Hume Lake Christian Camps, Inc. v. Planning Board of Monterey

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-13365
HUME LAKE CHRISTIAN CAMPS, INC. vs. PLANNING BOARD OF
MONTEREY.
Suffolk. February 6, 2023. - June 7, 2023.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt,
& Georges, JJ.
Zoning, Exemption, Religious use, By-law. Religion.
Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on
August 9, 2019.
The case was heard by Diane R. Rubin, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative
transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
Donna M. Brewer for the defendant.
Alexandra H. Glover for the plaintiff.
Kate Moran Carter, Ryan Douglas Grondahl, Kathleen M.
Heyer, Nicholas P. Shapiro, & Taylor N. Lee, for Real Estate Bar
Association for Massachusetts, Inc., & another, amici curiae,
submitted a brief.
GAZIANO, J. In this case we must decide whether the
plaintiff's proposal to build a recreational vehicle (RV) camp
on its campground is an exempted use within the meaning of the
2
Dover Amendment, G. L. c. 40A, § 3. The Dover Amendment limits
the ability of municipalities to "regulate or restrict the use
of land or structures for religious purposes . . . on land owned
or leased by . . . a religious sect or denomination." Id. The
plaintiff, Hume Lake Christian Camps, Inc. (Hume), is a
nonprofit Christian organization that operates camps in service
of its mission to "evangelize the world." Hume operates a camp
in Monterey and provides to camp attendees chapel sessions,
religious instruction, and opportunities for spiritual
reflection, as well as secular recreational activities. Hume
applied to the defendant planning board of Monterey (board) to
build an RV camp on the grounds of its Monterey property. The
RV camp would be used to house families who attend camp
sessions, as well as volunteers and seasonal staff who perform a
variety of duties at the camp. The board denied Hume's
application, on the ground that the RV camp would not be an
exempt religious use under the terms of the Dover Amendment.
Hume appealed to the Land Court from the board's denial of
its application. Following a trial over three separate days
(including a view), in April 2022 a Land Court judge decided
that residences for family attendees at the RV camp would serve
a predominantly religious purpose and therefore would be exempt
under the Dover Amendment. The judge also concluded that
housing volunteers and seasonal staff at the RV camp would serve
3
a financial, rather than a religious, purpose and accordingly
would not be exempt under the Dover Amendment. The board
appealed to the Appeals Court, and Hume filed a cross appeal.
We then transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
We conclude that, because Hume's proposal to build an RV park
has as its primary or dominant purpose a religiously significant
goal, the RV park would be an exempt religious use.1
1. Background. We recite the facts based on the trial
judge's findings and the parties' stipulation of facts,
reserving some facts for later discussion.
a. Hume Lake Christian Camps. Hume was founded in 1946
and is based in California. It describes itself as a
nondenominational, conservative, evangelical Christian
organization that unites different denominations that all share
an evangelical Christian faith. Hume's fundamental mission is
to "evangelize the world." Its mission statement provides:
"We desire that each person coming into contact with this
global ministry will accept Jesus Christ as their personal
savior; grow in their faith and Christian character
development; establish the priorities of prayer, Bible
study, and Christian Fellowship while associating with the
local church; devote their lives in service to our Lord
Jesus at home and abroad. We will continue to emphasize
ministries to youth."
Hume carries out this mission through its "camping ministry."
1 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the Real
Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts, Inc., and the Abstract
Club.
4
Hume runs camps at three permanent locations, two in
California and the third in Massachusetts. It operates its
camps according to its interpretation of Christian scripture,
which is set forth in its statement of beliefs. Hume is
governed by a board of directors of from twelve to fifteen
members. Under Hume's bylaws, board members must meet the
requirements for elders as set forth in the Bible, in Peter 5:1-
4 and Timothy 3:1-7. The Internal Revenue Service has
recognized Hume as a religious charity under 26 U.S.C.
