Planning board recommends City Council reject petition to bar paved paths wider than 10 feet in open spaces

The Cambridge Planning Board voted unanimously on Sept. 30 to recommend that the City Council not adopt a citizen-initiated zoning petition that would prohibit paved ways greater than 10 feet wide in open-space districts.

The petitioners, led by Martin McCall, proposed amending sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the zoning ordinance to classify a paved way wider than 10 feet as a principal use in the table of uses and to prohibit that principal use in open-space districts. McCall told the board the change is intended to "preserve trees, reduce impervious surfaces" and make parks safer by discouraging higher speeds by motorized bicycles and mopeds. He read the petition text into the record, explaining that "paved" would include permeable and impermeable materials and that the proposal would limit increases in paved lanes to 2% of a contiguous open-space area within any two-year period.

"Wider is faster and faster is not safer," McCall said, citing speed measurements of 24–26 miles per hour on Linear Park and a loss of urban canopy the petition cites from the Urban Forest Master Plan. Attorney Heather Hoffman, speaking for the petitioners, addressed legal concerns raised in staff materials and told the board the standard for lawsuits is standing, arguing it would be difficult to show a cognizable injury from a path width alone.

City staff raised interpretive concerns. Jeff Roberts, director of zoning and development in the Community Development Department, said the petition's broad definition of "way" (which lists sidewalks, paths, courts, plazas, alleys and other paved areas) "raises a number of questions" about whether the language would sweep in plazas or sports courts. Roberts noted the zoning ordinance does not currently define "way," and told the board that the proposed wording could create unintended examples that would require zoning review.

Public commenters were mixed. Jeb Mays, of the Cornerstone cohousing community in North Cambridge, urged approval, saying the neighborhood suffers from a heat-island effect and that "widening is only going to encourage more people to take the path and to make it less safe." Environmental health scientist Marina Atlas supported depaving and permeable surfaces while warning about potential contamination risks from some plastic-based systems. Longtime resident Tom Goro described rising groundwater and sewage-backup risks and urged that paving decisions be aligned with long-term groundwater management.

In board discussion, members focused on two consistent themes: support for the petitioners' goals of protecting trees and improving stormwater and public-safety outcomes, and concern that zoning language as drafted would be an inflexible tool that could produce unintended negative consequences. Planning Board member Ted Cohen said zoning "ties the hands of the city" and raised doubts about applying a single dimensional limit to diverse park types. Member Mary Liedecker warned that a 10-foot rule could eliminate design flexibility and would not require tree planting as part of the change. Member Carolyn Zurn expressed concern that developers might build larger paved areas preemptively to avoid future constraints.

After discussion, the board asked staff to include the concerns raised in its memo to the City Council and voted to send a negative recommendation. Ted Cohen moved the motion; Mary Liedecker seconded it. Jeff Roberts conducted a roll-call vote; all five full members present voted yes.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to accept certified transcripts (June 10 and July 8, 2025) as meeting minutes: passed by roll call, all five full members present voting yes. - Motion that the Planning Board recommend the City Council not adopt the petition restricting paved ways greater than 10 feet in open-space districts: passed by roll call, 5–0.

What’s next

The Planning Board will forward its recommendation and the discussion notes to the City Council for consideration as part of the council’s zoning-petition process. Staff and petitioners were encouraged to continue working together on alternatives that could incorporate tree-preservation and stormwater objectives without the perceived drawbacks of the drafted zoning text.