All set to get started. >> Ready when you are. >> Mike, uh, I know, uh, Nelson's going to be five minutes late. He said, I'll let you know when he's here. >> Okay, sure. >> But we have the numbers, so you're good to go. >> Okay. Thank you for joining the Boston Zoning
Commission public hearing. The open public meeting law requires that I notify the public that this meeting is being recorded. Please be aware that an audio and visual recording of this meeting is being made. Have we started the recording? We have. Uh we'll now take a roll call of the members uh present here at the beginning
of the meeting. Uh each member will identify themselves as being present. Miss Hatton, >> good morning. Present. >> Miss Morawa, >> present. >> Miss Miller, >> present. Mr. Damela >> present. >> Mr. Maher >> present. >> Mr. Leth
>> present. >> Mr. Aoyo. >> We expect to join soon. Mr. McNeel >> present. >> Mr. Ostridge >> present. >> Mr. Woods >> present. >> All right. This is our 9:00 a.m. public hearing. Uh this is a public hearing before the Boston Zoning Commission to
consider text amendment application number 544 with respect to the Charlestown Neighborhood District. The hearing was duly advertised on November 19, 2025 in the Boston Herald. In a Boston zoning commission hearing on proposed petitions, the proponent first present the and are subject to the
questioning by members of the commission only. We will be taking support and opposition. At the same time, if you plan to testify, please take time now to verify that your computer microphone is active. You can click on the hand icon on your Zoom control panel to indicate you wish to speak for the 9:00 a.m.
hearing only. This will signal staff that you would like to speak. When your hand is raised, it will be blue. If you are calling into the meeting and would like to testify, please dial star9 to raise your hand. When we call for testimony, staff will announce your name and allow you to speak. You will unmute your microphone, but your webcam will not be active. In an effort to
accommodate all who wish to speak about each proposal, uh each uh person will be given up to two minutes to comment. Commission staff will indicate when 30 seconds remain. At that time, please conclude your remarks so that the hearing may continue and others may be heard. Uh, please attempt to offer new testimony during uh, new information
during your testimony. Please do not seek to repeat information and testimony that's been stated prior. If someone has offered similar testimony yours, please simply state your name and whether you're for and against the proposed amendments. Finally, the proponents will be allowed a brief period of rebuttal if they so desire. Will the planning department please begin the 9:00 a.m.
presentation? We do have interpreters for this first hearing. So, uh this is the order in which we'd ask you to in introduce yourselves. Also, for the record, I see that Nelson Aoyo has joined us uh and is part of the uh voting quorum for this meeting. Um would the interpreters
please introduce themselves in the order that is presented on the screen. >> Good morning everyone. Uh thank you, Michael. Um, this is John, uh, the Cantonese interpreter for today's meeting. Bye bye. Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh, hi everyone. My name is Wayey. I will be a Chinese medical interpreter today. Okay, thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Jardine and I'm your Haitian Creole interpreter for this morning's meeting.
Hello everybody. I'm Melissa. I'm the Spanish interpreter for today. Hi, my name is Vicki and I will be your Vietnamese interpreter for today meeting. My name is Thank you.
>> Good morning. My name is Naen. I will be your keyboard and Creole interpreter for this meeting. Thank you. Thank you to our interpreters. The interpretation channels are now open. Uh will the planning department please proceed with the 9:00 a.m. hearing?
>> All right. Um good morning. My name is Christopher Mascus and I'm a planner one on the zoning reform team here to present a proposed text amendment to article 62 section 20 of the Boston zoning code. This amendment is specifically tied to height regulations
within the PDA1 area of Charles Town outlined in plan Charles Town 2023 and is needed to clarify the height limits that apply south of Austin Street within this boundary. Next slide, please. As background, Plan Charles Town
identifies the Austin Streets parking lot as one of the neighborhood's highest priority redevelopment opportunities. The site is also highlighted in the city's public land for public good initiative as a location capable of delivering new mixed income housing,
public open space, and improved neighborhood connections. Next slide, please. Throughout the planning process, the community and different stakeholders helped to shape a clear set of priorities and goals for the Austin Street Lots development. These goals
include delivering mixed income units ranging from deeply affordable to market rate, creating highquality publicly accessible open space that can support sports practice and youth programming. supporting local artists in and around the community by incorporating rehearsal
and performance space and delivering essential public realm and streetway improvements around the site, including the Austin Street Rutherford Avenue intersection. Next slide, please. Plan Charles Town establishes a clearly laid out height framework for this
particular area of the neighborhood north of Austin Street. Plan Charles Town calls for a stepped height limit starting at 90 ft closest to Rutherford Avenue and increasing up to 280 ft closest to the I93 vioaduct south of
Austin Street within the same PDA area. Plan Charles Town calls for a consistent 150 ft height limit between Rutherford Avenue and I93. Next slide, please. The Austin Street Lots PDA master plan
outlines the potential development at this site, envisioning up to 709,000 square ft of gross floor area, up to 705 new dwelling units, and heights consistent with the planned Charles Town scheme, including up to the 150 ft
height limit later in later phases. This plan advances the goals established by the community and planning department, but clarification in the existing zoning language is necessary to ensure alignment between the zoning code and the PDA framework. Next slide, please.
