The fate of a homeless shelter’s relocation plan will be decided Wednesday by the Somerville Zoning Board of Appeals in the hearing of an appeal from a group of concerned neighbors. In an almost two-hour virtual meeting in late July, dozens of residents voiced support for and against the Somerville Homeless Coalition, which got permission two months to renovations at its future location in the First Church of Somerville.
Six residents who live near the shelter’s potential First Church home at 89 College Ave. allege that the city’s Inspectional Services Department applied a state zoning law incorrectly when issuing the permit in June. The so-called “Dover Amendment” is designed to exempt educational and religious organizations such as the church from zoning laws that would otherwise prevent a shelter from operating within a residential neighborhood.
The shelter move would create a space newly accessible to people with disabilities for 26 homeless people, 10 more than is possible at its current location in the Powder House neighborhood down the street at 64 College Ave. According to the coalition, the shelter, which has operated for 40 years, is in a state of disrepair and cannot be expanded.
The band of residents argued at a July 31 meeting of the ZBA – which, according to participants, had more than 100 attendees – that sheltering homeless people does not constitute a primarily religious purpose, thus barring it from the Dover Amendment’s protections.
In a written appeal, an attorney representing the group likened the circumstances to a 2012 case between a private Massachusetts college and a surrounding town in which the educational purposes of a new elderly housing development, protected by the Dover Amendment, were called into question. While occupants would be enrolled in classes, the judge ruled that the primary purpose of the development was housing, not education, and disqualified it from the amendment’s protections.
Under the same argument, the Somerville appellants argue that the coalition’s “building permit was issued in error and must be revoked.”
“Educational purposes of a project should not be construed so broadly to avoid improper extension of exemptions of zoning regulations,” said the group’s attorney, Anne Vigorito of Richard D. Gi Girolamo Attorneys at Law, at the ZBA meeting. “In plain English, just because it’s a church doesn’t mean they get to say, ‘Our mission is to help the homeless.’”
An attorney for the coalition argued against the appeal, basing its defense on a recent case concerning a religious camp sponsoring an RV park. In that case, Massachusetts courts found that allowing families to stay in vehicles in the park – which could influence them to attend religious services – was a primarily religious purpose, thus protecting the organization from typical zoning procedures. The defense also argued that providing charity and serving the homeless is central to religious practice, benefiting church members.
“The church is fulfilling a religious mission by hosting a homeless shelter,” said Shawn McCormack, of the law firm of Davis Malm. “The analysis is not whether or not there’s going to be religious services [provided] to the shelter guests: That misses the mark. The analysis is whether or not offering a sanctuary to the homeless is a religious act of the church.”
In a legal analysis, the Somerville Law Department wrote that the coalition’s renovations were likely protected by the Dover Amendment under the same argument. While there is no binding precedent in Massachusetts, the representative wrote, there are “numerous states” that consider operating a homeless shelter a religious act.
“The primary purpose of the activity is reasonably related to the church’s religious mission, specifically its stated goals in connection with providing a radically inclusive sanctuary and transformative community engagement,” satisfying the requirement for protection, wrote deputy city solicitor David Shapiro.
One appellant made a different case against the move.
“Whether the vaguely written Dover Amendment applies is questionable,” said Maren Chiu, who owns two properties on the same block as the potential homeless shelter. “But what is not questionable is that the city, Somerville Homeless Coalition and First Church planned this project in secret with no regard for their neighbors and it was pushed through without any democratic process, and that is not okay.”
McCormack pushed back, noting that the Dover Amendment has been state law for the past half-century. He said that concerns over zoning specifics – what he suggested were “a polite way” of expressing disdain for having a nearby homeless shelter – were not relevant.
“It is incredibly inaccurate and irresponsible to be throwing accusations that there was some kind of clandestine loophole employed here,” McCormack said. “The state law says that cities and towns cannot prohibit or regulate religious uses of land through their zoning ordinances, so we’re here tonight on that issue.”
More than a dozen meeting participants, including city councilor Ben Ewen-Campen, disavowed the appeal and voiced support for the building permit and the project as a whole. Ewen-Campen said that he had seen two recent similar projects progress under the Dover Amendment, highlighting uniform application of the law across the city.
“I think there really is no basis for this appeal,” he said. “If it were to succeed, it would prevent the creation of a desperately needed homeless shelter, which would be a really negative impact for our community.”
He did, however, recommend that the nonprofit hold meetings with neighbors to discuss the project and address frustrations. Many residents spoke out to express discontent at a lack of transparency and community engagement from the Somerville Homeless Coalition.
One nearby resident, Marcie Campbell, spoke in favor of the appeal, along with more than half a dozen others, and called for community engagement while stating support for homeless people. She also said that she had been a “decadeslong supporter” of the coalition financially and through volunteer work.
“Even considering the Dover Amendment, it is possible to both support the unhoused and engage the neighborhood in conversation where the end result would be a shelter of which we can all be proud,” she said. “It is not unreasonable to ask to be a party to the conversation that adds 26 new residents to the neighborhood – this would be the expectation for an apartment building or a hotel.”
This post was updated Aug. 13, 2024, to correct the name of lawyer Shawn McCormack.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.