Wednesday, October 28, 2009

RICHMOND: Town, Catholic center still at odds over plan

Split Decision In Case;

After years of debate inside town offices and courtrooms, a verdict has been reached on parts of the case between St. Benedict Center and the town of Richmond.

Each side scored a victory.

Cheshire County Superior Court Judge Philip P. Mangones ruled that Richmond violated the conservative Catholic center’s First Amendment rights, effectively restraining its freedom to practice religion. But Mangones also ruled that the 12 members of Richmond’s planning and zoning boards — named as defendants in the lawsuit and accused of religious discrimination — cannot be sued as individuals. Richmond’s planning and zoning boards themselves are still named in the lawsuit.

The case between Richmond town officials and St. Benedict Center, however, is far from over.

The lawsuit — made up of three consolidated cases — stems from the center’s proposal to build a 10,000-square-foot school and chapel on its Fay Martin Road property. Richmond’s zoning and planning boards approved the plan, but attached a list of 30 conditions the center had to complete to build. They include installing a generator and widening and paving a section of Fay Martin Road. Richmond officials say those conditions are neutral, matters of health and safety.
St. Benedict Center alleges the conditions were discriminatory, violations of its constitutional rights of freedom of religion, speech and assembly.

St. Benedict Center is asking for nearly $2 million in compensatory damages, which are payments for injury or loss. That amount includes the increase in construction costs and lost tuition. The center is also asking for anywhere from $3.8 million to $5.8 million in punitive damages, which are meant to serve as a punishment and example to others. Most of the lawsuit will be decided by jury trial, which, due to judge availability, isn’t scheduled until March 2010.
Either side can ask Mangones to reconsider parts of his order, which was handed down Friday.

Daniel J. Mullen, a Concord-based attorney representing Richmond, said he intends to ask for reconsideration on the two sections of the order where Mangones ruled in St. Benedict Center’s favor. In one, Mangones cited Richmond’s zoning regulations: Houses of worship are prohibited in three of the town’s four zoning districts, and only allowed in the fourth with a special exception. Without an exception, “no house of worship could be established within the town,” Mangones wrote.
This equates to an “unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights.” Mangones also ruled that Richmond discriminated against the center by attaching unattainable deadlines to some of the conditions it had to meet to expand. Those time frames violated St. Benedict Center’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Mangones wrote.

The act is a federal statue that makes it illegal for land-use boards to discriminate against a religion through building policies.

Manchester attorney Michael J. Tierney, who is representing St. Benedict Center, declined comment on whether he would ask Mangones for reconsideration on the part of his order where Richmond prevailed. That section of the lawsuit was added in October 2008, after Tierney moved to join the 12 members of Richmond’s planning and zoning boards as individual defendants in the discrimination case.

In his order, Mangones ruled the board members had a “quasi-judicial capacity” when they ruled on St. Benedict Center’s proposed addition. Even if the 12 erred in their decision, they were still acting within their authority as land-use board members, Mangones wrote, thus qualifying for immunity from lawsuits against them as individuals.

This protection is important for board members, Mangones wrote, “to ensure that they can perform their function without fear of harassment and intimidation; without such assurance, the volunteer members of the boards would likely not want to serve.”

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like Winchester isn't the only town with planning board issues going on.

Anonymous said...

Maybe there should be some mandatory classroom training with experts before these individuals are allowed to make decisions that ultimately seem to affect the health of the individuals they are challenging and the citizens they purportedly represent. Volunteer or not, members of boards should not be resolved of responsibility to individuals or groups merely because they aren’t paid performers. If they don’t know what their obligations are they shouldn’t be allowed to create such havoc. Voluntary means just that, it does not mean trample over the rights of others. It’s time to move into the next century, get a real board and pay them.

Carl K. said...

People should be held accountable for their actions, especially when they know what they are doing is wrong. What kind of a lesson are they teaching their children and the children in town when they read that a judge has ruled their parents are responsible for breaking the law? They may find this church's teaching unsavory in their eyes; that is no excuse for their conduct, as board members they have a duty to follow the laws and put aside their personal feelings.

ashamed in Richmond said...

I'm from Richmond and I personally don't like this church, their teachings or what they stand for; having said that, I do agree that this whole thing was handled very badly and personal feelings took over instead of common sense and adjudicating in a lawful way. The church was wronged under the law and had a right to sue for justice, the people who knowingly broke the law should not be exempt from punishment for their actions and should be held accountable. What if this was one of us they did not like, would it be any different?