10/14/2026
The misinformation about zoning was coming from behind the rail at the Medford City Council meeting on Tuesday when they voted to allow private student housing by right on Boston Ave.
Don’t believe us? Hear it directly from City Planner Danielle Evans:
I don't comment on FB much, but while I'm sitting on the 96 bus coming back from an offsite meeting, I feel compelled to further chime in on some additional inaccuracies from last night. There was mention that a special permit would add 6 months to the review process which is false. With the CDB as the SPGA, the Special Permit would be reviewed contemporaneously with the application for Site Plan Review. Per our ordinance, they have the same public hearing noticing requirements. Special Permits, which are bound by MGL Ch 40a, have strict requirements on timeline and the legal reasons for denial. They absolutely can not be denied for arbitrary reasons and must have detailed findings tied to the review criteria. If a denial was appealed and found to have been denied for arbitrary and/or capricious reasons, it would be remanded back to the Board. It was also disheartening that our concerns of likely eventual superseding state laws regarding local SPR ordinances were dismissed as "not going anywhere" while not acknowledging the very real current limitations of SPR as laid out in case law.
https://www.facebook.com/share/1EmQBoTrCt/?
Purpose-built student housing will be allowed as-of-right in Hillside after a vote of the City Council at last night’s meeting.
In a 4-3 decision, the City Council declined to reverse the decision that changed the requirement of this use—which would allow a developer to build a privately-owned dormitory in the northern part of Boston Avenue—from special permit to as-of-right.
On a motion of independent councilor George Scarpelli to amend the zoning to require a special permit, here is how each councilor voted:
Anna Callahan: Yes
Matt Leming: No
Liz Mullane: Yes
George Scarpelli: Yes
Justin Tseng: No
Emily Lazzaro: No
Zac Bears: No
This is the order the votes were cast. OR council president Zac Bears was last in the roll call. It was a 3-3 tie by the time it got to him. His vote was the deciding one.
Purpose-built student housing is defined in the zoning as “[a] building not owned or operated by a college or university that contains bedrooms primarily for students.” The definition excludes lodging houses, boarding houses, and single-family homes that are rented to students.
The use is only allowed in one of the three subdistricts of the new Boston Avenue Neighborhood Corridor. The subdistrict is detailed in orange in the map screenshotted below. A developer who owns the Elizabeth Grady properties has indicated interest in building purpose-built student housing. He was behind a petition signed by approximately 115 residents calling for the use to be included in the new zoning and allowed as-of-right.
When a use is allowed as-of-right, it means a developer is entitled to a building permit when the use, dimensional, and any other requirements of the zoning are satisfied. Other requirements include site plan review for larger projects. A special permit, in contrast, is a discretionary permit issued by a permit-granting authority (typically the Community Development Board, in Medford). A special permit can be denied when the adverse effects of a project are cumulatively substantial. Facts that the permit-granting authority may consider include impact on traffic, safety, accessibility of public services, and the environment.
Site plan review is not identical to the review required by a special permit. Site plan review can only be denied when a developer fails to provide information. It cannot be denied based on adverse impacts of a project. That can only be done by a special permit.
The requirements of each are detailed in Medford’s zoning ordinance. The sections in our municipal code are 94-11.7 (site plan review) and 94-11.6 (special permits).
The Community Development Board (CDB) and the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability both recommended a special permit for the use. An online petition, in response to the developer’s petition calling for the use to be allowed as-of-right, accumulated almost 350 signatures by last night’s meeting. At a meeting last Friday at Hillside Church, attended by more than 30 residents and OR councilor Anna Callahan, those who spoke indicated support of a special permit and reasonable limitations on development in the neighborhood.
A number of residents also attended last night and provided public comments on this agenda item. By my count:
In Favor of Special Permit: 8
In Favor of As-of-Right: 1
In Favor of Not Allowing the Use at All: 2
No Clear Position: 2
At the September 15 regular meeting, the vote to adopt the recommendation on a special permit initially passed 4-3. Later in the evening, around 11 PM, OR councilor Justin Tseng, at the encouragement of OR councilor Matt Leming, moved to reconsider.
The Council took another vote on the matter and the decision to reject the CDB’s recommendation and allow the use as-of-right passed 4-3. Councilor Tseng reversed his vote.
The mayor then vetoed the special permit to as-of-right vote. Last night, Council President Bears announced a ruling from the chair that the mayor had vetoed not merely this vote but the entirety of the Boston Avenue zoning. He rejected a written legal opinion indicating that the mayor had the power to veto a single vote and cited case law justifying his view that the entirety of the zoning was vetoed. After my public comment, he personally invited me to review the cases he cited and to email him my thoughts on whether they justify his decision.
