When the doors of Shelter, Inc., a Cambridge overnight emergency Shelter, closed for the night last Tuesday, seven homeless men and women found themselves on the cold side of its doors--victims of the overflow problem in the area's community shelters.

Cambridge shelters have the resources to shelter additional individuals. In fact, Shelter, Inc. organizers have raised more than $250,000 to convert the former Congregational Church near Central Square into a transitional housing facility. But the city's zoning laws prohibit the construction of any more "community residence facilities" in that Central Square neighborhood.

No more than one community residence may be established for every 5000 residents in a neighborhood, according to a 1975 ordinance. And Neighborhood 6--Central Square--has already exceeded its quota.

A degree of relief, however, may be in sight for the city's homeless and the concerned residents who have been continually frustrated by local zoning laws in their efforts to provide emergency shelter. A proposed amendment to the existing ordinance would remove the restriction on the number of community residence facilities permitted, placing a ceiling instead on the number of shelter beds permitted per 1,000 residents. Allowing 10 beds per 1,000 residents, the amendment would effectively triple the potential number of community service beds in the city.

The 1975 ordinance, according to Jill Herold, city manager for human services, was not originally designed to limit overnight shelters for the homeless.

"Eleven years ago," Herold said, "the homeless problem simply wasn't there." But since that time, the ordinance has forced shelters to turn away the homeless on a regular basis.

"I turn away at least seven to 10 people every night," said Mary Kelley, program assistant for Shelter, Inc. "There's no doubt that the system has to change."

Central Square residents, however, greeted the proposed amendment with less enthusiasm.

"Our neighborhood is already at three times its capacity [under the 1975 ordinance]," said Ann Bolger, one Central Square homeowner. "Basically what this amendment would do is put our neighborhood even further over the limit."

Neighborhood 6 holds six of the city's 16 community residence facilities. It exceeds the prescribed number of residences because four existing facilities were exempted from the ordinance by a grandfather clause.

"People seem to think that Central Square is a more `appropriate' place for shelters," said Bolger. "And that's wrong." Bolger added she would like to see a minimum number of shelters in other neighborhoods before Central Square received any more.

"I've seen people speak very eloquently and morally about building shelters for the homeless," Bolger said. "But you can bet your boots that they don't go into the areas where those shelters are."

Melissa A. Frazier '87, who considered opening a shelter in Leverett House with other concerned students following the recent controversy over a short-lived Harvard attempt to keep the homeless off heating grates there, said she doesn't understand the attitude of Central Square residents.

"I have trouble seeing why a shelter is bad," Frazier said. "I would prefer having a shelter in my neighborhood than having people wandering around in the street--it would be safer."

The City Council will hear testimony on the proposed amendment February 27. From there the proposal will be referred to the city's planning board, which will make its recommendations to the Council before a final vote.