§ 170(b)(1)(A)(i), and as a nonprofit organization under
§ 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The judge's findings in large part were based on the
testimony of two individuals who were employed by Hume at the
time of trial. At that time, Lenny Harris was Hume's director
for ministry expansion, and John Szablowski was the senior camp
director at Hume's Monterey camp, otherwise known as Hume New
England (Hume NE). Harris and Szablowski each testified that
Hume's mission is "to teach spiritual principles and to tell
people the good news of the Bible in the setting of nature, in
the setting of camping." The judge credited both men as having
sincerely held beliefs consistent with Hume's statement of
5
beliefs, and a commitment to sharing their beliefs with others
through the work of Hume.2
b. Hume NE. Hume first acquired the Hume NE campground in
2012. At the time of trial, Hume NE operated on more than 400
acres of land. Its property included a number of small
buildings, as well as a dining hall, two newer and larger
residential lodges with gathering spaces, and a small and a
large chapel. The smaller buildings served as housing, as well
as spaces for activities, storage, and a snack shop.
In order to ensure that its camp furthered Hume's religious
mission, Hume NE required that all staff, including seasonal
employees, agree to and sign Hume's statement of beliefs. Job
postings for counsellors and food service assistants stated that
applicants had to agree "with the theological positions,
philosophy, and policies of [Hume]." Szablowski was responsible
2 In his testimony, Harris summarized that statement of
beliefs:
"We believe that God is the creator. We believe that he
created man. That man sinned, was separated from God. We
believe that God sent his son, Jesus Christ, as the final
sacrifice for man's sin. For those who believe in him in
his name and accept him, they are, we refer to[,] as born
again. They become believers, Christians. They are
assured a place in heaven. We believe that the Bible is
inspired by God. It's his inerrant word. We believe that
Jesus was killed, died, was buried, was resurrected, and
ascended into heaven, is there preparing a place for us,
who are believers. And that one day, as believers, we will
be in his presence."
6
for determining whether each job applicant sufficiently was
committed to the statement of beliefs to work at the camp.
Szablowski testified that, as part of this process, he asked
each applicant whether he or she had been baptized as "public
declaration of their faith."
Hume NE, which earns income from camper fees, concession
sales, and donations, does not generate enough revenue to cover
its operating costs. To compensate for an annual deficit of
approximately one-third of its operating expenses, the camp has
received a substantial amount of financial support from Hume,
its parent organization. Additionally, in order to save money,
Hume NE relies on the services of volunteers. Volunteers assist
with operations, maintenance, and new projects. Hume provides
volunteers with housing and free meals in exchange for their
labor. Volunteers are not required to sign the statement of
beliefs, nor must they agree with Hume's religious precepts.
Hume NE does not host secular corporate retreats or private
events on its property. Rather, its campground and facilities
are available for use only to campers who attend one of its two
types of programs, "program camps" and "guest retreats." As of
the date of trial, over sixty-five different churches, serving
approximately 4,800 campers, had participated in one of these
programs. Another approximately sixty campers had participated
as individuals, without any church group.
7
Program camps are youth camps that typically run for one-
week sessions during the summer, and on weekends during the
winter. Each year, Hume NE hosts five summer program camps and
approximately six winter program camps. Hume NE provides food
and lodging to program camp attendees and controls the entire
camp experience. This includes religious instruction, twice-
daily chapel sessions, performances by worship bands, and
recreational activities such as canoeing, basketball, hiking,
and ax throwing. Hume views the camp's recreational activities
as an important means of attracting interest in attending the
camp. Campers also participate in breakout sessions to discuss
the morning chapel session with their counsellors, aided by
written materials provided by Hume. Hume develops a biblical
theme each year for its program camps, with input from youth
pastors, in order to connect with youth and encourage them
toward faith. Each theme is reviewed and approved by a
credentialed theologian.
