Cambridge committee hears proposal to ease zoning limits for religious institutions amid RLUIPA concerns

The Cambridge Ordinance Committee heard presentations and public comment Tuesday on a petition by Musla Morasio et al. seeking broad changes to the city zoning code to treat religious uses more like residential uses in several districts. Attorneys for the petitioners said the changes would remove gross floor area (GFA) and floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits for religious uses, allow unconstrained additions to pre‑existing nonconforming structures when used for religion, and permit religious buildings in some Residence C1 areas to reach six stories (up to 74 feet) without meeting inclusionary housing requirements or neighborhood notification requirements.

The petitioners’ lawyers argued the amendments respond to legal risk under federal law. “The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is very, very specific,” Weil Gotshal attorney Yehuda Buckowitz told the committee. Buckowitz said RLUIPA creates three protections — a substantial‑burden standard, an anti‑discrimination standard and an equal‑terms standard — and that “municipalities face serious risks” if zoning is applied in a way that substantially burdens religious exercise.

The proposal matters because, petitioners and their counsel said, the city’s amended residential rules (passage of recent multifamily zoning) created a regulatory framework that, without corresponding changes for religious uses, could expose the city to RLUIPA litigation and monetary damages. Benjamin Tymon, co‑counsel for the petitioners, said the proposed redlines mirror the residential amendments: “By allowing religious applicants to expand as of right… the zoning changes will prevent the city from violating RLUIPA by reclaiming discretionary relief that could lead to improper denials and delays,” Tymon said.

Committee members and city staff acknowledged the legal and policy questions are complex. The city solicitor explained that RLUIPA applies broadly and can lead to federal litigation, and she confirmed Cambridge’s prior home‑rule legislation that limited institutional growth interacts with Massachusetts’s Dover Amendment and the recent multifamily zoning changes. The solicitor told the panel she and staff would prepare a written legal opinion examining whether the proposed amendments are advisable or required to reduce legal risk and what other changes to the institutional‑use regulations might be needed.

Neighbors and neighborhood associations spoke strongly against a blanket, city‑wide exemption for religious uses. Cary Corner residents described the Lubavitch project on Bank Street as incompatible with a small residential block and warned the change could remove protections the city put in place decades ago to limit institutional encroachment into housing areas. “If every institution is allowed to expand like this and affect the remaining individuals without working with the community, will the respect for individual freedom still exist?” asked Lily Shen of Bank Street. Other neighbors said the petition would remove basic constraints — setbacks, GFA/FAR and notification — and could accelerate the loss of housing units in small neighborhoods.

Council discussion focused on three related issues: (1) the federal RLUIPA risk described by petition counsel; (2) the effect of the Dover Amendment and Cambridge’s historic home‑rule exemptions after the city’s multifamily rezoning removed district minimum lot sizes; and (3) the ongoing, separate Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) litigation and settlement discussions involving the petitioners’ project. Several members said the BZA case and any settlement are distinct but related and that the omnibus zoning changes in the petition would apply citywide.

Rather than vote on the petition, the committee asked the city solicitor to prepare a detailed legal opinion examining RLUIPA, the Dover Amendment implications for Cambridge given recent zoning changes, and whether the council should adopt the proposed amendments or pursue other targeted updates to institutional‑use regulations. Council members also asked staff from the Community Development Department to follow up on zoning edits that may be needed to align institutional rules with the multifamily amendments. The committee did not act on the petition; members agreed to keep it in committee pending the solicitor’s legal opinion and additional follow‑up from CDD.

What’s next: The solicitor will draft an opinion for the Ordinance Committee and the council. The petition remains in committee; any future action will be scheduled after the city completes legal and zoning reviews.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the committee hearing record and include: Yehuda Buckowitz (Weil Gotshal, counsel to petitioners), Benjamin Tymon (Tymon Davis & Duffy, counsel to petitioners), and multiple residents who testified during the public comment period.

Votes at a glance: No formal committee vote on the petition; committee agreed to defer and ask the solicitor for an opinion and for CDD to return with recommended ordinance edits.