Under the current article 62 text, the height limits are defined geographically but not specified by the existing language in a key way. While the 90, 150, and 280 ft height bands are described, the text does not explicitly
state that the 150 ft height limit applies to the area south of Austin Street within the PDA1 boundary. This creates ambiguity for both the PDA master plan and future development proposals. The intent of Plan Charles Town is clear, but the zoning text must
be updated to reflect this intent. Next slide, please. The proposed text amendment adds necessary clarification. The revised language explicitly states that the 150 ft height applies in areas north of
Austin Street that is west of a line drawn 200 ft west of Rutherford Avenue and in the area that is south of Austin Street within PDA1. All other text remains unchanged. This update does not alter the planning
intent, height allowances, or the PDA master plan, but simply codifies the height structure in a clear and enforcable manner. Next slide, please. This clarification is fully aligned with both community feedback and comments
received at the PDA master plan during the PDA master plan review process and during plan Charles Town. At the BPDA board meeting on October 16th, 2025, residents, I AG members, and union workers all expressed strong support for
maximizing housing production at the Austin Street lots, including the importance of permitting the full 150 ft height. Public comments emphasized that these height allowances are fundamental to enabling additional affordable units, new retail and active ground flooror
spaces, and improved connections along Rutherford Avenue. This amendment ensures that the zoning code accurately reflects these community defined goals. Next slide, please. Thank you for the time and consideration today. I'm happy to answer any and all
questions regarding this amendment to article 62 section 20 of the zoning code. >> Thank you, Christopher. At this time, we'll take comments uh or questions from members of the commission only followed by public testimony. Are there any members of the commission that have
questions regarding this presentation? Hearing none, we would now invite um participation from the public. Um as mentioned before, please indicate on your Zoom panel if you wish to speak. If you are dialing into the meeting, you can dial star 9 to raise your hand. Are there any members of the public that
wish to speak on this item? >> Does not look like it. >> Okay. With no raised hands, we will uh move into our business session. Um, comments, questions, motions from commissioners. Commissioner Hatton. >> Oh. Um, thank you, Mr. Nichols. Um, I
was going to propose that we, uh, I would like to make a motion that we approve text amendment application number 544, plan Charleston Charles Town PDA Height, article 62, Charles Town Neighborhood District.
>> A motion and a second. Is there any additional discussion from members of the commission? Hearing none, we'll move toward a roll call vote. Miss Hat, >> yes. >> Miss Morawa, >> yes. >> Miss Miller, >> yes. >> Mr. Damela, >> yes.
>> Mr. Maher, >> yes. >> Mr. Leth, >> yes. >> Mr. Aoyo, >> yes. >> Mr. McNeel, >> yes. >> Mr. Ostrich, >> yes. >> Mr. Woods, >> yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous vote in support. Thank you to the planning
department team for your presentation on that matter. Um, we will now move forward with our 9:05 a.m. public hearing. Thank you for joining the Boston Zoning Commission public hearing. The open public meeting law requires that I notify the public that this meeting is being recorded. Please be aware that an audio and visual recording
of this meeting is being made. We'll now take a roll call of members present at the beginning of this hearing. Miss Hatton >> present. >> Mr. Morau, Miss Morawa, >> present. >> Miss Miller, >> present. >> Mr. Dilla,
>> present. Mr. Maher, >> present. >> Mr. Left, >> present. >> Mr. Royo, >> present. >> Mr. McNeel, >> present. >> Mr. Ostridge, >> present. >> Mr. Woods, >> present. >> And I'm Michael Nichols. I am present. The 9:05 a.m. public hearing. This is
the public hearing before the Boston Zoning Commission to consider text amendment application number 543 with respect to the squares and streets zoning. The hearing was duly advertised on November 19, 2025 in the Boston Herald. In a Boston zoning commission hearing on proposed petitions, the proponent will first present their case
and are subject to questioning by members of the commission only. We will then take support in opposition during public testimony at the same time. If you're planning to testify, please take time now to verify that your computer microphone is active by clicking the hand icon on your Zoom control panel. This will signal to staff that you wish
to speak. When raised, uh it will be blue. Uh if you are calling into the meeting, wish to testify, you'll dial star9 to raise your hand. When we call for all testimony, staff will announce your name in the order in which you have requested to speak, allow you to unmute your microphone, and your webcam will not be active. In an effort to
accommodate all who wish to speak about each proposal, each person will be given up to two minutes to comment. Commission staff will indicate when 30 seconds remain. Uh, finally, the proponents will be allowed a brief period of rebuttal if they so desire. Will the planning department please begin the presentation?
>> Um, thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Um, my name is Maya Calold. Am I frozen? I look frozen on my end. >> We don't see you, but we can hear you clearly. >> Okay, I will continue. Um, hopefully my video comes back. Uh, my name is Maya Catlerolds and I'm a planner on the
zoning reform team and I will be presenting on the proposed text updates to the squares and street zoning. Um, next slide please. First to summarize the main components of the proposed text updates. The first um proposed first the proposed
amendment adds two new squares and streets districts. It also makes a few other changes to the use regulations in S2, S3, S4 and S5 and makes some other formatting updates. Next slide please. As a reminder, there are currently six
squares and streets districts in the zoning code which all allow mixeduse developments of multif family housing, commercial and cultural spaces in the neighborhood squares around Boston. They vary in terms of the rules around the uh maximum scales of buil maximum scale of
buildings and the required open space surrounding buildings as well as the types of uses allowed. Next slide, please. Currently, the Squares and Streets districts exist in two neighborhoods. They're in Madapan, where they were mapped last year following the
recommendations of Plan Matipan, and they're in Rosundale, where they were mapped earlier this year following the recommendations of the Rosundale Square small area plan. Next slide, please. For some backgrounds, this amendment we're proposing today is our response to
a citizens zoning petition which was submitted by a group of hide park residents last year during the Clary Square small area planning process. Major components of the High Park residence petition included one, increasing flexibility for use
regulations in the existing squares and streets districts, especially on upper stories, and two, adding new zoning districts to create more options for smaller scale mixeduse and commercial areas. Um, we met this first request for increasing use flexibility in the
existing squares and streets districts through a zoning amendment which was adopted in January 2025. Um although the new districts we're proposing now are not identical to those in the citizens petition, this amendment is meant to meet um the resident's
request for more options for districts that suit smaller scale mixeduse and commercial areas. Next slide, please. This approach to addressing community feedback and the resident zoning petition allows the planning department to maintain a consistent approach to the
drafting of the zoning code. Respond to this community feedback in High Park without contradicting recent planning in Rosendale and Matipan where the squares and trees districts are currently mapped and ensure that this new zoning is vetted through a full citywide community engagement process.
