Cambridge is unexpectedly losing some of its authority to regulate development and other land uses by religious and educational groups, including Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The change is an unintended consequence of the groundbreaking multifamily housing ordinance that allows four-story housing throughout the city, according to a discussion Tuesday at a City Council Ordinance Committee hearing.
By wiping out lot size requirements for residential districts, the ordinance approved in February means that Cambridge no longer has an exemption from a 1950 state law called the Dover amendment that requires cities and towns to allow religious and educational uses throughout their community, except for “reasonable” restrictions on building heights, open space and some other zoning issues.
Legislation obtained by Cambridge 46 years ago allowed the city to regulate proposed projects by religious and educational institutions in residential districts with a 1,200-square-foot minimum lot size requirement, city solicitor Megan Bayer told the committee, which includes all councillors as members.
“Now with the changes from the [multifamily housing ordinance] we don’t have any residential districts that have a minimum lot size, so [the exemption] doesn’t apply any longer in Cambridge,” Bayer said. Making it clear, Bayer said officials will need to propose changes to the city’s institutional use rules “to reflect that religious and educational uses would be allowed throughout the city.”
In 1979 the city won approval from the state Legislature for a home rule petition essentially giving Cambridge an exemption from the Dover amendment. Harvard University (then Harvard College) was excluded from the legislation; the city added Harvard in 1980, according to Heather Hoffman, a lawyer with expertise in zoning issues who commented at the Ordinance Committee hearing.
The city wanted the exemption primarily to restrain large institutions such as Harvard and MIT from expanding into residential neighborhoods and taking away sorely needed housing. Paradoxically, the goal of the multifamily housing zoning ordinance was to allow more housing to be built.
The discussion of the Dover amendment came during consideration of a zoning amendment proposed by an Orthodox Jewish center on Banks Street in the Riverside neighborhood that is trying to expand. Lubavitch of Cambridge, also known as Harvard Chabad, is asking to free religious institutions from zoning restrictions such as floor-to-area and indoor space limits, similar to how residential projects are now treated under the multifamily zoning ordinance.
Lubavitch’s proposal to almost double its indoor space was rejected by the Zoning Board of Appeals last June. A neighborhood group has opposed it, saying it would attract as many as 1,000 people and change the character of the quiet neighborhood. Lubavitch has sued the city in federal court, alleging the zoning board action violated a federal law protecting religious organizations from being burdened by local zoning rules and actions.
Lubavitch’s proposed zoning amendment would also allow religious organizations to go forward with proposals without telling or consulting with neighbors if their projects were three stories or more.
At the committee hearing, a lawyer for Lubavitch warned that municipalities risked substantial fines and other financial penalties if they were found to violate the federal law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act. Similar warnings came at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing.
The city and Lubavitch entered mediation almost immediately after the suit was filed in September and have been talking since, according to court records. Meanwhile, Lubavitch sought the zoning amendment, which would give it as well as any religious organization freedom from many zoning restrictions and essentially let it expand the way it wants.
The issues converged at the committee meeting. Councillor Burhan Azeem almost immediately proposed that councillors ask for a legal opinion on whether the city must approve the zoning amendment proposed by Lubavitch. Azeem mentioned the Dover amendment as well as the federal law.
The import of the multifamily housing zoning and its effect of city regulation of institutional uses was on councillors’ minds. “I want to make sure we are … clear and transparent about this is not just religious use. It’s also educational use, given that our 1979 act is now, in essence moot,” councillor Patty Nolan said.
City solicitor Bayer promised: “We will work on trying to take this complex conglomerate of issues and break them down and address them each for the council.” The committee won’t act now on the zoning amendment request, which expires Aug. 18. Councillors will file a policy order at the next council meeting June 2 asking for a legal opinion, which Bayer will already be working on. The Planning Board, which also considered Lubavitch’s zoning amendment Tuesday, decided to go along with the request for a legal opinion.
Lubavitch is scheduled to return to the Board of Zoning Appeal on June 12 to repeat its expansion request.
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.
How unintentional is torching our hard-won exemption from the Dover Amendment when the City Council and the Planning Board were told multiple times that that’s what they were doing?
Opponents of new housing will latch onto any excuse to block development. Is the loss of the Dover Amendment really worth derailing broader reform?
Critics fixate on minor issues like this while ignoring the real driver of our housing crisis: exclusionary zoning. These policies have limited supply, driven up costs, and pushed people out—yet some would rather preserve them than allow a few more homes.
1. Exclusionary zoning is a major cause of Cambridge’s housing crisis. Reform would allow more homes, including affordable units, and help reduce displacement.
2. The Dover Amendment issue is minor compared to the potential benefits of zoning reform.
3. Building housing near jobs is essential for affordability and sustainability. Otherwise, people will just commute in—adding traffic and pollution. Is that really the alternative we want?
Those upset should be clear that what they support is Cambridge discriminating against religious uses and excluding lower income people from Cambridge neighborhoods.
An exemption to allow Cambridge to block religious uses was always dubious.
The exemption didn’t prevent MIT from buying big chunks of Kendall or Cambridgeport.
The exemption requires Cambridge to massively limit the number of homes on each lot—pure exclusionary zoning.
It requires 1.200 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.
So a 5,999 square foot lot (above the citywide average) could have a maximum of four homes.
Subsidized affordable IZ homes were effectively blocked completely.
If people want to retain an exemption for Cambridge, they should propose a new home rule petition that unbundles the exemption from exclusionary zoning. (The article fails to point out that many who want to retain this exemption opposed ending exclusionary zoning).
Why do we care?
It’s worth noting that Heather Hoffman, who is both quoted here and made a comment as well, is a member of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition, which has opposed multiple zoning reforms, including the most recent multifamily one mentioned in this article.
You can find her name listed as part of their Advisory Committee: https://www.cccoalition.org/who-we-are.html
@cportus Some care because they use this as an excuse to oppose zoning reform. Others cared to call them out on it.
Affordable housing is a problem in Cambridge, but Cambridge has a much bigger housing problem; those “house rich, cash poor” financially middle income families.
The significant rise in property taxes in the last ten years, has forced many of these families to sell their homes. In the last year, particularly, and in the coming ten years, property taxes are going to rise substantially, forcing many more middle
income families out of Cambridge.
Why is this so? One only has to look at the spendthrift attitude of the City Council during the past ten years. It thought that the godsend of labs (commercial real estate taxes) was going to last forever.
Absolutely frivolous expenditures. If you don’t want to look at the larger expenditures, the tens of millions of dollars kind, just look at the City of Cambridge Daily Update.
Until this spendthrift attitude stops, middle class homeowners, both retirees and those still working, will continue to leave.
The headline could have instead been, “Multifamily Housing Law Restores Property Rights to Religious and Educational Groups”.
Maybe everyone doesn’t have to live in Cambridge. Renter(65%) are forcing out long time home owners who do not wish to live with 12 other people on a 1200 square foot lot.