITH THE DOVER AMENDMENT.
WERE JEFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THE CITY COUNCIL STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED IT.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD EVER BROUGHT IT UP, BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT THAT HAPPENED.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE THAT A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL WILL DECIDE THAT THE WAY THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL, UM, HAS DECIDED TO ARRANGE THINGS WAS REALLY STUPID AND WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY OF DOING THINGS OR SOME OTHER WAY THAT WOULD RESULT IN, UM, MINIMUM LOT AREAS PER DWELLING UNIT.
SO I MIGHT ADD SOMETHING TO THIS, UM, PROPOSAL TO SAY SPECIFICALLY IF THE, UM, THE SECTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT INCORPORATES THE STATE LAWS, UH, IS OPERATIVE AND THIS ISN'T.
UM, AND I WOULD ALSO, UM, SAY THAT YOU MIGHT REALLY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S STILL AN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN DISFAVOR, BOTH IN THE SUPREME COURT AND IN THIS CITY, BUT IT STILL EXISTS.
WE ARE STILL THE HOME OF ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE CASES.
AND THE FACT THAT CONGRESS PASSES A LAW DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE DOESN'T EXIST.
SO WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT WHETHER CONTINUING TO HAVE FAVORED TREATMENT FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THIS CITY, UM, IN SOME FASHION INTERACTS WITH THE DOVER AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE OTHER ENTITIES WHO GET THE BENEFITS OF THE DOVER AMENDMENT NEED TO GET THE SAME BENEFIT THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE GETTING.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A ESOTERIC QUESTION.
WE HAVE VARIOUS NON-RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY, AND SOME OF THEM ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, GRABBING UP, UH, RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE.
AND THE THING THAT WE ARE LOSING WHEN THAT HAPPENS IS THE RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO REPLACE THE HOUSING THAT THEY'RE TAKING AWAY.
UH, AND DO YOU SEE ANYBODY ELSE, JEFF? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED AT THIS POINT.
I'LL JUST GIVE ONE FINAL NOTICE.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WHO'S IN THE ATTENDEES, PLEASE PUSH, UH, THE RAISE HAND BUTTON NOW OR STAR NINE ON YOUR PHONE SO THAT WE CAN SEE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
I THINK THAT APPEARS TO BE EVERYONE, SO I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR.
UM, SO AT THIS POINT, UH, WE WILL, UM, MOVE TO, UH, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND MOVE, UH, TO DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD.
UM, IS THERE BOARD MEMBERS THAT, UH, HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EACH OTHER OR, UH, OBSERVATIONS THEY WANNA MAKE BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, BOTH IN PUBLIC COMMENT AND, UH, THROUGH THE PRESENTATION? GREAT, DAN, THANK YOU.
UM, YEAH, SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, UH, KIND OF OPEN.
WE, UH, BASICALLY I HAVE NO, NO OBJECTION TO THE LANGUAGE JUST PUTS US IN, IN LINE WITH STATE LAW.
SO, UM, UM, I THINK IT'S REALLY A, A PLANNING ISSUE THAT CAME UP WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THE MERITS.
HOW, UM, AND JEFF, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PLANNING HAS PUT MORE THOUGHT TO IT, BUT I THINK I RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A, UM, YOU KNOW, SIX STORY, UM, PREDOMINANTLY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING THAT WAS PUT UP BY A RE A RELIGIOUS OR, OR IN THIS CASE OTHER INSTITUTIONAL, UH, PIECE AND HOW HOW LIKELY, UM, AND EFFECTIVELY WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT REGULATING THAT ON A DIMENSIONAL BASIS.
SO HOW, HOW DOES THAT KIND OF SIT WITH, UM,
[00:10:01]
OUR KIND OF FUTURE PLANNING THOUGHTS? AND IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.I THINK WITH THE, YOU KNOW, JUST TO REITERATE THIS, THIS ZONING PETITION, SO THE LAST, THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, CAN KINDA, WE CAN VIEW THINGS IN CONTEXT, BUT THIS IS, THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT, UM, ZONING PETITION FROM LAST YEAR THAT DEALT WITH SPECIFICALLY WITH DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS.