When a church arranges to participate in a program camp, it
typically brings its own congregation members, including adult
counsellors. Individual campers who do not sign up for program
camps through a church are placed with Hume NE's independently
hired counsellors. Hume NE does not require attendees at
program camps to sign the statement of beliefs or to profess a
belief in Hume's tenets. Attendees, however, must engage in all
8
activities, including chapel sessions. Szablowski explained
that these policies are in service of Hume's mission to bring
religious faith to nonbelievers.
Guest retreats take place on weekends approximately forty
weeks each year. Hume NE rents out its facilities to
participating organizations, such as churches, ministries, and
mission organizations, which in turn provide their own speakers,
worship bands, and activities. Individuals attend guest
retreats through these organizations. Hume NE provides
staffing, lodging, meals, and recreation. Each organization
participating in a guest retreat is required to allow a
representative of Hume NE to make a presentation and to share
Hume's ministry with the group.
Szablowski testified that he personally screened all groups
interested in guest retreats to ensure that their beliefs were
aligned with Hume's tenets. He discussed the statement of
beliefs with each group's ministry leader, required each group
to sign both the statement of beliefs and a guest group
contract, and ensured that each group's schedule included
religious components, such as chapel sessions. While
organizations must do so, individual attendees at guest retreats
are not required to sign the statement of beliefs, so as not to
dissuade nonbelievers from attending.
9
c. RV camp proposal. In May 2019, Hume submitted to the
board an application for site plan review for the construction
of an RV camp on Hume NE's grounds. In its application, Hume
described the proposed project as a twelve-space camp to
accommodate "temporary travel trailers, motorhomes, tents, and
seasonal staff housing trailers." These sites would be located
in an area somewhat distant from the rest of the campground, but
within walking distance of the other facilities. The
application explained that, "[a]lthough permanent buildings are
part of Hume New England, they are significantly more expensive
and require much more construction activity over a longer period
of time."
As set forth in the application, the RV camp would be used
by three distinct groups of individuals, for three distinct
purposes. First, Hume proposed to use the RV camp for a new
family camp program, which would provide families with a
Christian camp experience while allowing them to remain in their
own RVs.3 In addition, Hume proposed that the RV camp would be
used to house volunteers working at Hume NE. Finally, Hume's
application proposed that the RV camp would be used to house
seasonal, temporary staff during the summer months.
3 The family camp program also could be used for adult camps
hosted in RVs, such as men's or women's retreats.
10
d. Monterey's zoning bylaw. Under Monterey's zoning
bylaw, "[a]ny non-municipal educational use or any religious use
is subject to site plan review by the [board]." The bylaw
provides that "[n]o dwelling, structure or land or any part
thereof shall be used for any purpose unless authorized." The
principal use of a "[t]railer or mobile home park" is prohibited
in all zoning districts in Monterey.
2. Procedural background. In July 2019, the board sent a
letter denying Hume's application to construct the RV camp. The
decision explained: "After careful consideration, the board
voted at the meeting of 7/11/19 to reject the site plan on the
grounds that the trailer park is not a customary religious use
and should not fall under the umbrella of the Dover Amendment."
The decision also stated: "The next step is to get
clarification from the Mass. Land [C]ourt on this matter for
. . . future planning clarity."
Hume timely appealed by filing a complaint in the Land
Court. The parties agreed that there were two issues to be
decided at trial: (1) whether Hume qualified for a religious
use exemption in connection with Hume NE, and (2) whether Hume's
proposed construction of an RV camp at Hume NE would be exempt
from the zoning bylaw pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 3. In an
agreed statement of facts filed in the Land Court, the parties
agreed that Hume "is a non-profit organization professing
11
dedication to the ministry of Christianity, with a particular
emphasis on providing Christianity-based programs for all ages."
Prior to trial, the judge conducted a view of Hume's
property. Trial proceeded by electronic audio-visual conference
on April 13 and 14, 2021. In April 2022, the judge issued a
decision finding that Hume NE has a religiously significant goal
that is the primary or dominant purpose for which the campground
is used. The judge overturned on this basis the board's
determination that use of the RV camp for campers at the family
camp program was not protected by the Dover Amendment.
