[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6544881,"mediaKeyId","3409825-c5dfdce6f71be5d89e58575d0935f970","parentId",3409825,"title","Cambridge committee hears proposal to ease zoning limits for religious institutions amid RLUIPA concerns","audioSeconds",4690,"startMs",568000,"endMs",5258000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409825-c5dfdce6f71be5d89e58575d0935f970&start=568&end=5258","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409825-c5dfdce6f71be5d89e58575d0935f970/thumbnail_568000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6544881/Cambridge-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Cambridge-committee-hears-proposal-to-ease-zoning-limits-for-religious-institutions-amid-RLUIPA-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544881-c98a8501ad52dfc7d060eb4f41df093e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159768&Signature=n5UrtYPLMKV~Q9PGMMcZiAOZVsu8q4HI2PPh37BpNT1xYJKrGM-wqSz3t1FELV0NkCJs5fRA-OG4TYTFm7WJPk2AWonTwP4d2Dv6YRobLAJY4d0qoU44SaLjb3Yg0ASp8pzxXIF8vVW8zYZrBTBrb6EwQuJ9nkxvI3yYrbvziTvjkTlraI0lVkIX80VCz0zRNpWyIcE38UeNYTA-FF1ns8lb-O1TqA~qFj74ST3L7F7vZtYGvEoMcTdKfsVSXWGMwG2Ix5fqFabgIT2FkjZTSEDdv~3271M40H94gq0fZvlhzhiUYRm6~iP08vme41aV7S3niSHGTb~ORInMZkENzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cambridge, MA","date","2025-05-20T10:25:00Z","article","The Cambridge Ordinance Committee heard presentations and public comment Tuesday on a petition by Musla Morasio et al. seeking broad changes to the city zoning code to treat religious uses more like residential uses in several districts. Attorneys for the petitioners said the changes would remove gross floor area (GFA) and floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits for religious uses, allow unconstrained additions to pre‑existing nonconforming structures when used for religion, and permit religious buildings in some Residence C1 areas to reach six stories (up to 74 feet) without meeting inclusionary housing requirements or neighborhood notification requirements.

The petitioners’ lawyers argued the amendments respond to legal risk under federal law. “The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is very, very specific,” Weil Gotshal attorney Yehuda Buckowitz told the committee. Buckowitz said RLUIPA creates three protections — a substantial‑burden standard, an anti‑discrimination standard and an equal‑terms standard — and that “municipalities face serious risks” if zoning is applied in a way that substantially burdens religious exercise.

The proposal matters because, petitioners and their counsel said, the city’s amended residential rules (passage of recent multifamily zoning) created a regulatory framework that, without corresponding changes for religious uses, could expose the city to RLUIPA litigation and monetary damages. Benjamin Tymon, co‑counsel for the petitioners, said the proposed redlines mirror the residential amendments: “By allowing religious applicants to expand as of right… the zoning changes will prevent the city from violating RLUIPA by reclaiming discretionary relief that could lead to improper denials and delays,” Tymon said.

Committee members and city staff acknowledged the legal and policy questions are complex. The city solicitor explained that RLUIPA applies broadly and can lead to federal litigation, and she confirmed Cambridge’s prior home‑rule legislation that limited institutional growth interacts with Massachusetts’s Dover Amendment and the recent multifamily zoning changes. The solicitor told the panel she and staff would prepare a written legal opinion examining whether the proposed amendments are advisable or required to reduce legal risk and what other changes to the institutional‑use regulations might be needed.

Neighbors and neighborhood associations spoke strongly against a blanket, city‑wide exemption for religious uses. Cary Corner residents described the Lubavitch project on Bank Street as incompatible with a small residential block and warned the change could remove protections the city put in place decades ago to limit institutional encroachment into housing areas. “If every institution is allowed to expand like this and affect the remaining individuals without working with the community, will the respect for individual freedom still exist?” asked Lily Shen of Bank Street. Other neighbors said the petition would remove basic constraints — setbacks, GFA/FAR and notification — and could accelerate the loss of housing units in small neighborhoods.

Council discussion focused on three related issues: (1) the federal RLUIPA risk described by petition counsel; (2) the effect of the Dover Amendment and Cambridge’s historic home‑rule exemptions after the city’s multifamily rezoning removed district minimum lot sizes; and (3) the ongoing, separate Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) litigation and settlement discussions involving the petitioners’ project. Several members said the BZA case and any settlement are distinct but related and that the omnibus zoning changes in the petition would apply citywide.

Rather than vote on the petition, the committee asked the city solicitor to prepare a detailed legal opinion examining RLUIPA, the Dover Amendment implications for Cambridge given recent zoning changes, and whether the council should adopt the proposed amendments or pursue other targeted updates to institutional‑use regulations. Council members also asked staff from the Community Development Department to follow up on zoning edits that may be needed to align institutional rules with the multifamily amendments. The committee did not act on the petition; members agreed to keep it in committee pending the solicitor’s legal opinion and additional follow‑up from CDD.

What’s next: The solicitor will draft an opinion for the Ordinance Committee and the council. The petition remains in committee; any future action will be scheduled after the city completes legal and zoning reviews.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the committee hearing record and include: Yehuda Buckowitz (Weil Gotshal, counsel to petitioners), Benjamin Tymon (Tymon Davis & Duffy, counsel to petitioners), and multiple residents who testified during the public comment period.

