Audio Version

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)

Staff Present: * Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development, Community Development Department) * Swathi Joseph (Community Development Department) * Megan Bayer (City Solicitor)

Executive Summary

The Cambridge Planning Board convened on July 8th, 2025, to continue a public hearing on a zoning petition to amend sections of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance related to religious uses. The proposed amendments seek to remove gross floor area and floor area ratio limitations, permit conforming additions to non-conforming structures without limitation, and allow religious uses the same dimensional limitations as residential uses in Residence C-1 districts, with specific exceptions for permeable open space, building height, and neighborhood notification. Following a legal opinion from the City Solicitor and further discussion, 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 legal considerations.

1. Community Development Department Update

• Staff Introductions: Jeff Roberts (Director of Zoning and Development) introduced Swathi Joseph (Community Development Department) and Megan Bayer (City Solicitor).
• Upcoming Meetings:
  • July 22nd: Primarily in-person meeting at 344 Broadway, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, with Zoom-only remote participation. Focus will be on general business items, including planning and zoning recommendations from the Massachusetts Avenue Planning Study and Our Cambridge Street Planning Study, aiming to bring zoning petitions to the City Council in the fall. Also expected to review some BZA cases.
  • August 5th: Remote public hearing (Zoom only) on a city zoning petition related to short-term rentals and a design review for an affordable housing overlay development at 28-30 Wendell Street.
  • August 19th: Next scheduled meeting.
• City Council Updates:
  • City Council is on hiatus, reconvening on August 4th.
  • Two pending zoning petitions could be voted on August 4th:
    • Biomed zoning petition (Charles Street area), which the Planning Board gave a positive recommendation.
    • The zoning petition discussed tonight.
• Clarification on July 22nd Meeting: H. Theodore Cohen confirmed the next meeting is July 22nd, not July 29th.

2. Approval of Meeting Minutes

• Motion: Diego Macias moved to accept the certified transcript for the meeting held on April 15th, 2025, as the meeting minutes.
• Second: H. Theodore Cohen seconded the motion.
• Roll Call Vote:
  • H. Theodore Cohen: Yes
  • Mary Lydecker: Yes
  • Diego Macias: Yes
  • Ashley Tan: Yes
  • Carolyn Zern: Yes
  • Mary Flynn: Yes
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

3. 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. * Permit buildings up to six stories and 74 feet above grade without meeting inclusionary housing requirements. * Exempt buildings taller than 35 feet and three stories above grade from neighbor notification and meeting requirements.

3.1. Staff Overview and Legal Opinion Update

• Jeff Roberts (CDD):
  • Recapped the hearing's history: opened May 20th, continued for a legal opinion.
  • Legal opinion provided in June to City Council and Planning Board.
  • Ordinance Committee continued hearing on June 16th, referred petition to full City Council with no recommendation.
  • City Council passed petition to a second reading on June 30th, enabling a potential vote on August 4th.
  • Ordinance Committee requested staff to look at modifications regarding open space, neighborhood notification, and clarifying language for inclusionary housing and height limitations.
  • Planning Board's role: consider legal opinion, discuss petition, and decide on a report to City Council.
• Megan Bayer (City Solicitor):
  • Provided a high-level summary of the legal opinion, emphasizing its general applicability to all religious uses citywide, not specific to ongoing litigation.
  • State Law (Dover Amendment - Chapter 40A, Section 3):
    • Protects religious and non-profit educational uses from prohibition by zoning ordinances.
    • Allows reasonable dimensional regulations.
    • Cambridge's 1979 special legislation allowed restrictions in districts requiring 1,200 sq ft/dwelling unit.
    • Multifamily zoning eliminated lot area per dwelling unit in Residence C-1, rendering the special legislation inapplicable in those districts.
    • Updates to institutional use regulations are needed to reflect this change.
    • Reasonableness of regulations is case-by-case; applicants can seek zoning relief if regulations are deemed unreasonable.
    • Courts consider if regulations impede usefulness, impose excessive costs, or impair character without significant municipal gain (e.g., Mormon temple steeple on Route 2).
  • Federal Law (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act - RLUIPA):
    • Protects only religious uses.
    • 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 restrictions on 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 in Lenox case were not compelling when applied only to religious educational uses).
    • "Least restrictive means" implies that mitigation measures (e.g., traffic mitigation) should be considered before denial.
    • RLUIPA requires equal treatment of religious and non-religious uses (e.g., secular vs. religious schools, assembly halls).
    • Violations can lead to 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.
    • Even without this petition, religious uses could exceed current allowances through case-by-case RLUIPA analysis.
    • The petition is not mandatory under RLUIPA but would reduce discretionary decisions by land use boards.
• Board Questions for Staff:
  • Ashley Tan: Inquired about Ordinance Committee's request for staff to review Footnote 1 (permeable open space), Footnote 37 (neighborhood notification), and clarification on inclusionary housing for six-story religious uses. Jeff Roberts clarified that the petition proposed exceptions for religious uses in these areas, and the Council asked if applying residential requirements would be a substantial burden.
  • H. Theodore Cohen: Asked about inclusionary housing requirements for non-residential uses in Residence C-1. Jeff Roberts explained inclusionary housing applies to residential uses (10,000 sq ft or 10+ units) and the confusion arises from the six-story height allowance for residential uses contingent on inclusionary housing. Clarification is needed to ensure non-residential uses don't get six stories without inclusionary requirements.
  • Carolyn Zern: Asked if there's a "religious space crisis" analogous to the housing crisis. Megan Bayer was unaware of such a crisis, and Jeff Roberts noted CDD's memo found no planning discussion on needing more or fewer religious uses, which are distributed citywide. Carolyn also asked if passing the petition mitigates litigation risk by reducing case-by-case petitions rather than mitigating discrimination. Megan Bayer confirmed it would reduce the need for religious institutions to seek zoning relief, making it harder to argue a compelling government purpose for more restrictive dimensional requirements for religious uses if residential uses are allowed greater density.
  • Dan Anderson: Questioned if there's a less restrictive means to mitigate height impacts (light, air, shadow) for religious uses, given that residential uses are allowed six stories. Megan Bayer stated it's hard to argue a compelling government interest in preserving light for one use but not another if both are allowed six stories.
  • H. Theodore Cohen: Asked what constitutes a "religious use" if a religious organization builds housing not restricted to its congregants. Megan Bayer explained that while some housing (e.g., convents) can be religious, merely being developed by a religious institution doesn't automatically make it a religious use. It requires a fact-dependent, case-by-case analysis.