THIS ONLY DEALS WITH USE, AND SO THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE STILL IN PLACE.
UM, THE, UH, THE ZONING OR THE, THE ZONING ACT SAYS THAT WE CAN REGULATE, UM, THESE USES DIMENSIONALLY.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE MAY AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WANNA ASK OURSELVES SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE COULD USE THOSE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS IN A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HELPS TO SERVE CITY'S GOALS JUST LIKE WE DO WITH OTHER, OTHER PLANNING OBJECTIVES.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE OUR GOALS? WHAT KIND OF OUTCOMES DO WE WANT FOR ALL OF THESE, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS USES, EDUCATIONAL AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AND HEALTHCARE AND SOCIAL SERVICES AND, AND OTHER THINGS.
AND THEN, AND THINK MORE CRITICALLY ABOUT, UM, HOW WE CAN SET OUR ZONING TO, TO BETTER MEET THOSE OBJECTIVES.
WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION YET.
SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A, UM, IT'S AN INDICATION OF SOMETHING WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE.
BUT, UM, FOR THE TIME BEING, IT'S, UM, UH, IT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DIMENSIONAL, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN WE DID MULTIFAMILY ZONING, WE KEEP POINTING OUT THAT'S, THAT WASN'T, THAT WAS JUST ABOUT RESIDENTIAL.
SO ANYTHING THAT'S NON-RESIDENTIAL HAS TO BE LOOKED AT IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
UM, SO I, I THINK IT'S, I I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR WHAT THE LAWYERS ON THE BOARD THINK ABOUT WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WAS RAISED AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT I THINK ASHLEY AND TED WERE, WERE BUILDING ON, WHICH IS THAT THIS IS A CLEANUP.
THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE IS TECHNICALLY, I MEAN, IT, TECHNICALLY IT'S FINE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DENSITY REGULATIONS ON RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? SO THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE CLEANING UP IS IRRELEVANT ANYWAY.
BUT THERE WAS CLEARLY SOME PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING AMENDMENT.
IF COUNS, IF EVENTUALLY THAT DOES GO BACK, DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT HAS THESE PROTECTIONS? AND THAT SPEAKS TO THAT 1979 REGULATION IN THERE.
AND I, I, I'M NOT A LAWYER
UM, NOT A PRACTICING LAWYER ANYMORE,
I THINK IF THEY WERE TO PUT BACK A DENSITY REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION, UH, AT THAT TIME, THEY WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO AMEND THE, IN THE INSTITUTIONAL USE PORTION OF THE ZONING AGAIN, TO, TO MATCH WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DO.
UH, I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS AND, AND IT IS SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT FUTURE CITY COUNCILS AND FUTURE PLANNING BOARDS, YOU KNOW, MIGHT WANT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
BUT DEALING WITH IT RIGHT NOW, I THINK JUST PUTS US INTO AN AREA OF, OF JUST PURE SPECULATION.
UM, I, I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOLLOWING UP ON DAN'S MM-HMM.
COMMENT, HOWEVER, SO ARE THERE ANY DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY IN THE INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS? OR IS IT SIMPLY THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE DIMENSIONAL, UH, THE UNDERLYING DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF, OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THEY'RE IN? UM, THE, THE WAY THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT, IT IS THE, IT'S SUBJECT TO THE DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND SPECIFICALLY SINCE THE MULTIFAMILY ZONING CREATED A MORE OF A, OF A SPLIT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL USES
[00:15:01]
FALL UNDER THE NON-RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF, OF WHATEVER, UH, BASED ZONING DISTRICT IT'S IN.WELL, OH, MARY, UM, THANK YOU, UM, MR. CHAIR.
UM, I DO HAVE ONE, ONE QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE, UM, THE BASE ZONING, UH, PARTICULARLY IN, IN REGARDS TO LIKE THE, THE QUESTION THAT TED ASKED ABOUT COMMERCIAL USES.