Next slide please. So, the first new district included in this amendment is S3-6. Um, to explain how this fits into the existing squares and streets districts, S36 is the exact same as our existing S3
district except that the height is limited to six stories instead of seven. All the other dimensional and use regulations are the exact same as S3. Um we added S36 to the zoning code by creating a footnote to the existing S3
district um instead of creating new columns in order to avoid redundancy. Next slide please. So to understand more the difference between S3 and S36 um it's helpful to understand more why S3 allows seven
stories. So the existing S3 height regulations were created to allow for 50 over1 construction which is a common and cost-effective mixeduse building typology made of five stories of woodframed construction which is typically residential above a concrete
podium which is typically commercial. Relatedly, buildings in S3 are likely to be only six stories as opposed to the maximum seven allowed in order to avoid the additional costs of complying with the Massachusetts building code requirements for high-rise buildings
which apply to buildings over 70 ft. Um, however, S3 allows 85 ft and seven stories in order to account for the fact that zoning height includes occupiable areas such as roof decks, as well as mechanical systems that cover more than
a third of the roof area. So, this allows for buildings that are most likely to be built in this district, which is six stories, with additional zoning heights to allow for flexibility for things like roof decks or rooftop mechanicals, um, which is especially
important for all electric buildings. Next slide. So, again, S36 buildings are allowed to be up to six stories. Just like S3, um S36 allows a large mix of small and medium-scale commercial uses that
promote activity um and active uses are required on the ground floor. So in terms of mapping, um S36 would be appropriate in active main street areas. um but where there is more sensitivity to height um and where the city is less
concerned with the need for rooftop amenity spaces or um rooftop mounted mechanical systems. Next slide, please. The next district this amendment adds is a four-story commercial oriented
mixeduse district called the shopping and commercial nodes district or SC. Um, this district allows buildings to fill the width of the lot and has a small um outdoor amenity space requirements. Um, it also allows a wide range of
active and commercial uses including on upper stories in order to encourage commercial growth and dwelling units are conditional on the ground floor primary lot frontage um to further encourage commercial and active uses.
Next slide, please. to explain more how SC compares to the existing squares and streets districts. SC has the same dimensional requirements as S2 uh such as the same yards and the same floor plate maximums. Um the
difference is that SC is one story shorter than S2. Um and the outdoor amenity space is smaller in SC in comparison to S2. Um, in terms of uses, SC has a wider range of commercial uses in comparison
to the existing smaller scale districts of S0, S1, and S2 and instead has use allowances more similar to S3 and S4. Next slide. Um, so now to talk more about the other use changes proposed in this amendment.
Next slide, please. Uh first, this amendment makes shelter facilities conditional instead of forbidden in S2, S3, S4, and S5. Um this makes this needed use uh uh able to be created in these districts after a
case-by case review. This amendment also makes shelter facilities exempt um from the active use requirements, which is already how we deal with um civic uses, open space uses, and affordable housing. Next slide, please. Next, this amendment makes banks allowed
on the ground floor instead of conditional in S3, S4, and S5. This use is already common in squares and streets areas, and we think this especially makes sense um in these districts because the active use requirements in S3, S4, and S5 ensures that banks will
not be the only ground floor use. Next slide, please. This amendment also makes large retail stores which are between 10,000 and 5,000 sorry 10 10,000 and 50,000 square feet um allowed instead of conditional
on upper stories in S4 and S5. This makes it easier to create multi-story retail in these larger scale districts which is generally how um this will occur in this context. Next slide please. The last use change in this amendment is that we're proposing removing a rule
that currently exists in S2 through S5 and requires that wherever a commercial use is on the ground floor, the ground floor has to have a minimum height of 14 ft. This rule was created to ensure that new buildings can easily accommodate uses that need a higher ceiling height
such as restaurants. The reason we're proposing removing this rule is because it creates a potential barrier for new businesses trying to open in existing buildings if the existing ground floor height is less than 14 ft. For new buildings, this
design consideration can be accounted for in article 80 design review. Next slide. This slide explains the main formatting update included in this amendment. Currently, asterisks are used in the use table to indicate that a use has a use
and performance standard in article 26. Um, some use and performance standards apply to entire groups of uses such as the limits on ground floor dwelling units. This amendment removes the asterisks that are used for these whole groups of uses so that they are only
used for individual uses that have use and performance standards. Next slide, please. Lastly, this amendment includes a fix to a typo that is in the definition of restaurant. Next slide. Um, so lastly, for public engagement
that we did for this amendment, we had a 4-week comment period during which time we had a virtual public meeting and five office hour sessions. Um, at the public meeting, interpreters were available in Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Kate, Verian Creole, Haitian Creole, and
Vietnamese. and the executive summary was translated in these six languages as well. Um, we received one public comment which was a support letter we received yesterday from the High Park um, neighborhood association and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, we will now move forward with uh, questions for members of the commission only. Members of the public who wish to speak in this matter could begin to register your interest by raising your hand or dialing star9. We will start with members of the commission who have questions for the
planning department team. Quiet crowd this morning. We do have uh public testimony. So we will move forward with that. Um we have at least a few hands raised so far. Others that are interested please indicate it on your Zoom uh panel. Um to start
to start off we are gonna have Diana Bronchuk from Councelor Pepin's office. >> Great. Diane, you should be unmuted. Go ahead. >> Good morning. I believe it's good morning for everybody. Good morning, commissioners.
This is Diana Bronchuk testifying on behalf of District 5 City Council Pepen. The council would like to go on record that he is supportive of these text amendments. They come from a collaboration from community members, the Hide Park Neighborhood Association and the Boston Planning Department. It
will reflect the historic commercial uses of Hide Park while allowing and building up more much neededed vital housing and mixed uses throughout the city. Thank you for your consideration and hope that you're able to support. >> Thank you. Next up, we have Ken Fields.
