Real estate projects in the Fenway are coming to rely increasingly on a single committee for community input, a strategy with dubious regulatory footing whose members say it falls short of the diverse array of individual committees that are supposed to give the neighborhood a voice.

The Fenway CAC is a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) that has overseen a series of real estate projects, even being tapped to review the Fenway’s zoning update process. Its use has sparked increasing criticism from residents and its own members, who say that it’s being used as a regulatory shortcut that’s increasingly unable to deliver the substantive feedback developers and government officials are supposed to hear.

The CAC was originally a standard committee to review a life sciences development at 109 Brookline Ave. The city expanded its oversight in June 2021 to include the expansive Fenway Corners project, Landmark Center, and 1400 Boylston Street in response to community calls for greater coordination across the neighborhood. It further stretched its reach in October when it was used to review the neighborhood’s transportation and zoning plans, which have drawn heavy criticism for their short timeframe and lack of opportunities for resident input.

“The original zoning document says any zoning change must go through the original Interim Planning Overlay District group, the board of 23 representatives of developers, community groups, the Red Sox, MASCO… That’s not being upheld,” said Tim Horn, a member of the Fenway CAC and president of the Fenway Civic Association (FCA). “It’s the same CAC that’s been sitting since the pandemic. Each project is supposed to have its own unique CAC picked by a diversity of state representatives and city councilors. Their argument is that the full process is too stressful for the community, but honestly I think it’s just too stressful on the BPDA and city council.”

It’s not clear exactly how the city is justifying the increasing use of this single CAC for so many projects. The committee was formed in a June 2021 memorandum from Brian Golden, the then director of the BPDA who left in April 2022. That memo declares the CAC “may also assist the BPDA with review of future Article 80 projects in the Fenway neighborhood.” It also says the CAC may act as an Impact Advisory Group, another type of review body which, according to the BPDA’s own website and the October 2000 executive order establishing the community review process, is supposed to be appointed by the mayor.

The mayor’s office declined to comment on the expanding purview of the Fenway CAC or the city’s legal justification for it.

“The only way we train new people and get them into the community process is to have them serve on these projects. I’m sitting on projects instead of the people that actually live next to them, who would have intimate details on how that neighborhood works. The people that are most affected by projects should have the most input,” said Horn.

“It effectively limits civic participation.

Reading a thousand-plus page filing is no cake walk, and many of the CAC members who weren’t paid staff really dropped off in their participation,” said Marie Fukuda, a Fenway resident involved in many review processes. “The intent of citizen review, to be an engaged and committed neighborhood representative, increasingly doesn’t happen because these same members start to become fatigued. I think that’s evidenced by the lack of comments on some recent filings.”

“There’s just too much going on here, you need the abutters. I live on Peterborough St. and I found out there were going to be meetings about 1400 Boylston that I, an abutter, wasn’t even aware of. It just kind of blew my mind,” said Kathy McBride, FCA assistant secretary and Fenway CAC member. “Nobody can survive all these meetings and work and life. You’re an off-hours volunteer. If you have one group for one project, they’ll give it proper attention, they’ll show up. You want people who can build a proper history, who know what’s going on.”