BUT IF, SAY A UNIVERSITY DECIDED TO BUY A PARCEL IN A RESIDENCY, ONE OUTSIDE OF THE INSTITUTIONAL, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT, UM, AND THEY WANT, WANTED TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THINKING THAT THEY, MAYBE THEY WERE GONNA USE IT FOR THEIR STAFF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO IT AT THE HIGHER DIMENSIONAL, UM, STANDARDS THAT THE MULTIFAMILY USE, UM, PETITION NOW ALLOWS FOR THE LAW MM-HMM
YEAH, IF, IF AN INSTITUTIONAL LANDOWNER IS BUILDING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE, THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING.
AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN, BEEN DONE.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN, UM, IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSITIES BUILDING OR PARTNERING IN THE BUILDING OF, OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING OR IN SOME CASES OWNING AND, AND OPERATING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
UM, BUT THAT'S A, AGAIN, DISTINCT CATEGORY OF USE, UM, FROM INSTITUTIONAL.
AND IT WOULDN'T INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, DORMITORIES, WHICH ARE, UM, WHICH ARE IN, IN INSTITUTIONAL USE.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
UH, I JUST HAD A FEW COMMENTS.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND ALL OF THIS AGAIN, AND I, I, I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT, IT IS DEFINITELY WORTH ADOPTING THE CHANGES TO CLEAN UP WHAT IS CURRENTLY VERY MUCH, I, THERE'S SO MANY EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEPTIONS, AND ANYONE TRYING TO READ THIS WOULD BE SO CONFUSED.
AND, UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I DO THINK THESE CHANGES ARE NEEDED.
UM, AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAROLYN RAISED EARLIER, AND YEAH, I DID.
I, RIGHT NOW THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PROPOSED DOES MENTION, YOU KNOW, DOES MENTION THE, UM, SPECIAL LEGISLATIONS AND, UM, WHICH I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, MAYBE IT'S WORTH KEEPING IN THERE JUST SO YOU, YOU KNOW, THINGS CHANGE.
AGAIN, AT LEAST SOMEONE READING IT KNOWS THERE WAS THIS BACKGROUND AND, UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE WILL STILL NEED TO BE CHANGES MADE AT THAT POINT, BUT, UM, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT.
UM, SO I MEAN, JUST IN LIGHT OF IF WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO CLEANUP, I HAD A FEW COMMENTS, UM, WHICH I'LL, WHICH I CAN SAY IN A BIT.
BUT, UH, ONE OTHER THOUGHT MORE OF, OF THE LONG TERM PLANNING IS, UM, I KNOW WE HAVE OUR TOWN GOWNS NEXT WEEK, AND IF I RECALL FROM THE LAST TWO OR THREE TOWN GOWNS, I DON'T THINK ANY UNIVERSITY WAS IN EXPANSION MODE.
I THINK IF ANYTHING, UNIVERSITIES WERE SELLING LAND OR KEEPING THE SAME, UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE SPECIAL LEGISLATION CAME IN PLACE IN THE EIGHTIES.
I KNOW UNIVERSITIES WERE TRYING TO BUY A LOT OF LAND AND MAYBE DO IT MORE QUIETLY, SO THIS WAS MORE OF AN ISSUE.
BUT, UM, SO I, LIKE, I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, UM, IN OUR TOWN GO MEETINGS NEXT WEEK, OR IS IT NEXT WEEK OR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, JUST TO SEE WHERE THE UNIVERSITIES ARE AT, WHAT WE THINK THE FUTURE MIGHT BE, AND, YOU KNOW, IS IT WORTH REVISITING THE BIGGER PLANNING, UM, CONCERNS.
AND AS FOR SMALLER KNITS, UH, I THINK I JUST HAD A FEW.
ONE IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW THE PROPOSED EDITS, I THINK IT'S TO 4.51, YOU KNOW, IT DOES MENTION THE NEW, OR IT DOES MENTION THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIONS, WHICH I WAS SO CONFUSED 'CAUSE I THOUGHT IT MEANT THAT IT STILL APPLIED, BUT TECHNICALLY IT DOESN'T.
SO JUST SOME LAWYER, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF, IF WE JUST ADD, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT SAYS IF APPLICABLE, UM, OR IF THESE SPECIAL LEGISLATIONS ARE APPLICABLE, THEN SUCH AND SUCH.
