Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Institutional Corridor Boston Ave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and planners flag Boston Avenue/Tufts corridor and institutional zoning as next steps
Summary
Public commenters at the Feb. 12 Planning and Permitting Committee meeting asked the city to address large institutional projects along the Boston Avenue corridor, including recent dormitory proposals by Tufts University, and councilors and consultants said corridor and institutional zoning definitions will be handled in a later phase.
A number of public commenters told the Planning and Permitting Committee Feb. 12 that the Boston Avenue corridor and projects by Tufts University require focused attention because height and scale there directly overlook nearby residential neighborhoods.
Resident Janie Talarita, who identified herself from Hillside, asked about a recent Tufts proposal for “two buildings 10 stories high” on Boston Avenue and said the corridor “towers above us.” She asked how the zoning work will address large institutional dormitories and protect the adjacent hillside neighborhoods.
President Bares and staff said the Boston Avenue corridor and university sites will be treated as corridor and institutional zoning in a later phase of the Plan 2025 process. Bares told the meeting the city is considering an institutional zoning approach for Tufts and said the goal is to “fix these broken elements of our zoning, to avoid outcomes like what we saw” with recent large projects.
Consultants said they will extend the dimensional and light/air analyses done for Salem Street to areas such as Boston Avenue and will work with staff and the council to evaluate setback, stepback and other standards tailored to topography and adjacent neighborhoods. Emily Ennis confirmed the team will “do those studies... to make sure that our dimensional standards work.”
Committee members also discussed specific projects already in process: the Wellington MBTA area and a CAPI site application were mentioned as examples where overlay rules, easement constraints and PDD timing affect what can be built. President Bares urged an approach that applies consistent district‑wide rules where feasible rather than ad hoc parcel‑by‑parcel fixes.
The committee said corridor‑level work and institutional zones will come later in the Plan 2025 schedule, and asked consultants to coordinate study work on visual impacts and dimensional standards so councilors and residents can review draft protections before final referral to the Community Development Board.