With respect to Hume's proposal to house volunteers and
seasonal staff at the RV camp, however, the judge found that the
board's decision was supported by the evidence at trial. The
judge concluded that Hume's purpose in allowing volunteers and
seasonal staff to use the RV camp was primarily financial and
that, hence, such use would not be protected under the Dover
Amendment.
3. Discussion. The Dover Amendment precludes a town or
other municipality from adopting a zoning ordinance or bylaw
that "prohibit[s], regulate[s] or restrict[s] the use of land or
structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on
land owned or leased by . . . a religious sect or denomination,
or by a nonprofit educational corporation." G. L. c. 40A, § 3.
See Martin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church
12
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 147 (2001)
(religious purposes); Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415
Mass. 753, 757 (1993) (educational purposes). The Legislature
has imposed this limitation in order to foreclose the "local
exercise of preferences as to what kind of educational or
religious uses will be welcome." See Newbury Jr. College v.
Brookline, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 197, 205 (1985). By the same
token, however, the Dover Amendment "honor[s] legitimate
municipal concerns that typically find expression in local
zoning laws" by "authoriz[ing] a municipality to adopt and apply
'reasonable regulations' concerning bulk, dimensions, open space
and parking, to land and structures for which a [protected] use
is proposed." Trustees of Tufts College, supra.
The board argues that the judge erred in holding that the
use of the RV camp to house families would be exempt under the
Dover Amendment. Hume argues instead that the judge erred in
holding that the housing of volunteers and seasonal staff in the
RV camp would not be exempt. To address these arguments, we
first must inquire whether the Dover Amendment's exemptions
apply to Hume. See Gardner-Athol Area Mental Health Ass'n v.
Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Gardner, 401 Mass. 12, 15-16 (1987)
(plaintiff was entitled to Dover Amendment protections because
it was nonprofit educational corporation). The Land Court judge
answered this question in the affirmative, concluding that Hume
13
is a religious organization entitled to the protections of the
Dover Amendment. The board does not contest this finding on
appeal. See Regis College v. Weston, 462 Mass. 280, 284 (2012).
This, however, does not settle the matter. Just because an
entity is a religious organization that qualifies for Dover
Amendment exemptions, it does not follow necessarily that the
entity uses its land or structures for a religious purpose. See
Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Assessors of Attleboro,
476 Mass. 690, 700 (2017). To determine whether a proposed use
of land or structures is exempt, we undertake two related -- and
at times overlapping -- inquiries. First, we ask whether the
proposed use has as its "bona fide goal something that can
reasonably be described as" religiously significant. See Regis
College, 462 Mass. at 285. Second, we consider whether the
religiously significant goal is the "'primary or dominant'
purpose for which the land or structures will be used." Id.,quoting Whitinsville Retirement Soc'y, Inc. v. Northbridge, 394
Mass. 757, 760 (1985). The primary or dominant purpose
requirement ensures that an ostensibly religious purpose is not
"mere window dressing" for a nonexempt use (quotation omitted).
See Regis College, supra at 287. Whether a proposed use of land
or structures is exempt under the Dover Amendment is a mixed
question of law and fact, which we review de novo. See McLean
Hosp. Corp. v. Lincoln, 483 Mass. 215, 219 (2019) (Dover
14
Amendment analysis is mixed question of law and fact); McCarthy
v. Slade Assocs., Inc., 463 Mass. 181, 190 (2012) ("[m]ixed
questions of law and fact . . . generally receive de novo
review" [citation omitted]).
In undertaking these inquiries, our focus is on the
proposed use of the land or structure, rather than on the land
or structure itself. See Worcester County Christian
Communications, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Spencer, 22 Mass.