Your two minutes starts now. >> You for the uh ability to comment. My name is Ken Fields. I live in Ward 1819. Um I want to thank Council Councelor Pepin uh and uh Representative Consolvo for their support and Maya for her
patience and multiple renditions of the citizens or residents petition. Uh I'm speaking in support of this amendment. Um this makes important improvements to squares and street zoning by lifting the hurdles to commercial and retail uses
which were not in the original squares and street zoning. And these are the squares and streets where we actually have um our commercial centers and they need these um improvements uh to the zoning code so that we can lift all
these hurdles. this provides greater flexibility uh for these areas and uh again um very much in support and I thank everybody for the work on this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ken. Um next we have Frank
O'Brien. Your two minutes start now. >> Yes. Hi, good morning everybody. Chair Nichols and the board commission. Uh Frank O'Brien here speaking on behalf of High Park Neighborhood Association. As was indicated in our support letter, we're very much in favor of moving forward with this and we thank time of
BPDA staff, Chief Shen, Mayor Woo, and Council Pen. Thank you. >> Thank you, Frank. That is all the hands raised. >> Great. We will close out public testimony, move into a business session uh for the commission. Comments,
questions, motions for members of the commission. I just want to commend Maya um and all the staff and and the neighbors for, you know, no one ever gets everything they want and this seems like a really great example of a good coming together,
collaboration, thinking creatively. Um as a W 18 resident, um it makes perfect sense. Um and uh congratulations to to Frank and and my and um I'm I'm going to be voting in support. This is exactly what uh we should be doing as a zoning
body, listening to the neighborhood. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Others, >> I was also going to um commend the the staff for for weaving this into the existing squares and streets, which I which I think is is a a positive
throughout the city, and I particularly appreciated the presentation materials we received. Um and how this is applicable throughout the city. um you've you've taken um some some comments from Hyde Park, but you've you've made them relevant to the whole city, and I appreciate that. So, thank
you for all your work. I'm also happy to make a motion that we approve text amendment application number 543, Squares, and Street Zoning Update, articles 3, 8, 11, 26, and 89. >> Second. >> We have a motion and second. Um, hearing
no further discussion, we'll move forward with a roll call vote of the members. Miss Hatton, >> yes. >> Miss Morawa, >> yes. >> Miss Miller, >> yes. >> Mr. Damela, >> yes. >> Mr. Maher, >> yes. >> Mr. Left,
>> yes. >> Mr. Royo, >> yes. >> Mr. McNeel, >> yes. >> Mr. Ostrich, >> yes. >> And Mr. Woods, >> yes. And I vote yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Congrats to the
folks in Hyde Park. We will now move forward with our 9:10 a.m. public hearing for today. Uh, thank you for joining the Boston Zoning Commission public hearing. The open public meeting law requires that I notify the public that this meeting is being recorded. Please be aware that an audio and visual recording of this meeting is being made. We'll now take a
roll call of members present at the beginning of this hearing. Roll call will identify that each member is present and voting. Uh, Miss Hatton >> present. Miss Morawa, >> present. >> Miss Miller, >> present. >> Mr. Damela, >> present.
>> Mr. Maher, >> present. >> Mr. Left, >> present. >> Mr. Royal, >> present. >> Mr. McNeel, >> present. >> Mr. Ostridge, >> present. >> Mr. Woods, >> present. And >> I'm Michael Nichols and still present.
This is the 910 10 a.m. public hearing, a public hearing before the Boston Zoning Commission to consider special order number 16 with respect to linkage. The hearing was duly advertised on November 19, 2025 in the Boston Herald. In a Boston Zoning Commission hearing on proposed petitions, the proponent will
first present their case and are subject to questioning by members of the commission only. We will take support in opposition at the same time during public testimony. If you plan to testify, please take time now to verify that your computer microphone is active. You can click the hand icon on your Zoom control panel. This will signal to staff that you wish to speak. Please dial
star9 if calling into the meeting and you also wish to speak. Uh when we call for all testimony, staff will announce your name in the order in which you've raised your hand and allow you to unmute your microphone while your webcam will not be active. Uh finally, if the proponents are uh so desire, there'll be a brief period of
rebuttal. Um will the planning department please begin the presentation? >> Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Chair Nichols, Commissioners. My name is Rupy Caner. I'm the senior policy adviser for the planning department. As noted, we're here to talk about linkage
and uh a request to override the uh ex the uh automatic increase in linkage that would take place on January 1st, 2026. Uh next slide, please. So, just a little bit of background about linkage. It first came in in 1983,
beginning of the Flynn administration. Um and it was initially just for housing trust only uh for commercial institutional projects of 100,000 square feet. In 1986 it was updated expanded to incorporate the jobs trust as well. Uh and over the next 35 years um there were
only substantive changes to linkage was to update the rate periodically. I'm going to show you a little bit of history of that rate change and that required vote of the voting of the zoning commission and the state legislature in each instance. In 2021, city council and legislature enacted new legislation that removed linkage from
requiring state uh approval. And in that process, they also created the ability to index linkage to the cost of living to two co cost of living indexes. I'll show you that in a minute as well. Uh and then in 2023, the city expanded linkage uh to projects of 50,000 plus
square feet and separated the rate between lab usage and non-lab usage. uh and those amendments also included rates for 2024 and 2025. So the automatic increase um that uh was put in place in 21 20 next month would be the first time
that that would take place without an override uh of that uh of that rate uh increase. And so we're here to request that we keep the linkage rate um the same for 2026. Next slide please. Just a little bit about the success of
the program. You could see here over $280 million have been collected on the housing side since the program start in uh in 1987. The first collections in 1987. Uh just last year we had nearly $18 million uh dollars in collections
for the neighborhood housing trust. Um and uh and as of October we were at uh over $13 million uh for this year. Uh so really uh doing very well in that front. Um, all told, over 10,000 new units of
incomerestricted housing have been created. Another 6,000 income restricted units have been preserved. And just last year, 439 units came online and another 332 income restricted housing starts uh got into the ground. 75% of all units
are under 60% AMI with an additional 18% between 60 and 80% AMI. I think most would say that uh that this has been an incredibly successful program on the housing side. And next slide, please. I think you'll see the same on the jobs uh front as well. Just in the last decade,
uh about $29 million in grant funding uh has come from linkage uh and distributed to organizations serving over 10,000 low and moderate income residents. Um wide range of trainings in a lot of different fields and many different levels of support. just uh three recent
initiatives funded by linkage. The tuitionfree community college program received over $4 million and supported 2,000 students. The life science initiative trained over 100 residents with a $1.6 million investment. Uh and the city academy for uh commercial
driver's license and EMT training with a $1 million uh investment. Uh again, you know, just very successful and important program for the city. Next slide, please. So just in the last few years we can see a little bit of recent history of
linkage. In 2018 the total linkage that bottom uh left number was just under $11 a square foot. As of January 2025 for lab uses it was over $30 uh a square foot. And for for non-lab uses it was
$23 a square foot. Uh so just in this time period we can see 114% increase for non-labs and 185% increase for lab use uh between 2018 and 2025. Next slide please.