UM, OTHERWISE IT KIND OF IS CONFUSING.
AND, UM, THE OTHER SUGGESTION I HAD, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
[00:20:01]
UH, NECESSARY, IF I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS RIGHT NOW FOUR POINT 50 SAYS INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS, THAT'S THE TITLE OF THE SECTION, BUT TECHNICALLY IT'S ONLY INSTITUTIONAL USE REGULATIONS FOR THE C RESIDENTIAL C ONE DISTRICT.AND, UM, UM, OTHERWISE IN OTHER DISTRICTS, IT'S, I BELIEVE, REGULATED BY 4.30, RIGHT? THE ZONING TABLE.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'D JUST BE A LITTLE CLEARER FOR ANYONE WHO'S TRYING TO WRAP THEIR BRAINS AROUND IT.
BUT, UM, I DO THINK MAKING THESE CLEANUP CHANGES WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WELL, I, I, I, I FEEL, YOU KNOW, THIS JUST THIS COMMON SENSE TO MAKE THE, THE ZONING CODE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, UM, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, I APPRECIATE WHAT ASHLEY IS SUGGESTING, THAT THERE BE SOME KIND OF A HINT OR A BREADCRUMB, UH, THAT THEIR MEMORY IS LONG HERE RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN OUR COMMUNITY, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
AND FURTHERMORE, YOU'RE RIGHT TO POINT OUT THAT TAU GOWN, ANNUAL TOWN GOWN, UM, DISCUSSION WITH ALL OF THE MAJOR, UH, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAPPENS, UM, ON FEBRUARY 3RD.
AND THAT'S AN ANNUAL MOMENT WHERE THIS BOARD GETS TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT MODE THE INSTITUTIONS ARE IN.
AND SO THERE'S A MONITORING PROCESS HERE.
SHOULD, UH, THE CLIMATE CHANGE, UH, SHOULD, UH, THE INSTITUTIONS MOVE INTO A MUCH MORE RAPID EXPANSION? UH, I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, UH, SPEN DISPENSATION THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE GOT THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN 19 79, 19 80, UM, WOULD LIE DORMANT, TELL, UH, OUR BASE ZONING, UH, CHANGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT THERE, UH, RELATIVE TO, UH, DENSITY LOT AREA PER PER DWELLING UNIT THAT, UH, TRIGGERS THAT.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE, YEAH, THE COUNCIL WOULD'VE THE OPTION TO CHANGE OUR BASE ZONING AND THAT WOULD CLICK BACK INTO, INTO, UH, INTO EFFECT.
UM, UNLESS THE GENERAL COURT WANTS TO, UH, BE PROACTIVE AROUND THAT AND GIVEN HOW THE PACE AT WHICH THEY WORK, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S MUCH OF A RISK.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CLEANUP.
I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME HINTS THERE.
AND I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, EXTRA VIGILANCE THAT WE ALWAYS, UH, APPLY TO THE TOWN GOWN CONVERSATIONS.
UH, UH, JUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAKES ARE RAISED A LITTLE HIGHER HERE NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THIS, UH, SPECIAL, UM, DISPENSATION UH, UH, OPERATING UNDER OUR ZONING CODE THESE DAYS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE ZONING WORKS, THE WAY THE ZONING WAS, UH, REDRAFTED.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF, UM, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT, UH, NEED SOME HELP FRAMING THAT.
I HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE THE BOARD IS, I THINK, UH, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT WE WOULD GIVE IT A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO, UH, CLEAN UP THE ZONING CODE CODE AND MAKE IT, UH, CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
I THINK THAT'S RATIONAL RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL, UH, WAS GOING ANYWAY.
UH, AND I THINK AS, AS ASHLEY YOU POINTED OUT, FORTUITOUSLY, THERE IS A CLUE ABOUT, UM, THE SPECIAL LEGISLATION THAT THAT EXISTS ON THE BOOK, THE BOOKS UP ON BEACON HILL.
