Harvard Crimson today: The Cambridge Planning Board punted a vote on their official recommendation for a proposal to eliminate single-family zoning in Cambridge on Tuesday, though members appeared tentatively supportive of the hotly-contested plan. “It may not be what I’ve seen over the past 50-plus years that I’ve lived here, but it’ll be something different, and it’ll be a new Cambridge, and it’ll be a great Cambridge,” board member H. Theodore Cohen said. The meeting came as a continuation of a hearing last week, which saw attendees deeply divided over the proposal <https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/13/cambridge-zoning-multifamily-housing-anger/> to allow for six-story apartment buildings citywide. While some residents implored the Planning Board to issue a negative recommendation on the plan — arguing that it could bring radical and irreparable change to the city — most of the body’s seven members appeared leaning toward voting in favor on Tuesday. Still, they said they were waiting on more information from the city about the proposal’s impacts. Planning Board Vice Chair Tom Sieniewicz said that the two-hour discussion, which included questions and answers from city planning staff, was still not enough to “resolve all of those questions tonight, to my satisfaction.” “I am totally with you,” Planning Board Chair Mary T. Flynn responded. “I don’t think we are going to resolve them. I think we definitely are going to continue the hearing.” However, the Planning Board emphasized that the city staff had admirably addressed concerns that Cambridge residents have raised over the past several months. They specifically praised a Nov. 1 City Council hearing <https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/11/1/cambridge-multifamily-zoning-debate/>, which saw city officials projecting optimism about the economic impact of the zoning upheaval. “I do feel like a lot of the studies and comments have been addressed by staff really well, and sort of make me feel at ease with going forward with such drastic change,” board member Diego Macias said. The Planning Board will resume their meeting on Dec. 17. The Council’s Ordinance Committee, which also discussed the proposal on Tuesday, similarly voted to continue their hearing on Dec. 4. The Council does not require the approval of the Planning Board to ratify the change to the zoning code, and could technically move to a decision before the board reconvenes — though it is unlikely that they will do so. Still, as the Council moves along with its own proceedings, some board members urged the body not to drag their heels on providing a recommendation. “Even if we do have more time before we want to send a report, I don't necessarily think we actually have that luxury,” Planning Board member Ashley Tan said. —Staff writer Laurel M. Shugart can be reached at laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com. Follow them on X @laurelmshugart <https://twitter.com/laurelmshugart> or on Threads @laurel.shugart <https://www.threads.net/@laurel.shugart>. —Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon <https://twitter.com/graceunkyoon>.