App. Ct. 83, 87 (1986). In McLean Hosp. Corp., 483 Mass. at
215-216, for example, the plaintiff proposed to use its land for
a "residential program for adolescent males," and argued that
such a use warranted exemption under the Dover Amendment because
its purpose was educational. We concluded that, even though the
facilities in which the program would be housed did not resemble
a "traditional school[]" or "college[]," the proposed program
nonetheless had a predominantly educational purpose, because the
facilities would be used to "teach[] . . . participants the
skills necessary for their success" (citation omitted). Id. at
220, 225. See Worcester County Christian Communications, Inc.,
supra (radio station, depending on its content, can serve
educational purpose).
We do not take a piecemeal approach to these inquiries.
Rather, we ask "whether the [land or] structure as a whole is to
be used for religious purposes." See Martin, 434 Mass. at 149-
15
150. In Martin, supra at 150 n.19, for example, the judge
inquired whether each of the particular rooms of a temple
independently served a religious purpose. We held that this
"sort of particularized inquiry . . . is inappropriate." Id.In addition, "religious purposes" encompass more than just
"typical" religious uses, such as worship or religious
instruction. See Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc., 476
Mass. at 697. The religious purposes exemption covers any use
the primary or dominant purpose of which is to "aid . . . a
system of faith and worship" (citation omitted). See Martin,
434 Mass. at 150. See also Regis College, 462 Mass. at 285 ("We
have refused to limit Dover Amendment protection to traditional
or conventional educational regimes"). Notably, in determining
whether a particular use of land or structures serves a
religious purpose, we avoid making judgments as to whether a
proposed use constitutes a "necessary element" of a particular
religion, as that would constitute "an area of inquiry that the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits."
See Martin, supra.We emphasize that the religious purposes exemption does not
require that a proposed use be intrinsically religious in order
to serve a religious purpose. Rather, the exemption also
encompasses "a variety of accessory uses" that, while not
inherently religious in nature, are components of a broader
16
religious project, and that facilitate the functioning of that
project. See Needham Pastoral Counseling Ctr., Inc. v. Board of
Appeals of Needham, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 31, 37 (1990). We have
suggested, for instance, that a "church parking lot" can be said
to serve a religious purpose. See Martin, 434 Mass. at 149.
Similarly, a snack bar on a school's softball field may serve an
educational purpose. See Bible Speaks v. Board of Appeals of
Lenox, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 19, 30, 34 (1979).
We conclude that the proposed RV camp would have as its
primary or dominant purpose a religiously significant goal, and
so would be exempt under the Dover Amendment. See Regis
College, 462 Mass. at 284. We reach this conclusion because,
under Hume's proposal, the purpose of the RV camp would be to
facilitate the operations of and strengthen attendance at
Hume NE, whose mission is to cultivate religious practice and
spiritual growth. We note that the judge erred by inquiring
into whether each individual use of the RV camp would be exempt
under the Dover Amendment. Rather, the RV camp is a single
structure and therefore is subjected to a single instance of the
religious purpose test. See Martin, 434 Mass. at 149-150 &
n.19. We begin by discussing the housing of family attendees at
the RV camp.
a. Use of RV camp for family camp program. We conclude
that the primary or dominant purpose of housing families at the
17
RV camp would be to serve Hume's religious mission by
strengthening attendance at the proposed family camp program.
The judge found that the family camp program would be centered
around Hume's evangelical faith, with chapel, worship, and
religious instruction interspersed with recreational activities
throughout each day. In addition, Hume NE would provide
opportunities for intrafamily religious discussions. The judge
determined that the goal of the program is to promote the
spirituality of the family unit. See Regis College, 462 Mass.
at 292-293 (fact finder permissibly could conclude that program
served educational purpose on basis of plaintiff's affidavits
about program's goals).
Under Hume's proposal, families would reside at the RV camp
solely to attend the family camp program; families not in
attendance at the program would be excluded from the campground.
Contrast Lasell Village, Inc. v. Assessors of Newton, 67 Mass.