Votes at a glance: No formal committee vote on the petition; committee agreed to defer and ask the solicitor for an opinion and for CDD to return with recommended ordinance edits.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cambridge - May 20, 2025 10:30 AM - Ordinance Committee - Committee Meeting - May 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Cambridge Ordinance Committee heard presentations and public comment Tuesday on a petition by Musla Morasio et al. seeking broad changes to the city zoning code to treat religious uses more like residential uses in several districts.","taxTitle","Cambridge City, Middlesex County, Massachusetts","taxId",3771,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6544876,"Ordinance committee advances Biomed Realty’s East Cambridge overlay petition with $21.2M commitment for East End House",10071,639000,10710000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3409825-c5dfdce6f71be5d89e58575d0935f970&start=639&end=10710","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3409825-c5dfdce6f71be5d89e58575d0935f970/thumbnail_639000.jpg","/articles/6544876/Cambridge-City/Middlesex-County/Massachusetts/Ordinance-committee-advances-Biomed-Realtys-East-Cambridge-overlay-petition-with-212M-commitment-for-East-End-House","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6544876-1c73e6e91c8ecedb46231807179345cb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159768&Signature=oaV7d2SRbHmB5BIHxmWm4pvsW2Bsns3nTjOHFkVPKzbOuIplS03b6P~6fqcCD9oNKz65JgZuUJx8-drHbPeVHy8x9FORHv~UBfzQbfxr~i-3sfdIT3nwAbBq1hIY-JUXWLh3mwnN8TSjdeTZ~mdWV7AO9RynNs28T7r4O1CyHAM2o52K-gw3KZBGHSMgr1JVByrw1hDv3Hg0l5jn3KkhAttJ0m8gqpxCJ6CRpPsVf6PBXSk5C5s1M2nePu3GNkxge75-5MjMgJIxh-GhuJCEoMQcva7avK-94APy3eHu-2jYGqX3sSiHcE1Fv2iJ-GCc3Rnvq13ULuo85iPORXqaMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cambridge Ordinance Committee voted Tuesday to forward with a favorable recommendation a zoning petition from Biomed Realty to create an East Cambridge Community Enhancement Overlay District covering 320 Charles Street and related parcels. Biomed’s proposal requests special‑permit authority for additional height and floor‑area to replace an aging industrial building with a stepped, landscaped laboratory and office building and accompanying public‑realm improvements.

“It's not often that we get the opportunity to develop a two‑and‑a‑half acre site in East Cambridge,” Sal Zinno, a Biomed Realty vice president, told the committee during the presentation. Zinno described the site as an older industrial building that “leaves a lot to be desired” and said the revised design responds to neighborhood feedback with larger setbacks, stepbacks above a three‑story podium, expanded tree canopy and courtyards facing Ahern Field.

The project team, led by architect Kishore Varanasi of CBT, presented explicit design controls that would be written into the overlay: a three‑story podium capped near 50 feet, fourth‑floor stepbacks, a 20 percent open‑space goal (above the base 15 percent requirement), and defined mechanical‑penthouse setbacks. CBT’s shadow analysis for fall and winter months showed reductions of midday shadow on Ahern Field compared with an as‑of‑right buildout, the presenters said.

Biomed also offered a package of community benefits tied to the overlay petition. The company proposed roughly $21.2 million to the East End House — a long‑running settlement house in East Cambridge whose leaders told the committee their current facility has an engineering assessment saying it has just three to five years of useful life. Biomed’s commitments also include a contribution the petitioner described as “around $10,000,000” to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust and supplemental funds or smaller investments for open space improvements, scholarships and studies.

East End House officials and many neighborhood residents testified in favor of the overlay petition, describing the nonprofit’s programs for children, seniors and families and asking that mitigation funds remain focused in East Cambridge. “East End House is important to East Cambridge because it keeps our community together,” said Betty Ann Brown in testimony read at the hearing; other users and longtime volunteers described food‑pantry deliveries, senior programs and after‑school services that would be at risk if the building closed.

Some neighbors and neighborhood associations said the community benefits package should be larger and asked the council to consider placing East End House on a nearby city‑owned parcel (135 Fulkerson) as a permanent site, an idea several residents and the Linden Park Neighborhood Association urged the committee to pursue during follow‑up planning. City staff noted that 135 Fulkerson is a separate parcel that was used for construction staging for nearby projects and that any transfer or use would require additional planning and approvals.

The Ordinance Committee approved sending the petition to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Councilor Wilson moved the motion to forward; a roll call recorded unanimous committee support for the motion to send the petition to the council for final consideration. Committee members also asked the petitioner and city staff to memorialize the community‑benefit commitments in a written letter of commitments that could be referenced at the council vote and to work with city lawyers on the best mechanism for funds distribution (city escrow vs. direct payments to nonprofits) and enforceable milestones.

What’s next: The petition will be considered by the full City Council; the committee asked Biomed and the City Solicitor to refine a binding commitment letter and advised CDD to coordinate permitting and follow‑up reports. If approved by the council and any required permit processes follow, the project team said construction would follow typical special‑permit reviews and design reviews.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing record and include Sal Zinno (Biomed Realty), Kishore Varanasi (CBT, architect), Michael Delia (East End House executive director) and multiple residents who testified in support.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance Committee moved to forward Biomed Realty petition for the East Cambridge Community Enhancement Overlay (320 Charles Street) to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation (committee roll call recorded unanimous yes votes by members present).","The Cambridge Ordinance Committee voted Tuesday to forward with a favorable recommendation a zoning petition from Biomed Realty to create an East Cambridge Community Enhancement Overlay District for 320 Charles Street, a redevelopment proposal that includes a multimillion‑dollar community benefits package.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cambridge committee hears proposal to ease zoning limits for religious institutions amid RLUIPA concerns

Ordinance committee advances Biomed Realty’s East Cambridge overlay petition with $21.2M commitment for East End House