SO, UM, ARE THERE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? UH, I APPRECIATE THE EDIT AS WELL, ASHLEY, THAT YOU MAKE SO THAT, UH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE STEERING POTENTIALLY INSTITUTIONAL, UM, UH, ZONING ANALYSTS TO THE RIGHT, RIGHT SECTION OF THE CODE.
UH, OTHER, UM, UH, CHANGES OR RECOMMENDATIONS WE MIGHT WANT TO GIVE TO THE COUNCIL? MARY'S RAISING OUR HAND.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UM, INCLUDE, UM, SOME REFERENCE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DISCUSSION OF, UH, INSTITUTIONAL, UH, PLANNING.
UM, NOT SO MUCH IN TERMS OF TRYING TO, UM, EITHER SUBSTITUTE FOR DOVER, UM, BUT MORE IN TERMS OF, LIKE, ONE OF THE NOTES, UM, IN ONE OF THE SLIDES WAS TALKING ABOUT INCENTIVES TO SUPPORT SOME OF THE, THE GOALS.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR WE TALK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE UNIVERSITY'S HOUSING MORE OF THEIR STUDENTS, UM, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IDEA OF MAYBE RELAXING SOME INFILL REQUIREMENTS TO, UM, OR INCENTIVES TO, OR PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO GET THE UNIVERSITIES TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD HIGHER OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE SO THAT THEY CAN, CAN DO THAT AND THEN LESSEN THE BURDEN ON, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR RESIDENTIAL STOCK, TO ME MAKES, MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SUGGESTING A CHANGE IN, IN ANYTHING THAT'S
[00:25:01]
HERE.I WOULD JUST LIKE IT TO BE NOTED THAT WE THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, UM, PLANNING ISSUES DO DESERVE SOME CONSIDERATION AND WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, YOU KNOW, CDD AND THE LAW DEPARTMENT MAYBE TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, START A PROCESS AS SOON AS THEY CAN FIT IT IN ON THEIR VERY BUSY SCHEDULES.
UH, THAT'S A, A WONDERFUL IDEA.
AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ENVISION AS WELL THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, WAS QUOTED IN THE SLIDE DECK, WHICH IS SUGGESTING THAT INSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION BE HELD RATIONALLY TO THE EXISTING CAMPUSES OR, UH, TO, UH, THE RIMS AROUND THOSE CAMPUSES AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT FIT IN WITH THE, WITH THE COMMUNITY.
AND, UM, YOU'RE RIGHT, AT SOME POINT, UH, THERE'S A LIMIT TO HOW MUCH THE CAMPUSES CAN INFILL.
SO MAYBE THERE'S SOME STUDY ABOUT, UH, WHAT THE POTENTIAL GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES MIGHT BE, UH, RATIONAL GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES MIGHT BE ON THOSE CAMPUSES.
MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO GET AHEAD OF, UH, THE NEXT WAVE OF DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, NEED.
AND OBVIOUSLY HOUSING, HOUSING, HOUSING, UM, IS, UH, IS, IS WORTH WE'RE FOCUSING ON.
AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT ON THE THIRD AS WELL, WHICH WILL BE TERRIFIC.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS YOU WANNA ADD TO, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL? THAT SEEMS PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE, JEFF, AND I KNOW YOU TAKE CAREFUL NOTE OF, UH, THE WISDOM THAT WE PASS ON TO YOU.
SO, UM, AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE, UM, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION THAT WE MOVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO THE COUNCIL, UH, CONSISTENT WITH, UH, SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING, UH, FOR FURTHER STUDY AND SMALL EDITS TO THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS DRAFTED, A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR, UH, ORDINANCE OF THIS, UH, OF THIS, UH, ZONING CHANGE.
LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.
I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION AND A SECOND.
A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION.
THAT'S ALL MEMBERS VOTING IN FAVOR.
UM, SO I GUESS THIS CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM STAFF? THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION AND WE'LL, WE'LL KEEP TALKING UNIVERSITIES NEXT WEEK.
ARE THERE, UH, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE ADJOURN? OH, GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME TONIGHT AND, UH, WE'LL DO BETTER NEXT TIME.