App. Ct. 414, 420, 423 (2006) (dominant purpose of retirement
community was not educational in part because "residents were
not required to devote a substantial portion of their time to
educational pursuits"). Moreover, Hume anticipates that, by
permitting families to bring their own RVs, the RV camp would
present a less costly alternative to staying at one of the
camp's lodges, rendering the family camp program more
affordable. The RV camp also would aid the family camp program
18
by serving as a location at which families would be expected to
engage in scheduled religious discussions and spiritual
reflection. See Needham Pastoral Counseling Ctr., Inc., 29
Mass. App. Ct. at 33. The RV camp would thus strengthen
attendance at and participation in the family camp program, in
accordance with Hume's mission to "invest in the spiritual life
. . . of the family." See Regis College, 462 Mass. at 281, 292-
293 (residential facilities may serve educational purpose if
residents engage in educational activities).
The board maintains that families' use of the RV camp would
not serve a religious purpose because staying in a trailer home
is not a religious activity. This argument applies the
religious purposes test too narrowly. See Martin, 434 Mass. at
149. As discussed, a use of land or structures can serve a
religious purpose without itself being a form of religious
practice. See id. at 150 n.19. Cooking food, for example, in
itself may not be a religious activity, but a kitchen
nonetheless serves a religious purpose if it is used to feed the
members of a congregation. See id. at 149-150. Likewise, under
Hume's proposal, the RV camp would provide lodging to families
so that they could attend a religious camp program. See Matter
of Hapletah v. Assessor of Fallsburg, 79 N.Y.2d 244, 250-251
(1992) ("If petitioner was unable to provide residential housing
accommodations to its faculty, staff, students and their
19
families, its primary purposes of providing rigorous religious
and educational instruction at the yeshivah would be seriously
undermined").
Having determined that the purpose of housing families at
the RV camp would be to advance Hume's religious mission, we
next turn to whether the same can be said for the housing of
volunteers and seasonal workers at the RV camp.
b. Use of RV camp to house volunteers and seasonal
workers. Hume contends that the primary or dominant purpose of
housing volunteers and seasonal staff at the RV camp would be to
facilitate the operation, maintenance, and improvement of
Hume NE, and thereby supports Hume's religious mission. We
agree.
The judge found that volunteers are a "critical part of the
business model of Hume NE" and are "heavily relied upon" to
perform work such as assisting with outdoor projects and
maintenance. At the time of trial, Hume NE was annually hosting
approximately 200 volunteers, each of whom stayed at the camp
anywhere from one day to one week or longer. Szablowski
testified that having two volunteers stay in an RV at Hume NE
for eight weeks during the summer would save the camp
approximately $8,600 annually.
In housing volunteers at the RV camp, Hume's goal is for
Hume NE to benefit from their labor. Under Hume's proposal, the
20
RV camp would provide volunteers with "a place to stay when
permanent housing is not available due to the camp being
otherwise full." In addition, Harris testified that groups of
Christian volunteers sometimes travel together in their RVs and
work in exchange for the use of a camp's RV site; the RV camp
therefore could entice itinerant volunteers to donate their
labor to the camp.
The same reasoning applies to Hume's proposed use of the RV
camp to house seasonal staff during the summer. Seasonal staff
at Hume NE, a category that includes camp counsellors, kitchen
staff, and grounds people, perform work that is necessary to the
camp's operations. See Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc.,
476 Mass. at 697 (cafeteria and bistro were "connected with
religious worship" because "[p]ilgrims and visitors who spend
hours at the [s]hrine need to eat and drink" [quotation and
citation omitted]). See also Bible Speaks, 8 Mass. App. Ct. at
30 ("feeding and housing of college personnel" serve educational
purpose). Furthermore, according to Hume's application, by
providing supplemental housing to workers during the summer, the
RV camp would allow Hume NE to use its limited number of beds
for paying campers rather than for staff, expanding the capacity
of the camp.