So looking at a little bit of history um of of linkage. The red line shows inflation since 1983 and the blue line shows the linkage rate set at $5 in 1983 and how it's grown over time. And there was a pretty significant period of time
for most of the last 42 years where linkage was below the rate of inflation. And we can see in just the last couple years it has leaprogged over the rate of inflation. Um that is part but not all of the context around this request to keep linkage flat for uh for the next
year. Next slide please. So the our research department many thanks to Michael Anderlay uh in particular from the research department uh did an extensive uh research into uh a couple of things. First they looked at
what the the inflation rate uh average would require. So the the way the code was written um it was it be the average of the consumer price index for urban consumers and uh the consumer the CPI for housing. That average as of
September was 3.95% increase. So that would be the amount that the linkage would linkage rates would go up. That would represent a $1.22 uh increase per square foot increase uh for labs and 91 cents per square foot for uh for non-lab usage.
Next slide, please. Our research division also dug into some of the additional information um that had led to this uh this recommendation today. First, we've seen construction cost increase uh nearly 26% since 2020,
including uh based on uh the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last time they reported this number out, uh a construction material cost nationally have been up 40% since 2020. Pretty significant cost increases. Also financing costs. We do know that back in
2020 uh the Treasury rate was under 1%. Now it's hovering around 4%. I think that there may be a change perhaps today. We'll see what happens today. But this has really represented some significant costs in some cases seven and eight figure additional costs on many developments in the city. In
addition, supply chain issues which we know have been in effect for the last number of years are now exacerbated by tariff issues. Uh, and I'm definitely getting a lot of developers who are talking to me about the cost of tariffs as as as a real impediment to being able to move forward. Um, and then and I
think I'm saving the the most important reasons perhaps for last. We'll see and I'll show you some data in just a moment. Um, that Boston area office development has slowed from over 2 million square foot annual to under 300,000 square ft. uh much discussed lab
vacancies are over 20%. Office vacancies are also in the neighborhood of 20% uh depending on you know which uh which uh uh number you look at. Co-stars is around 17% in downtown Boston. Collier has citywide around 24% office vacancy
uh and that is having a real uh impact on the ability to to move forward with many commercial development. And then finally, I'll just note that with the federal grant uh fund pullbacks on vaccines, on other uh um uh health related uh research uh and and the
impact on the institutional real estate market, you know, that we're really entering some uncertain times on on that front as well. Next slide, please. So, I am going to show you three different graphs. I'm going to do my best to be as clear as I can, but feel free to um to come back to this if if any of this is
confusing. So this is actual linkage funds received over the last decade. Uh housing trust in blue, the jobs trust in orange and we can see as noted 2024 was a banner year, 2025 continuing to do very well. Um so we can see the significant increase in in linkage funds
over the last number of years. Uh and and that is really funded a lot on the housing and jobs front. Next slide please. So what we're looking at here is the total linkage commitments by um project permit. So uh this is the year that a a
project received the permit and the uh and the amount of funds that uh that they were committing to to pay for linkage um in their dips. Uh so you could see 2019 was certainly a terrific year. Over $40 million of linkage uh was uh received that year. 22 and 23 were
also really strong years. And then we can start to see um the correction based on those vacancy rates uh starting to hit in 24 and pretty rough in 2025. Uh and uh you'll see in the next slide um that we are anticipating those commitments to continue at this at this
level the 2425 levels. Next slide please. This slide shows new filings. So this is filings at the the uh for the planning department the BPDA. Um and uh these are the total linkage obligations based on
filings uh with uh of article 80 filings. Um so you can see 21 22 23 were really strong with filings. But the thing to really note in there is all that red all that red is board approved that have not yet gone to uh to receive
a permit um to for construction. Um so while there was lots of optimism and continued uh work to put article 80 projects through the process and went through board approved only 9% of projects that have been uh filed uh that
are linkage elible um of the to based on the total amount of linkage due only 9% of that has gone to construction in the last 5 years and none has gone we have not received a single linkage eligible filing uh to date in 2025.
Next slide, please. So, I hope here I've made a bit of a compelling case about why this would be the wrong time to allow linkage to increase by the 4%. We recognize the challenges that developers are facing and we're requesting this commission take a small but meaningful
step to hold cost steady for just one year. This is a singleear pause on the automatic increase. We will be coming back to you next year with this analysis to to share with you our thoughts. Uh once again this will be an annual uh review that we will do. Um uh if we take
no action linkage will go up by 4% on January 1. Um and as noted we just going to continue to closely monitor filings and we have an internal group that will be be doing that work. So with that la last slide please. I just want to really appreciate all of the people that played
a meaningful role in in getting um this process through and especially Max H. Hotton policy specialist who who led a lot of this effort over the last number of months. With that, I will conclude. >> Thank you, Ruben. Any uh questions for members of the commission?
>> Okay. Hearing none, we will move to public testimony. If you are interested in testifying, please uh indicate so on your uh Zoom control panel or by hitting star9 uh from the phone. Uh you will be uh public testimony is limited to two minutes per person and and commission staff will let you know when 30 seconds
remain. Next up, we have Don Gillis. >> Tar, your audio cut out a little bit, but Don Don Gillis, you're up first. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Don Gillis. I live in W 10. I was born in
Boston. I've been in Boston, uh, raising a family. I've been working for over 50 years. and I come before you to sort of raise some questions about the recommendation by the redevelopment authority EAPD uh to freeze linkage. I
appreciate Mr. Caner's proposal I mean excuse me presentation um it was very detailed that level of detail was not available in the recommendation that I received that I saw that went to the Boston Redevelopment Authority BAPD board. So
some of that data uh was not included in in that. Um I did communicate um through Joanne Marquee uh uh by by letter some of my thoughts on this particular proposal. I hope you have that uh in your package. If not, I hope it's made
available. Let me just be very brief. As as I think Mr. cancer indicated linkage has a long history as a development impact fee in Boston um beginning in 1983 and to the present day you know it's a long and controversial history as
well uh as many of you may know from history is that the development community uh led by the late Jeromeaport tried to stop linkage and many members of the development community do not support linkage then do not support it now and have tried to stop it change it
all along the way. Not everybody, but many members of the development community felt that >> that it was an undue tax. I think that that the proposal to freeze a linkage at this time and I understand the development community is a reinforces a
false narrative that linkage is creating of the causes of a slow market. There was no presentation of what would be lost if projects do go forward. So I think that we we don't want to go down a slippery slippery slope of requiring the freezer linkage today, reducing it
tomorrow and eliminating. >> Thank you so much. Your time is up >> and thank you very much. I think we have had the support from Mayor Woo. >> There is no more hands up anymore. >> May I? >> Yeah. Ruby, would you clarify the difference I think between the freeze of
linkage and a freeze of the increases on linkage? Well, can I first just say that this presentation that I gave to you today is the identical presentation I gave before the the BPA board uh last month. So, um so so the question about so the the the automatic increase goes
into effect every year uh if not override overridden I'm not sure what the right word is uh by this board. Um so we will come back each year do an evaluation uh look at um the uh um you look at the indexing uh rates look at uh
the success of development um but ultimately you know without action of this board it's just an annual um determination of this this body um whether or not you what the linkage rate would be uh or to allow it to to go up
or down based on the the CPI average. So, this is a one-year um pause on the increase and then those automatic increases take effect, you know, automatically after that without a further action of this of this body. Does that answer the question?
