Cambridge Board Prevents Shelter From Moving Into Central Square

In a controversial decision last night at City Hall, a Cambridge shelter for the homeless was denied permission to locate a new facility in a vacant Central Square church.

After local residents intensely lobbied for several months against the proposed shelter, the city's board of zoning appeals voted 3-2 against Shelter Inc.'s request to purchase and renovate the Prospect St. Congregational Church.

Shelter, Inc asked for and was denied a special exemption from a Cambridge zoning law limiting the number of "community residences or personal care lodging houses" to one for every 5000 residents of a neighborhood.

Echoing the sentiments of residents, the three zoning board members opposing the variance said Central Square, with six shelters in a population of 13,500, has already exceeded its legally established quota for such buildings.

Representatives of Shelter, Inc. said after last night's permit denial that they would consider either legal action against the board or an appeal to the Cambridge City Council, the policy-making branch of city government that originally drew up Ordinance 868.

"[The board] missed an excellent chance to take a courageous step toward doing something for the homeless people in this city," said David Whitty, executive director of Shelter Inc.'s three Boston area facilities.

Shelter, Inc. had planned to establish a 20-bed, transitional shelter for men and women trying to find permanent homes. The 11-year-old non-profit organization, which already operates a similar shelter at 109 School St. in Cambridge, had searched for two years to find a permanent location in the city's tight housing market.

When the 153 year-old Prospect Congregational Church closed its doors in May because of dwindling attendance, church members decided to accept a $225,000 bid for their building from the shelter instead of a more lucrative offer from a grocery chain. The congregation said it wanted the structure used in way that was consistent with the building's "religious heritage."

After last night's vote, church officials said they might begin searching for another occupant for the facility.

"We'll just go out and look for another buyer," said the church's treasurer, Thomas M. Smith. "But people from that church are sentimental about that building and don't want to see it turned into a parking lot."

The decision to deny the permit came after more than an hour of public discussion last night among the five members of the zoning appears board before a crowd of nearly 75, onlookers. A hearing lasting five hours was held in June to allow residents and shelter officials to present their cases before the boar.

Zoning board chairman Vincent J. Panico, who voted in favor of the shelter, said "The issue is between Shelter, Inc. and those areas of the city which vigorously denied them access to their neighborhoods."

"I do not believe the [neighborhood people abutting the church] have been selfish in their treatment of community residences," Panico said "They've been quiet, without opposition, as many community residences have come into their area."

But board member Hugh A. Russell, who voted down the proposal, presented the majority view. "It is a detriment to the public good if we grant a variance we knew could not be held up in a court of law," the city council candidate said about the possibility of an appeal.

"We live in a country of laws where people have the right to expect that laws should be enforced and interpreted as is written," Russell said about Ordinance 868.

But City Councilor David E. Sullivan, who joined fellow lawmakers Alice K. Wolf and Thomas W. Danehy at the meeting, said he was inclined to introduce an amendment to the law when the city council meets again after Labor Day.

"I'm convinced the ordinance is a failure. Its purpose is to spread community residences fairly and evenly throughout the city, but what it's done is to prevent any of them from locating in Cambridge." Sullivan said last night, noting that the the zoning board can only enforce policy set by the city council.

One church member, Richard M Sawyer '46, said after the decision. "It's just like the old case of everybody wants a prison, but nobody wants it in their backyard.