3.2. Petitioner Presentation

• Patrick Yerby (Timon Davis and Duffy): Representing Lubavitch of Cambridge, a proponent of the amendment. Introduced Christopher Hall.
• Christopher Hall:
  • Emphasized that the presentation would largely summarize previously provided information.
  • Reiterated that the final zoning petition would likely not contain proposed amendments to Footnotes 1 and 37, meaning future religious uses would abide by permeable open space requirements and non-binding abutter/neighbor meetings.
  • Highlighted the City Solicitor's memo points: amendment applies only to religious uses, RLUIPA provides extra protection for religious uses, and Cambridge's unique relationship with educational uses differs from religious uses.
  • CDD memo highlighted that institutional planning in Cambridge has focused on educational uses, not religious uses.
  • New religious buildings are rare, but RLUIPA and Dover Amendment protections apply.
  • The proposed amendment helps manage city liability and smooths the review process by putting religious uses on equal footing with residential uses.
  • Clarified that the six-story height without inclusionary housing would apply only to religious uses, not standard mixed-use.
  • Patrick Yerby offered to discuss specific amendment details if requested.

3.3. Public Comment

• Deborah Epstein (36 Bank Street): Expressed concern about the City Solicitor consulting the petitioner's lawyer for legal interpretation, feeling the city lacks experienced RLUIPA legal representation. Questioned the compelling government interest regarding intensity of use, noting institutional buildings can have 10x the occupancy of residential buildings of the same size (2,000 vs. 200 people). Implored the Board to seek more information on RLUIPA cases where municipalities won.
• Alan Joslin (36 Bank Street): Stressed the importance of "intensity of use" as a compelling government interest, which drove Cambridge's original exclusion from the Dover Amendment. Reiterated the 10x occupancy difference between institutional and residential buildings. Warned against complacency, noting Chabad owns over 10 properties, and this amendment could radically change FAR for all of them. Argued the city should be allowed case-by-case review and needs zoning for 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 institutional use regulations to reflect the loss of the previous exemption.
• Heather Hoffman (213 Hurley Street): Corrected the City Solicitor's statement about C1 districts not being covered by the Dover Amendment exemption, stating her C1 district had a 1,500 sq ft/dwelling unit minimum. Emphasized the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, citing the Grendel-Den case, and argued the proposal's primary effect advances religion, which is unconstitutional.
• Marilee Meyer (10 Dana Street): Expressed resentment over the process, feeling a lack of due process and neighbor engagement. Noted a pattern of subtle threats of lawsuits from the organization. Questioned how a six-story allowance for a project originally seeking three stories is not a "windfall" rather than addressing a "substantial burden." Highlighted the organization's ownership of 19+ properties and opposed citywide zoning, advocating for case-by-case review.

