Court Opinion

ID: 9400061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 14:08:13.682979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.716956
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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.