The St. Benedict Center had a building that has been used as a chapel since 1989 and a school since 1990. The Center submitted to the town of Richmond Planning Board and Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Adjustment a site plan for an expanded house of worship / classroom building which was accepted by the Planning Board with condition. St. Benedict claims it was requesting permission to expand uses that are currently permitted while the Planning Board and ZBA treated the application as an application for new uses.
Richmond filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting that members of the Boards are entitled to absolute immunity or “entitled to qualified immunity for discretionary acts undertaken in the course of their official functions,” that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act only provides a right of action against governments, not individuals, and that Board member Charles Schroeder did not participate in any decisions affecting the Center. The Court ruled that the Boards were acting in quasi-judicial capacity and are therefore entitled to absolute immunity because boards need to perform their duties without “fear of harassment and intimidation”
St. Benedict Center claims that the Town’s action violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act since there was interference with members’ ability to practice religion. Also, the Center claimed the Board violated the First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Center’s first amendment claim. The Center argued that the Board violated the First Amendment because houses of worship are not directly allowed in any of the Town’s zoning districts without a special exception, which restricts right to religious speech, assembly, and practice. The Court found this persuasive because it gave the board excessive discretion.
The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on the equal protection/due process claims because there were genuine issues of fact. The Center claimed that the Town approved public assembly spaces without restrictions but the Court ruled that there are material issues of fact that can be disputed. These facts include accessibility of roads and how often they are utilized. The Court partly denied the motion for summary judgment based on violation of the RLUIPA. The Court was not persuaded by the argument that the town of Richmond has excluded religious assemblies from the town completely due to the requirement of a special exception. There is an issue of material fact as to whether the special exception is an unreasonable limitation.
The Court partly granted the Center’s motion for summary judgment on the assertion that the Town has violated RLUIPA by “imposing conditions” on the site plan that cannot be carried out since there is still an issue of material fact as to whether the Town imposed a substantial burden on the current uses or the proposed uses.
St. Benedict Center v. Town of Richmond,et.al, (NH Superior Ct. 10/23/09)
The order can be accessed at: http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/SaintBenedictCenterSJOrder.pdf
Since this order was handed down, it was reported that the Town of Richmond settled with the Church for $1.5 million. See, http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/25/nh-church-receives-more-than-1-1-million-over-unconstitutional-zoning-restrictions
See also, http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/06/alliance-defense-fund-announced-friday.html
I live in Richmond and go to church at SBC. As a former regional transportation planner, I also attended many of the PB and ZBA meetings. During the lawsuit many of these government officials were deposed, and emails surfaced showing they were plotting behind the scenes to get rid of the SBC because of their beliefs – “unload their disease from off our backs” where the PB chair’s exact words.
As such, the PB and ZBA imposed ridiculous demands on the site plan applications which were found to violate RLUIPA and the first amendment. For example, they wanted the water supply to the school and church shut down during construction, and demanded that the church obtain a permit from the state that does not exhist. They also sought the SBC to seek a special exemption which could arbitrarily be denied.
Even after the $1.5 million settlement, the Richmond PB refused to follow the court settlement. They re-imposed the illigal conditions, SBC went back to court and the Judge in no uncertain terms told the Town of Richmond that they could not change the settlement conditions.
By: NHBosonetto on October 14, 2011
at 11:35 pm