Because Hume NE exists to advance Hume's religious mission,
it follows that the purpose of housing volunteers and seasonal
21
workers at the RV camp is a religiously significant goal. See
Needham Pastoral Counseling Ctr., Inc., 29 Mass. App. Ct. at 37
(accessory uses may be encompassed by religious purposes
exemption). The judge held otherwise, finding that even though
Hume NE has a predominantly religious purpose, volunteers' tasks
are nonetheless "secular in nature" and "bear no relation to
Hume's religious mission other than reducing Hume NE's operating
costs." As discussed, however, this application of the
religious purposes test is too narrow. A religious organization
may depend upon secular tasks, such as the provision of food and
housing, in order to operate effectively. See Shrine of Our
Lady of La Salette Inc., 476 Mass. at 697. See also Corporation
of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints v. Ashton, 92 Idaho 571, 574-575 (1968), quoting
Matter of the Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d 445, 453
(1956) ("To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and
sacrifice would, in a large degree, be depriving the church of
the opportunity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening
itself and the congregation"). If each use of land or
structures itself had to be a "religious" use, it would be
virtually "impossible" for any organization to benefit from the
Dover Amendment's religious purposes exemption. See Martin, 434
Mass. at 149.
22
This court's broad understanding of what constitutes a
"religious purpose" is set forth in some detail in Shrine of Our
Lady of La Salette Inc., 476 Mass. at 695. There, a religious
organization sought a tax exemption for a maintenance building
that stored maintenance vehicles and equipment used to maintain
its property, as well as religious items. See id. We concluded
that the maintenance building had a dominant purpose that was
"connected with religious worship and instruction," because
"maintaining the [s]hrine and its grounds . . . is connected
with the religious worship and instruction offered at [the
property]." See id. at 699-700. Here, similarly, volunteers
and seasonal workers would reside at the RV camp in order to
assist in maintaining the camp's property and operating its
programs. Accordingly, this use of the RV camp would be
connected to the camp's religious purpose.
The board argues that the judge properly affirmed the
denial of Hume NE's application because, as the judge reasoned,
Hume NE is primarily motivated to house volunteers and seasonal
staff at the RV camp in order to defray costs, rather than for
religious purposes. This is because, the board maintains, as
Szablowski testified, housing workers at the RV camp would allow
Hume NE to avoid the costs associated with constructing more
permanent buildings.
23
This argument misconstrues the religious purposes test.
The board focuses on Hume NE's decision to house workers in RVs
rather than in permanent housing. The focus of this court's
analysis, however, has never been on an organization's reason
for choosing one means of pursuing its goals rather than
another. See Martin, 434 Mass. at 150 (once it is determined
that sacred ceremonies are conducted in temples, "[n]o further
inquiry as to the applicability of the Dover Amendment [to a
temple] was warranted"). Rather, we look to the purpose of the
particular use to which the land or structure is put. See id.
at 149. Here, the reason that Hume NE wants to house workers in
the RV camp is so that their labor may assist the camp in
carrying out its religious goals. Accordingly, this use of the
RV camp would serve a religious purpose. See Worcester County
Christian Communications, Inc., 22 Mass. App. Ct. at 87 ("focus
must be placed on the use of the structure").
c. Hume's religion mission. The board argues that, even
if the RV camp would serve Hume NE in carrying out its
operations, this would not constitute a religiously significant
goal because Hume NE's primary or dominant purpose is
recreation, and not religious practice.
We disagree with the board's characterization of Hume NE's
purpose. As the judge found, the primary or dominant purpose of
Hume NE is to serve Hume's evangelical mission. Harris and
24
Szablowski, in testimony that the judge found credible and
honest statements of belief, described Hume NE's purpose as
being to cultivate religious experiences for believers and
nonbelievers alike. See Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass.
230, 244 (1990) ("Questions of credibility are . . . for the
trial judge to resolve" [citation omitted]). This purpose is
clearly set forth in Hume's mission statement, which articulates
Hume's desire that "each person coming into contact with
[Hume's] ministry will . . . [a]ccept Jesus Christ as their
personal Savior." See Commissioner of Code Inspection of
Worcester v. Worcester Dynamy, Inc., 11 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 99
(1980) (nonprofit corporation's belief that its program serves
educational goals is "entitled to due weight").