>> Believe. And and Ruben, I think um one other clarification that might be helpful um that that I think you prov that that you provided which I appreciated is the ability to do a catchup um that uh uh skipping the
automatic January 1st, 2026. Does that um does that offer us though in the future if there was um a uh a sense that we could recapture the the the 4% into a future increase? You could do that if
you wanted in these future discussions. I believe >> that is possible. It would it would require an action of the zoning commission >> to override the automatic increase to do a catchup, but um but that is an option. >> It is. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Okay. We will close public testimony.
Seeing no additional hands raised, we are in our business session of the uh zoning commission. >> I just I just wanted to make a comment on this. Um I appreciate all the analysis that Ruben and his group did. It was excellent. Um and I think the the
the the detail and the um analysis was superb. the the the key point I would make is is the um the maintaining of the current level of linkage is is a much higher level of linkage than historically since we made
the significant increase 3 four five years ago. So we're mainting it we're we're maintaining it at a much higher rate um than it's been historically. So, I would just point that out um because I understand the public sensitivity um by some on this, but we've significantly
raised linkage over the past few years and we're maintaining it at that significantly higher level without this current 4% increase, but but as Ruben mentioned, the the increase has been significant over the past few years.
If I if I may just uh add to that um I thought the uh the job that the um uh agency's done in in Ruben Caner in particular was very impressive and and and thoughtful. Um the there are other things in here that one might have
concern about in linkage for for one we ch as Jill had indicated we raised it considerably uh in the past and um I guess I as I remember on on the record that I voted against it but um that one
of the in particular is biotech u lab buildings. uh we were we thought, "Oh, we have a great boom here and we increased the the the the uh impact on those buildings and now we're sitting
here way over permitted vacancy um uh like crazy and those buildings are still subject to these kind of uh this kind of uh uh at a very heavy linkage rate. In any case, um I'm I support the um the
delay or the uh hold on um linkage at this point. Not on linkage, but on the increase in linkage, I should say. >> Thank you for those comments. Comments or questions? Maybe a motion from the commission.
I'm I'm uh I I would make a motion um Chair Nichols that we um approve special order number 16 linkage to adopt a 0% increase to the linkage policy for a period of one year beginning January 1st, 2026.
>> Second. >> We have a motion and second. We'll now take a roll call. Miss Hatton, >> yes. >> Miss Morawa, >> yes. >> Miss Miller, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. DLA. >> Yes. >> Mr. Maher. >> Yes. >> Mr. Left.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Aoyo. >> Yes. >> Mr. McNeel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ostrich. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woods. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes. The me the motion carries. Thank you very much to Ruben and the
team. We'll now move forward with our final public hearing of the morning, our 9:15 a.m. public hearing. Thank you for joining the Boston Zoning Commission public hearing. The open public meeting law requires that I notify the public that this meeting is being recorded. Please be aware that an audio and visual recording of this meeting is being made.
We'll now take a roll call of members of uh the commission present at the beginning of this hearing. Miss Hatton >> present. >> Miss Morawa, >> present. >> Miss Miller, >> present. >> Present. >> Mr. DLA >> present. >> Mr. Maher, >> present.
>> Mr. Le, >> present. >> Mr. Aoyo, >> present. >> Mr. McNeel, >> present. >> Mr. Ostrich >> present. >> Mr. Woods >> present. >> And I'm present. This is our 9:15 a.m. public hearing. A public hearing before the Boston Zoning Commission to consider
a petition for approval of the 2025 to 2035 Northeastern University Institutional Master Plan. The hearing was duly advertised on November 19, 2025 in the Boston Herald. In a Boston Zoning Commission hearing on proposed petitions, the proponent will first present their case and are subject to questioning by members of the commission
only. We are taking support and opposition at the same time. If you plan to testify, please take time now to verify that your computer microphone is active. You can indicate your interest in speaking by clicking the hand icon on your Zoom control panel. This will signal to staff again that you wish to speak. When your hand is raised, it will
be blue. If you're calling into the meeting, would like to testify, please dial star9. When we call for all testimony, staff will announce your name and allow you to unmute your microphone. Webcam will not be active. In an effort to accommodate all who wish to speak about each proposal, you'll be given up to two minutes to comment. Commission staff will indicate when 30 seconds
remain. At that time, please conclude your remarks so that the hearing may continue and others may be heard. Uh, finally, if the proponents desire, they will be offered a brief period of rebuttal. Will the planning department please begin our final presentation? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Proposal before you for the new 10-year
institutional master plan from the Eastern University. This IMP was approved by the BPDA board on November 13th alongside an ADB large project approval for a new multi-purpose arena facility within the IMP area. The proposed IMP contains eight proposed institutional projects totaling
approximately 2.3 million square feet and includes over 1900 new dorm beds, major athletic facilities, and student recreation facilities and academic and research space to prepare for a 21st century workforce. The IMP is accompanied by significant mitigation and community benefits package, which
the Northeastern team will include in their presentation. Seven total task force and public meetings were held by the Boston planning department between June 2024 and today and all were advertised online in local publications and well attended. I want to thank our team at the planning department and the members of the Northeastern task force
for their time and efforts spent in the review of this project. I now turn over to my colleague Ted Schwarzburg to discuss the planning context considered in the review of this IMP before Nor Eastern begins their presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you Quinn. Uh next slide please. Uh Ted Schwarzburg, Boston um uh
planning department uh assistant deputy director for planning review. Uh today I'm presenting on behalf of my colleague Ella Wise who staff this uh for the planning team. Uh in terms of zoning context, um the existing 23 IMP provides
both the planning and zoning context. Notably, the existing IMP established goals for providing student housing on campus that informed the proposed IMP in a number of ways. For example, the university originally proposed academic uses for the redevelopment of the Bernstein Rubenstein site, and this
shifted during the course of the planning department's article 80 review to now include residential uses at the site. In addition to the 2013 imp, the planning context also includes the 2015 Avenue of the Arts design guidelines. Uh the cover of that uh document is on the
