Statement Regarding 363 Highland Ave

[PJ Santos]

Hi All, 

At our last meeting, we voted to give a supportive statement regarding the 363 Highland project. As with any organization we've had a number of different conversations and opinions floating around, but I'd like the statement to at least capture the gist of what we've been discussing. We did not have an explicit vote on it, but we've been having a lot of conversations about the need for the city to put together a neighborhood plan for Davis, and I thought this might be a good opportunity to nudge the city. If folks think I'm overstepping, happy to take that out! Here's my initial draft, please feel free to provide constructive feedback: 

Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting we voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow. 

Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40-50 inclusionary units. 

The property owner and architect have also been diligent about considering the impact this development could have on the community path. Some neighbors are concerned with this project casting a shadow over the path. Potentially, the DSNC would support the architect in allowing for a 7th floor in some areas of the building in order to allow for more aggressive step backs in areas that could overshadow the path. Beyond shadows, the DSNC thinks it would be mutually beneficial for the developer to add a publically accessible entrance to the path, and potentially even consider incorporating some ground-floor retail that is directly accessible from the path.

The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the 110 Willow property. There are a number of similarly blighted properties in the vicinity, such as 371 Highland Ave which we also discussed at our most recent meeting. We would like to use this as an opportunity to politely nudge the city to put forward a neighborhood plan for Davis. Our square is suffering from a shortage of housing, a proliferation of vacant storefronts, and an overall lack of investment. We think a comprehensive update of the Square's zoning would help address these issues. 

Again, just a first draft - please let me know if I'm going too far with the nudge at the city for a Davis Square plan, if there's a more elegant way to phrase something, or if I'm not accurately representing everyone's views! If I can get my act together on 11/6, I'll try to go in-person to this meeting to read the statement. 

Best, 

PJ Kim-Santos

[Carol]

If you ask for seven floors, that maybe too much.

Carol Rego

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS

--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSy%2Bfqi87eVu3R6EZ%3D5s-m41zca1re0J2d3G6LqHfx-9Xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[PJ Santos]

Yes apologies, I think I should re-write that a bit! During our discussion on shadows on the community path, someone mentioned that they'd rather see a partial 7th floor in one area in order to have a chunk near the path be 5 stories so as to avoid casting too many shadows. The zoning doesn't allow for that kind of detailed control, but I thought that discussion was a good thing to mention, since the building itself is still early in its design and it seemed like a lot of people (very justifiably!) want to protect the path.

I'll rewrite the sentence to say: "The DSNC looks forward to working with the architect to come up with creative solutions to minimize negative impacts on the community path, and we're glad they have taken our concerns into consideration"? 

[Christopher Beland]

Thanks for taking the initiative on this! The motion we voted on was just whether or not to support the zoning change as proposed. We did not vote on shadows on the Community Path, nor the connection to the path (which I would be excited to have), nor ground-level retail. It's unclear whether a majority of people in the room supported any of those comments, so I would just characterize them as suggestions from neighbors, not of the DSNC.

The idea of moving some bulk away from the Community Path and toward the center of the block by having a 7th floor seems like a good idea to me, but that's not what the City Council is being asked to approve, and it's not what the developer expressed interest in doing. As far as I understand, it's also not currently allowed by the zoning code unless a new MR7 zone or something were created, with special setbacks for green space. The developer said they might not build to the full zoning envelope; it's unclear if that satisfied this concern or if the person who raised it was one of the two votes against the zoning change or if they still have this concern but support the zoning change anyway.
There is currently no specific building proposed for this site, but the developers do need to apply for a special permit to put housing in an MR building, and at that point there would be a specific building envelope and concerns about shadows could be raised again before the Planning Board (or not, if people prefer a speedy approval or the developer's plan is satisfactory).