The camp's programming, which is directed and controlled by
Hume NE, bears out this purpose. See Regis College, 462 Mass.
at 292. Program camp attendees are required to participate in
two chapel sessions each day and to receive religious
instruction in accordance with a biblical theme that is reviewed
by a theologian. See id. (mandatory academic requirement of
"two academic courses each semester" bolstered assertion that
program served educational purpose). Contrast Needham Pastoral
Counseling Ctr., Inc., 29 Mass. App. Ct. at 36 (program does not
serve religious purpose in part because "[c]ounselors do not
espouse to their clients any particular religious doctrine").
25
Similarly, the camp's guest retreats are available only to
organizations that agree to abide by a schedule that includes
religious components. According to Szablowski, he rejected at
least three groups from participating in a guest retreat, two
because they were secular organizations, and one because its
humanist theology was inconsistent with Hume's statement of
beliefs.
The board maintains that, because recreation, rather than
religious practice, is the primary draw for campers in choosing
to attend the camp, Hume's religious mission cannot be described
as Hume NE's primary or dominant purpose. The board points to
Szablowski's testimony that the camp would "have a difficult
time attracting families" in the absence of recreational
activities. The board additionally observes that campers are
not required to belong to a church or profess a particular faith
in order to attend the camp.
We are not persuaded. Although the recreational activities
"conducted on the [camp's] properties are [not] inherently
religious in nature," they nonetheless serve to promote Hume's
religious goals. See Maurer v. Young Life, 779 P.2d 1317, 1327,
1331-1332 (Colo. 1989) ("by engaging the attention of young
persons in camping activities and then directing the youths'
attention to the religious meaning to be gleaned from these
experiences the entire camping experience becomes a form of
26
religious worship"). As discussed, the religious purposes
exemption is not limited to uses that are typical of or inherent
to religious institutions. See Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette
Inc., 476 Mass. at 697-698. The judge found that Hume NE offers
recreational activities in order to boost interest in the camp's
religious offerings, as well as to cultivate an environment in
which individuals are likely to develop their faith. See
Cummington Sch. of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington,
373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977) ("The fact that participants spent
part of their time in recreational activities would not
undermine a use which is otherwise educational"). See also
Supervisor of Assessments of Carroll County v. Peter & John
Radio Fellowship, Inc., 274 Md. 353, 356-363 (1975) (children's
camp was "used for religious purposes," notwithstanding its
"western frontier theme" that was used to attract young campers
who were "not running with glee to hear the Gospel or [to go] to
church").
Further, to the extent that Hume NE allows "nonbelievers"
to attend camp programs, it does so in service of
proselytization. As Szablowski testified, "if we were only to
allow believers here, this would be more of a . . . club and not
really meet that evangelistic nature." See Lutherans Outdoors
in S.D., Inc. v. South Dakota State Bd. of Equalization, 475
N.W.2d 140, 146 (S.D. 1991) (whether purpose of summer camp is
27
religious is not determined by "the percentage of religious
society members among those who make use of the facility").
Contrast Needham Pastoral Counseling Ctr., Inc., 29 Mass. App.
Ct. at 36 (counselling program does not serve religious purpose
in part because counsellors "do not proselytize").
We conclude that the primary or dominant purpose of Hume NE
is to advance Hume's evangelical mission. Because all of the
proposed uses of the RV camp would serve to aid Hume NE in
carrying out this mission, we further conclude that the primary
or dominant purpose of the RV camp would be a religiously
significant goal. Accordingly, the proposed RV camp would be an
exempt use under the Dover Amendment.4
4. Conclusion. The judgment of the Land Court affirming
the planning board's determination is vacated and set aside.
The matter is remanded to the Land Court for entry of a judgment
finding that the proposed RV park would be an exempt religious
use and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
4 Because we conclude that the RV camp is subject to the
religious purposes exemption, we do not address Hume's argument
that the RV camp additionally would serve a religious purpose by
exposing volunteers and seasonal staff to opportunities for
spiritual growth.