right in this image. The 2015 design guidelines recommend height, massing, and public realm improvements along Huntington Avenue to manage shadow and other environmental impacts and to improve multimodal mobility on the Huntington Avenue corridor. Uh and at
the time in October 2015 uh this plan was adopted by the then BRA board but it did not go to this commission because it was only a plan and the concept was that it would inform subsequent IMP overlays uh as I mentioned the 2013 IMP and uh it
also informed uh the planning department to work with Northeastern on the IMP that you're reviewing today. So on that note, I'll now turn it over to Northeastern staff to present in more detail. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ted. Thank you, Quinn. Uh,
can everybody hear me? All right. >> Yes, we can. >> Great. Um, good morning, Chairman Nichols, commissioners, Boston planning staff, and members of the public. My name is Victoria Abelina, and I'm an associate vice president for campus planning and design at Northeastern. I'm
joined today by my colleagues uh Kathy Spiegelman, Michael Glover, and John Tobin, and they're here to help answer questions if you have any at the end. Quinn and Ted covered a lot, but I'm going to just go jump back into the presentation to go through the slides um
in an order in which we presented it to the BPDA board. Could you go to the previous slide, please? Thank you. So, we're here today to share our 10-year institutional master plan, and the IMP provides a planning and zoning framework for shaping a built
environment for our Boston campus. It'll strengthen and celebrate Nor Eastern's mission. And the way we established this plan is we were guided by our 2013 institutional master plan that covered a lot of the same sites and that was
approved um over 12 years ago now. And we're planning for the next 10 years through the renovation and redevelopment of older and or underutilized buildings and sites within the campus boundaries. The focus of this IMP is more on capital renewal uh than the previous IMP, but it
also outlines uh several site redevelopments. As Quinn mentioned, this slide here highlights some of the metrics that define our plan. But for more details, you can access the plan on the Boston Planning Department's website. Next slide. Thank you. Nor Eastern campus spans five
neighborhoods. Backbay, Fenway, Mission Hill, and Roxberry and South End. And our location between the southwest corridor and the Back Bay fence means we serve as a connecting landscape for Boston and a nexus of these five neighborhoods. So in the this context we
really considered uh what is the impact of our redevelopment and what is the role of our campus in um supporting and um advancing the neighborhood needs. We own or lease at least 106 buildings
totaling approximately 8.8 million square feet across 67 acres. Our imp meets our academic and student life needs while remaining respectful and responsive to the rich urban context in which we're in. Next slide, please.
As Quinn mentioned, over two years we engaged extensively with local residents, neighborhood groups, many elected officials, business leaders, and the IMP task force. We held seven public and task force meetings, nine Boston Civic Design Commission work
sessions, and numerous discussions with city staff. Next slide, please. Five principles guide our plan. The first one um being around community and connection where we focus on connecting local and campus communities
through physical and social infrastructure, flexibility and agility to support mobility across our global campus. uh for our northeastern community. Third is impactful learning and collaboration the prim multi-disiplinary research and
experiential learning. Uh I'm sure you're familiar with our uh co-op programs um that really defined a northeastern uh openness and belonging which fosters welcoming environment for all and finally sustainability and resilience
which um really is a focus of leading in sustainability uh to address climate crisis. Next slide please. Nor Eastern's values are expressed in a build environment through three big ideas
that we applied to the campus design and those are organized in three categories. Experiential learning, sustainable and resilient public realm and campuses in the city. I could go in more detail if we have time but for now I'm just going to skip um to the next slide please to
talk about uh what sites we identified. We're proposing a total of eight redevelopment sites within the 2025 IMP. Four of these sites were previously approved within the 2013 IMP which is the Gainesboro number four. Um
uh Bernstein Rubenstein redevelopment which is a site number two on this map. Uh Cabitat uh number five and foresight number six. The most notable project that you have probably seen the press and had undergone article 80 large project
review simultaneously with the IMP is the 262 St. Pat multi-purpose arena project that um is really is redevelopment of the current Matthews Arena. Uh these development sites total approximately 2.5 million gross square
feet and each site has a range um of development depending on the program and the use and each site will be reviewed um as part of article 80 uh zoning process review. In addition to these redevelopment sites, Nor Eastern plans to undertake
several capital renewal projects and renovations for existing buildings. The sites were selected due to redevelopment capacity, locationational synergies, transformation potential, and known and anticipated capital renewal challenges and opportunities.
Next slide. This is the same view uh that describes projects in three dimensions. There was a lot of focus with the planning department and Boston City Design Commission on scaling and massing of the projects. And so the square footages
were derived from this new zoning envelope. There is significant density, but it is appropriate for uh this location in the city along the Huntington Avenue and the Highspine. And all of the sites follow um follow the design guidelines and previously
established zoning envelopes from the IMP. Next slide, please. This is just highlighting some of the um design guideline discussions that we've had. So we work with the city's planning department and BCDC. We established the
urban design framework to guide future development on our campus. The framework is consistent with Avenue of the Arts urban design guidelines and the context of the surrounding neighborhoods. So it as it gets closer to South End, it is responsive in that. It also defines um
and responds to um our architecturally rich campus. We do have buildings from various decades like our Columbus Avenue side that has been the focus of the past 10 years has a very different character than the Huntington Avenue side. So the
projects uh are responsive to that. Next slide please. This project that I mentioned is the 263 St. Bal Street. I just wanted to highlight uh one of the views and renderings and you can find more information I can share um on the
project on the BPD's website. Next slide. So in closing, the community benefits uh were defined in partnership with the task force in the planning department and the mayor's office and various city agencies. The this is just a snapshot,
but they are quite extensive as uh Quinn mentioned. Uh we're committed to thousand new student beds on campus uh plus 1,200 beds at 840 Columbus Avenue which was an amendment to the previous IMP that this commission reviewed four years ago now. Uh 10 million housing
stabilization investment which is uh a million dollars per year over the next 10 years. And that fund is really uh quite unique um partnership with the city focusing on um our contribution to
the neighborhood uh organizations that um support housing stability and uh people being able to stay in the neighborhood. Campus Access, which uh delivers measurable community benefits, continued Carter Field Partnership for Boston public schools and community use.