If the concern about shadows on the path is raised at all, I would point out that the DSNC voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal with no changes or conditions. I would want to avoid giving the impression to the Planning Board or City Council that they should hold off on approving this zoning change because the DSNC only supports it if it's changed to avoid shadows on the path. I understood the vote as supporting moving full speed ahead. (Some people have also expressed concern that approvals take too long and are resulting in vacant properties.)

As for the neighborhood plan, I think if the DSNC wants a comprehensive update to the local zoning map ASAP, we should propose one. I'm hoping one will come out of our development discussions. Not everyone in the DSNC agrees with that; I've heard from at least two people who think the city staff should be leading the process. We've recently heard that the city intends to resume its own neighborhood planning process in 2026 and we have an invite out to Tom Galligani to speak to us in November about that.

The City Council already knows people are frustrated with the lack of a final neighborhood plans, and I think all the councilors on the Land Use Committee have themselves complained about this, including Ward 6's Lance Davis, who comes to our meetings.

Given the lack of consensus, lack of vote taken, and other venues for advancement, for this petition I'd prefer to say nothing about the neighborhood plan. I think it's fair to say, as you did in your draft, that more housing, more affordable housing, and unblighting 110 Willow would be welcome benefits of any projects that take advantage of this change.

-B.

[PJ Santos]

That's a fair point, and why I'm sending this out ahead of time to get some feedback!

We had a fairly in-depth discussion in the meeting about impacts on the path and other nearby blighted properties, and I wanted to find a way to distill that conversation into something that could be shared with the board. However, that discussion was a bit free-form and it's tough to pick out where points of consensus were. 

Since this is a joint session of the land use committee and the planning board, this could be a good time to push them for action on a neighborhood plan. Additionally, I know some folks were concerned about "spot zoning", and even if this doesn't fall under the legal definition I do agree it would be preferable to have a less ad-hoc plan for the square. I'm agnostic as to whether the planning process should be lead by the DSNC or city staff, but I do think there's consensus in DSNC that "something" should be done and there's some value in bringing attention to that fact. 

Here's a very slimmed down update, I'll mull over appropriate language regarding the neighborhood plan and see if I can come up with something broadly acceptable:  

Hello Planning Board and Land Use Committee, my name is Peter Kim-Santos and I live at 64 Endicott Ave. I am the treasurer of the Davis Square Neighborhood Council, and at our October 27th meeting the membership of the DSNC voted to provide a statement in support of the zoning change at 363 Highland Ave and 110 Willow. 

Despite the DSNC still being in the process of formation, the 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings and presented their plans for the property to a generally positive reception. A common discussion topic of the DSNC is the need for more housing, and so this proposal for transit-accessible housing is welcome, especially with its 40-50 inclusionary units. Moreover, the property owner and architect have engaged us in good-faith dialogue regarding how the building could interface with the community path, and we look forward to continuing that conversation. 

The DSNC is also supportive of the upzoning of the blighted 110 Willow property, which will hopefully incentivize some more desirable development.  

[Kathy Partridge]

Hi PJ,

I like your revised version much better! The only additional edit I’d make would be to the first sentence of the second paragraph. Delete the first clause, and simply begin with: “The 363 Highland property owner has attended several of our meetings, etc. . . . “

Kathy

Kathy Partridge 

nois...@gmail.com

On Oct 30, 2025, at 9:42 PM, PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzgU%3Dar_AKZFgs0z-zvvy_gmnsKnW-nBaYB79Y3J71Ncg%40mail.gmail.com.

[PJ Santos]

Update: I gave this statement, it went well! 

[PJ Santos]

Sorry to double email, but one really interesting development was Jake Wilson brought up the idea of having the city supply funding for this project to get more IZ units built, similar to what is happening with 299 Broadway.

Based on our discussions, I felt empowered to chime in and say that the DSNC would likely be strongly in favor of something like that. 

[mem...@gmail.com]

excellent.

--

Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/CAEDUMSzcXBxVsQvnQS798565saXERoHubOWzN7eu6BsMQ8YxGw%40mail.gmail.com.