St. Benedict’s and neighbors ask judge for help
By Kyle Jarvis
Sentinel Staff
Though the town of Richmond and the St. Benedict Center settled a religious discrimination lawsuit last year, the legal battle rages on.
The center is asking the court to approve an agreement previously negotiated with the town on conditions of approval for a proposed construction project, while a group of residents, including abutters to the center’s property, is asking the court to send the matter back to the town’s planning and zoning boards. Residents say they’d then have a chance to be heard.
At a hearing in Cheshire County Superior Court Thursday, the center and the group of residents each argued that town officials have not followed the proper process on a previous court order.
The discrimination lawsuit stemmed from the center’s plans to build a 10,000-square-foot school and chapel on its Fay Martin Road property.
Following several hearings, the project received approval from the town’s planning and zoning boards, but with that approval came a list of 30 conditions.
The center argued it could never meet all 30 conditions, which amounted to a violation of its constitutional rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Judge Philip P. Mangones agreed.
Rather than go to trial, the town settled for $1.15 million. It was hailed as one of the largest settlements of its kind.
In April, officials from the center met several times with some members of the planning board and board of selectmen to revisit the conditions, said Michael J. Tierney, the center’s attorney. The result was a revised list of 23 conditions.
In June, the center and the town asked Mangones to approve the conditions. The judge Mangones declined the request, instead ordering the town to seek “meaningful input” from the planning board and zoning board.
“It is not clear ... that the planning board and zoning board of adjustment, as the entities with the power to make decisions with respect to land use issues, had authorized counsel to enter this settlement,” Mangones said in the order from June.
Then, things changed when some planning board members made 21 changes to the new revisions, “which I argued are more onerous than the 23 conditions agreed upon in April,” Tierney said.
But the full planning board never gave the okay for going ahead with the changes, according to two planning board members, which didn’t sit well with Tierney and the residents.
At least two planning board members claim a selectman told them their input wasn’t needed.
Mangones took the matter under advisement and will be issuing a ruling.
Richmond attorney Daniel J. Mullen could not be reached for comment on the town’s position.
Kyle Jarvis can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1433, or kjarvis@keenesentinel.com
The center is asking the court to approve an agreement previously negotiated with the town on conditions of approval for a proposed construction project, while a group of residents, including abutters to the center’s property, is asking the court to send the matter back to the town’s planning and zoning boards. Residents say they’d then have a chance to be heard.
At a hearing in Cheshire County Superior Court Thursday, the center and the group of residents each argued that town officials have not followed the proper process on a previous court order.
The discrimination lawsuit stemmed from the center’s plans to build a 10,000-square-foot school and chapel on its Fay Martin Road property.
Following several hearings, the project received approval from the town’s planning and zoning boards, but with that approval came a list of 30 conditions.
The center argued it could never meet all 30 conditions, which amounted to a violation of its constitutional rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and Judge Philip P. Mangones agreed.
Rather than go to trial, the town settled for $1.15 million. It was hailed as one of the largest settlements of its kind.
In April, officials from the center met several times with some members of the planning board and board of selectmen to revisit the conditions, said Michael J. Tierney, the center’s attorney. The result was a revised list of 23 conditions.
In June, the center and the town asked Mangones to approve the conditions. The judge Mangones declined the request, instead ordering the town to seek “meaningful input” from the planning board and zoning board.
“It is not clear ... that the planning board and zoning board of adjustment, as the entities with the power to make decisions with respect to land use issues, had authorized counsel to enter this settlement,” Mangones said in the order from June.
Then, things changed when some planning board members made 21 changes to the new revisions, “which I argued are more onerous than the 23 conditions agreed upon in April,” Tierney said.
But the full planning board never gave the okay for going ahead with the changes, according to two planning board members, which didn’t sit well with Tierney and the residents.
At least two planning board members claim a selectman told them their input wasn’t needed.
Mangones took the matter under advisement and will be issuing a ruling.
Richmond attorney Daniel J. Mullen could not be reached for comment on the town’s position.
Kyle Jarvis can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1433, or kjarvis@keenesentinel.com
When will the hatred towards Catolics in Richmond,NH ever end?
ReplyDelete