Uh we maintain uh Carter Field in partnership with um city parks department uh and that is one of the benefits that we're further defining educational attainment economic mobility and workforce development in particular
investment into ground floor at 840 Columbus Avenue and continued operating um off that floor uh as a center for economic development for the neighborhood and finally infrastructure investment. um which will identify public space
improvements around the eight projects and expand uh our campus open space and the arburetum. In closing, I would like to thank uh our northeastern community and neighbors, elected officials, the IMP task force,
the planning department, and other city department staff and the BCDC for their time and guidance and facilitating this plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. We will now take questions from members of the commission.
Miss Abene, I would start with a question. Uh the the thousand new uh dorm beds being created, um is that in any way correlated to enrollment growth? Is there projected enrollment growth as part of the the 10ear IMP? >> That's a great question. Uh yes, we're projecting a slight enrollment growth,
but uh one of the unique uh definitions in our plan is that the number of students in need of housing as defined by uh the mayor's um housing group is not going to increase. So, uh currently we our number is around
6,000 students in need of housing. So we are committed to increasing housing on campus uh to ensure that the number of students uh is not growing. So uh we actually have two sites identified for housing and the between the two sites we
can accommodate about 2,000 beds. Um so we're looking to um address that but uh the growth is um projected as when we looked at it two years ago when we started this plan to be um very
moderate. >> So you say there's 6,000 students that need housing. That's across all undergraduate and graduate uses at the Boston campus. We track under for for the purposes of uh the city's reporting they're interested in undergraduate students only. So yes and uh in 2023
uh our undergraduate population was about 22,000 students. >> So 6,000 of that 22,000 are interested in housing in the Boston area. And where do you suspect the others live? >> They live on campus or they live outside of the Boston. >> The 6,000 is is beyond the campus
provided housing. >> Correct. Thank you for clarifying that. >> Right. So, we have about 12,000 beds on campus and uh generally because of the unique nature of um Nor Eastern education third year is when students go
on co-op. When they go on co-op, when they come back or when they're on co-op, they have no they no longer uh want to reside on campus. And um and so we house which was our commitment in 2013. We house first and second year students on
campus. >> Thank you. Any other questions for members of the commission? >> Can you address perhaps a little bit more of the timing of the um BOF Street um redevelopment
if this is approved? >> Yes. So we are um looking to we're going through after this approval we are going to submit uh with inspectional services for a construction permit. We're going through public improvements commission
review tapa cooperation agreement and it's it's active. We're looking for to complete the arena project by fall of 2028. >> Thank you. Any
other comments or questions from members of the commission? If not, we will entertain uh public testimony. If anyone is interested in testifying on this matter, please raise your hand at this time. >> There seems to be no hands raised.
>> Very good. Thank you, Tara. We will move into our business session. Um comments, questions, motions for members of the commission only. or Jill will be forced to go four for four. >> I know I'm happy to share the floor on this guys, but I I'm I actually have to
comment that I I I do think Northeastern does a very I know you collaborate with the city and this is, you know, a work of of with many um folks being involved, but it is a very um always always your IMPs are always one of the better that I
think we see. So, I appreciate that. and they're also um very connected to the community which I think is very important and and I know the last few years have been challenging to get a lot of projects done and with co we had this two-year
um extension of your old IMP. So looking forward to this next 10 year um and seeing a lot of these actually move forward especially the couple that we approved with with a couple years ago. So, I I'm happy to make a motion that we approve the 2025 to 2035 Northeastern
University Institutional Master Plan. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. We'll now take a roll call members uh for this matter. Miss Hatton, >> yes. >> Miss Morawa, >> yes. >> Miss Miller, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Da,
>> yes. >> Mr. Maher, >> yes. >> Mr. Le, >> yes. >> Mr. Royo, >> yes. >> Mr. McNeel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ostridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Woods, >> yes. >> And uh I'll vote yes. Um so that is uh
motion carries. The IMP is adopted. Congratulations to the Northeastern team and planning department team that worked on this. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> That concludes our agenda items for today. Um, commission staff, are there
any um housekeeping announcements for the commission? >> Uh, yes. Uh, first off, I want to wish everybody a very merry Christmas and happy holidays. Um, I appreciate all the work that you guys do and everything
that, uh, you have to undertake, whether it be very simple or controversial. Um, I don't think anybody in my building uh takes you for granted. Uh, especially myself. I've been at this for a very long time. So, I appreciate all the work
that you guys do and I wish you and your families uh very happy holiday season. Um, the next meeting will be uh January 7th. Right now, we'll only have one item on the agenda. Uh, it'll be over in High
Park. uh not High Park, sorry, Charles Town at the Hood PDA that's on Rutherford Avenue. Uh they're amending that. Uh so that will be the only item on the agenda. Uh the most important thing um in terms of what you all would
be concerned with as I am meeting with the city today on getting you paid and trying to yell at people why this has become such a difficult task for them to do. It's ridiculous. And I apologize
uh for this. It should never have come to this, but hopefully I'll have uh some final answers for you later on this afternoon. But other than that, I am off my soap box and I appreciate all the work that you guys do.
>> I'll note for the commission that Jeff sent an email on November 24th with the meeting dates for this upcoming year. So, if you happen to have missed that email, November 24th in your inbox with our with our slate of meetings for 2026. >> My thanks to everyone for your service
this year and uh it was a great year. Thank you. >> All the best to everybody. >> Yeah. Happy holiday. Happy holidays everybody.