3.4. Board Discussion and Deliberation

• 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 for intensity of use. Megan Bayer confirmed that if passed, religious uses would be allowed these dimensions as of right, removing case-by-case analysis for that specific issue.
• Mary Flynn:
  • Asked the petitioner and city staff about the interpretation of "intensity of use" for religious vs. residential institutions. Christopher Hall (petitioner) argued that religious institutions, while theoretically capable of high occupancy, don't practically operate with the same 24/7 intensity as residential buildings, and RLUIPA applies regardless. Megan Bayer stated that if the petition passes, religious uses complying with zoning and building code would operate as needed, and if housing is part of a religious use (e.g., for religious leaders), inclusionary requirements would not apply.
  • Asked about re-establishing a Dover Amendment exemption. Megan Bayer stated she hasn't heard internal discussions about new special legislation for this, but CDD and Law Department are planning zoning petitions to update the ordinance to reflect the loss of the previous exemption.
  • Suggested requiring a special permit for religious institutions to go from four to six stories to allow consideration of public impacts (traffic, etc.). Megan Bayer said this is possible if there's a rational reason, but a religious use could still argue it's a substantial burden.
• Ashley Tan:
  • Acknowledged litigation risk but emphasized the Board's role in case-by-case review.
  • Agreed with the Ordinance Committee's push to retain permeable open space and neighborhood notification requirements for religious uses, as it's more neutral.
  • Expressed faith in the professionalism of city boards and staff to make fair determinations.
  • Leaned towards sending comments without a specific recommendation.
• Mary Lydecker:
  • From a planning perspective, noted that multifamily housing changes were driven by community advocacy for affordable housing, with significant debate over massing and impacts. Expanding height without similar community input feels concerning.
  • Expressed relief that the petition would likely retain open space and abutter meeting requirements.
  • Leaned towards remaining neutral and sending comments.
• Dan Anderson:
  • Agreed with previous comments, preferring regulations to match residential uses more equally, especially with a compelling community benefit for additional height (like affordable housing).
  • Expressed concern about unintended consequences and the intensity of use for six stories of classrooms/office space versus residential.
  • Advocated for a "thoughtfulness" recommendation, highlighting the need for City Council to consider both legal and civic input.
  • Noted that allowing six stories for religious uses without additional requirements makes it more lenient than for residential uses.
• Diego Macias:
  • Expressed concern about the intensity of use and its planning implications for neighborhoods.
  • Felt the process was rushed compared to the extensive discussions for AHO and multifamily zoning.
  • Wished to express planning concerns to the City Council.
• Carolyn Zern:
  • Agreed with Mary Lydecker's concerns and Ashley Tan's point about strong city boards handling RLUIPA cases.
  • Leaned towards a negative recommendation or neutral with strong comments due to the reasons raised.
• H. Theodore Cohen:
  • Leaned towards no recommendation but sending extensive comments.
  • Acknowledged the difficulty of separating planning from litigation risk.
  • Agreed that RLUIPA and Dover Amendment necessitate some changes, but not necessarily everything proposed.
  • Highlighted the "intensity of use" as significant but difficult to parse (200 permanent residents vs. 2,000 occasional attendees).
  • Supported retaining permeable open space and non-binding meeting requirements.
  • Stated that the City Council, as political body, must weigh the impact on the city as a whole.
  • Noted that not amending the zoning would burden boards with case-by-case analysis.
  • Emphasized the need to address non-religious educational uses soon.
• Petitioner (Christopher Hall): Rebutted the "intensity of use" argument, stating that religious institutions, in practice, are often less intensely used than residential buildings (e.g., weekly services vs. 24/7 occupancy, less traffic).

3.5. Board Decision

• Summary of Consensus: The Board agreed to send comments to the City Council without a positive or negative recommendation.
  • Key points for comments:
    • Support for the Ordinance Committee's recommendation to retain permeable open space and public notification requirements.
    • Highlight the context of multifamily housing amendments, their intent (affordable housing), and the community's concerns over increased height.
    • Express planning concerns regarding the intensity of use for religious institutions, noting it is not regulated under the proposed amendment and could have unanticipated impacts.
    • Point out that the petition, in some ways, is more lenient for religious uses than for residential uses (no additional requirements for 4-6 stories, no public benefit).
    • Acknowledge the legal concerns and challenges related to RLUIPA and the Dover Amendment, and the potential burden on city boards for case-by-case review.
    • Suggest considering a special permit requirement for religious institutions seeking to exceed four stories, allowing for public review and mitigation of impacts.
• Motion: H. Theodore Cohen moved to provide comments to the City Council on the petition, stressing the planning concerns raised during the meeting while noting the legal issues, and including the suggestion of a special permit option for height beyond four stories.
• Second: Ashley Tan seconded the motion.
• Roll Call Vote:
  • H. Theodore Cohen: Yes
  • Mary Lydecker: Yes
  • Diego Macias: Yes
  • Ashley Tan: Yes
  • Carolyn Zern: Yes
  • Mary Flynn: Yes
• Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (6-0).

4. Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned.