An early 1900s home assessed as being in “excellent condition” continues on a path to demolition after Cambridge Historical Commission members on Thursday rejected a neighbors’ appeal. The four-unit home at 60 Ellery St. is due to be replaced with a six-story building including 28 units, of which 20 percent – four or five units – will be affordable housing.
The rejection of the appeal was unanimous and within the narrow confines of what members are allowed to consider: whether the decision-makers on the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District commission observed due process requirements; whether proper notice was given for meetings; and whether NCD members acted within their authority, or arbitrarily and capriciously.
In that Aug. 4 ruling being appealed, members also acted within narrow confines, following zoning passed Feb. 10, 2025, by the City Council to encourage multifamily housing. “The City Council added goals to promote housing production and limited the [NCDs’] jurisdiction,” Historical Commission executive director Charles Sullivan said.
The limitations grated on some Historical Commission members.
“This is a direct result of people’s frustration with the how the new zoning is affecting their lives. And I wish that the City Council would hear what’s going on in these discussions and understand the level of of stress and discontent and concern and worry that this new zoning is causing,” vice chair Liz Lyster said. “We hear this over and over again.” A commission alternate member, Florrie Darwin, agreed with Lyster and expressed frustration at the little that can be considered in the development – and demolition – process.
Member Kyle Sheffield encouraged “anybody who has issues with this zoning ordinance to probably look at different paths in order to be able to get some resolution,” since Cambridge commission members had to stay “within a very finite lane” that did not allow consideration of much of the appeal before them.
Acting as the Ellery Square Owners Association, neighbors objected in a Feb. 20 filing that the NCD didn’t give appropriate weight to whether demolition of the existing house was necessary or consider factors such as the easement granted for the past 50 years to a next-door property once held in joint ownership. Instead, the commission approved a project “incongruous to the historic aspects, architectural significance or the distinctive character of the neighborhood.”
“Demolition was treated as a given,” argued lawyer for the appeal Seth Barnett of Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks. Just a block to the north, at 84-86 Ellery St., the NCD faced a similar situation and “stopped the demolition and they looked at all of the other alternatives.” The resulting design keeps part of an existing house and puts up a taller structure behind it.
The commission has no authority to enforce easement rights, Sullivan noted. And the decision made one block away has no bearing, because “houses vary enormously in quality and importance, both individually and in the context of the streetscape,” he said. “Every property is different.” Staff described the significance of the building to the NCD, “and the commission moved on. They heard it, they understood it and they moved on.”
The Historical Commission can’t substitute its judgment for that of the NCD, Sullivan said, a point underlined during public comment by a resident, Brendan Hickey.
“If you review this de novo,” Hickey said, using a term for trying a case anew, “you’re going to get every single NCD decision appealed to you. And at that point, why even have NCDs?”
About The Author