That I will be doing.
There was a lengthy period of debate on the decision whether to require a special permit. What follows is a summary of what various councilors and one city official said:
Tseng said he felt the need to provide a longer explanation on why he changed his vote. He said that the events had been on his mind the past few weeks and impacting his ability to sleep. He said he has been speaking to residents, attending meetings, and talking to people on the street.
Tseng argued that site plan review would be enough oversight. He said that a project could be denied for “arbitrary reasons” if allowed by special permit. He expressed that the Elizabeth Grady properties would be a good site for a privately-owned student dormitory. He said the site was currently unused and that there is not enough housing for Tufts students. He believed allowing the use as of right would best protect the property from being sold to the university. He took offense to comments he believed were stigmatizing college students. He said that he was concerned that requiring a special permit might delay a project up to six months and would ultimately kill it resulting in less housing for the city.
Tseng denied collusion with the developer and characterized the mayor’s decision to cast suspicion on him as a “Trumpian tactic.”
Tseng said that the vote may have been the most difficult one of his time on the Council but announced ultimately that he would vote in favor of keeping the use as-of-right.
OR councilor Matt Leming spent most of his remarks criticizing the mayor. He described the mayor’s conduct as “bomb throwing.” He said the decision to change the use was “relatively minor” and within the legislative prerogative. He said the mayor tried to make zoning an election issue before the November 2025 vote. He said that members of the community were providing a narrative spin on the facts.
OR council vice president Emily Lazzaro said the decision to change the use was a “quibbling issue” that the mayor “pounced on.” She said the mayor was doing it for “a quick political win.” She described the mayor’s conduct as “embarrassing” and said it was only “one parcel” affected. Like her colleague Tseng, she argued site plan review would be sufficient oversight. She critiqued the CDB as a mode of making zoning decisions. She said the Council was trying to build housing for people to live in and with a special permit a future project would never pass muster. She said that allowing the use would not guarantee a project. She pointed out that the public comment might not be representative of public opinion because only certain people came forward to make comments. She suggested a xenophobic motive behind residents who want a neighborhood to look a certain way and include or exclude certain categories of people.
Senior Planner Danielle Evans stated that the planning office feels strongly that a special permit should be required because this is an untested use. She pointed out that site plan review is very limited and noted legislation on Beacon Hill that would water it down even more.
Councilor Callahan expressed disagreement with the criticism that the vote to reverse the change was taken at an unduly late hour. She said that the public had an opportunity to speak earlier in the evening that was sufficient. She also disagreed that with the opinion that once a public hearing on zoning closes there are no further opportunities for public comment.
Did you watch? Were you there? What do you think about what happened?
All this was just one part of one agenda item. I will be breaking the rest of the meeting down in a Council Meeting Report that I will post within the next few days.
Nick’s POV:
The City Council’s decision to allow the use as-of-right provides another example of its interest in promoting residential development without any reasonable checks or limitations.
The comments from Tseng and Lazzaro trying to equate site plan review with special permit review demonstrate these councilors’ profound misunderstanding of our zoning ordinance and zoning generally. As explained above, the two are not the same. Site plan review is a largely toothless process that does not give the community discretion to deny a developer’s project based on evidence of substantial adverse impact on neighbors like a special permit does.
Lazzaro’s remark that zoning does not guarantee that a project will go forward but only creates the possibility of a project has been said before. The point misses that while no project is guaranteed to go forward, zoning changes influence development decisions. If they did not, why would we make any zoning changes in the first place? At the September 15 meeting, the Elizabeth Grady properties developer was in attendance and paying close attention to the decision-making of the Council. He indicated to me verbally that his intentions with the property would be directly influenced by the requirements of the zoning.
Of all the factually incorrect things I’ve listened to at Council meetings over the years, perhaps the most factually incorrect thing that has ever been said at a meeting I observed was said by Tseng last night. His remark that a special permit could be denied for “arbitrary reasons” is completely false. By its very nature and a large corpus of case law, a special permit cannot be denied for “arbitrary reasons.” The reasons one can or cannot be granted are spelled out very clearly in our zoning ordinance and across many cases. This here provides another example of Tseng’s ignorance of the law as a lawmaker.
I applaud Liz Mullane and Anna Callahan for breaking ranks with their OR colleagues and exercising independent judgment on the decision. Just as Hillside residents will undoubtedly remember the decision of the four OR councilors who voted for the use to be allowed as-of-right, these same residents will remember their votes as well.
