Council committee advances citywide zoning changes to ease dimensional limits for religious uses

The Cambridge City Council ordinance committee voted Thursday to forward a zoning petition from Mushla Morazo et al to the full City Council with no recommendation, advancing a proposal that would alter how the city treats dimensional restrictions and other requirements for religious land uses citywide.

The petition would remove gross floor area (GFA) and floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits for religious uses, allow buildings used for religious purposes to rise up to six stories and 74 feet as-of-right in some districts, and change requirements tied to inclusionary housing, permeable open space, and neighborhood notification and meetings. The committee also voted to ask city staff and the city solicitor to revise proposed footnotes so that inclusionary requirements continue to apply where intended to non-religious uses and to strike two references that would have explicitly exempted religious uses from certain requirements.

City Solicitor (name not provided) told the committee the petition touches two legal frameworks that govern how municipalities treat religious institutions: the Dover Amendment (part of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A) and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). "The Dover Amendment is state law. It's part of chapter 40A, the Zoning Act," the solicitor said, and RLUIPA protects religious exercise from land-use regulations that impose a "substantial burden" unless the government shows a compelling interest and the least restrictive means.

The solicitor and staff emphasized that those protections do not make religious or nonprofit educational uses immune from all dimensional regulation; rather, they require fact-specific review when a regulation is alleged to be unreasonable or imposing a substantial burden. The solicitor said allowing dimensional relief similar to what the city now allows for multifamily housing would reduce the number of case-by-case variance requests to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) and thereby reduce potential liability for the city and for individual board members.

Petitioners' counsel and outside counsel said the proposal is intended as a risk-management measure and to put religious uses on the same footing as other allowed uses of comparable scale. Benjamin Timon of Timon Davis & Duffy and Christopher Hall of Weil Gotshal both referenced the city solicitor's memo and community development analysis as the bases for their presentation. Rabbi Hershey Zarfi of Lubavitch of Cambridge (Harvard Chabad), a petitioner-affiliated speaker, added a personal note: "This is a...central piece here of community and being good neighbors," and told the committee his organization intends to meet with neighbors during project development even where the ordinance would not require it.

Several neighborhood residents and community speakers urged the committee to preserve case-by-case review and other existing protections. Marilee Meyer (10 Dana Street) said the petition "would rezone the entire city for the benefit of one entity" and flagged specific lots on Bank Street, Concord Avenue and Massachusetts Avenue. Deborah Epstein, speaking for the Cary Corner Neighborhood Association, disputed petitioners' legal characterization of RLUIPA and raised concerns about "intensity of use," citing occupancy estimates she attributed to building-code calculations for a 40,000-square-foot institutional building. Helen Walker and Heather Hoffman likewise urged preserving neighborhood meetings and asked the committee to consider establishment-clause and neighborhood impacts.

Committee members asked staff and counsel clarifying questions about inclusionary zoning, permeable open space requirements, and which types of religious-related housing (for example, rectories or parsonages vs. market-rate apartments) would count as "primarily residential." The petitioners' counsel said the footnote language was intended to reflect that inclusionary housing requirements are targeted at primarily residential uses and may not be practicable for many religious facilities; the city solicitor recommended staff tighten the language to avoid unintended consequences for mixed-use projects.

On final actions the committee recorded two votes by roll call: first, a motion to ask the city solicitor and staff to refine petition language so inclusionary requirements continue to apply where intended to non‑religious buildings above the stated height threshold and to remove two footnotes that would have explicitly exempted religious uses; that motion passed (7 affirmative, 0 no, 2 absent). Second, the committee voted to forward the petition to the full City Council with no committee recommendation; that motion passed by the same recorded count. The committee also voted to adjourn.

The petition will go to the full City Council for further consideration; staff noted the planning board will also receive the solicitor's opinion and that additional hearings are scheduled in July and the summer meeting calendar. Any final zoning change would apply citywide and, if adopted, would change how future religious-use projects are reviewed and when they must apply for discretionary relief from the BZA or planning board.