ZBA says no deal!

In case you missed it, in front of a standing room only crowd of Hanover citizens, the ZBA unanimously rejected the proposed settlement agreement on Thursday night. This means that the appeals by CRC and the neighbor’s continue on a track for a hearing in Grafton County Superior Court some time in the Fall of 2020. After that, win or lose, there will most likely be more appeals, more hearings, and a final resolution realistically might not come until some time in 2023!

Lots of questions went unanswered on Thursday night. Most notably, the members of the audience never did get an explanation as exactly why “The Town” thought this proposed settlement was worth presenting to the ZBA in the first place. ZBA members were very clear that the proposed settlement did not originate with them, but nobody directly answered the question of why we got there in the first place.

We did get some indication of CRC’s tactics. CRC’s attorney Michael Tierney didn’t waste any time in making it clear that CRC is trying to extort approval from the town by whatever method necessary, including threats and intimidation. In response to the first question that Attorney Tierney was asked, he wasted no time in jumping straight to “The Richmond Case”, even though the question he was asked had absolutely nothing to do with that case. He reminded me of a political candidate on a debate stage who ignores the actual question and pivots immediately to a pre-planned and rehearsed answer.

Attorney Tierney was quick to point out that the tiny town of Richmond, NH had to pay a $1.15 million settlement in a religious discrimination land use case. The threat was quite clear – Hanover, you better do what we want, or risk finding yourselves on the hook for a similar a judgement. To hear Tierney talk, one would think the cases were virtually identical, and it’s just a matter of time before Hanover will have to pay up.

So, what exactly is the “Richmond case” and how similar is it to our case? I’m no lawyer, but I know how Google works, so I did a little research. And, guess what, the two cases really aren’t similar at all, and CRC’s extortion appears to be just an empty threat.

First and foremost, the Richmond Planning Board actually did show a bias against this particular religion and religious use.  In their filings, St Benedict’s noted to the court that the planning board chairman, who drafted several of the conditions, e-mailed other town officials about his disgust for the church’s religious teachings, stating that its stance on abortion, homosexual behavior, pornography, and divorce were “abhorrent.”  In the CRC case, our neighborhood objections, and the Zoning Board decisions, have never been about any animus toward a particular religion or religion in general. The objections have always been based only on the impact of this development on this neighborhood, based on the scale and intensity of use.  

Second, it’s important to note that Richmond was not ordered by a court to pay that amount to St Benedict’s.  It was an agreement, negotiated by Dan Mullen, who represented Richmond’s insurance carrier. The following is from a Keene Sentinel article published 7/1/2010 describing the settlement:

“Daniel J. Mullen, Richmond’s attorney, said the decision to settle was made because of the uncertainty of moving forward with a trial.

“We just weighed the costs and benefits of going to trial and possibly appealing it … and decided this was in the best interest of all involved,” he said last Friday afternoon.”

Ironically, Dan Mullen has also been hired by Hanover’s insurance carrier to represent their interests in the current CRC case.

Third, this settlement was negotiated by Mr Mullen, representing the town’s insurance carrier, AFTER the church in this case had already received a summary judgement in their favor. In other words, the trial that Richmond avoided was only to determine the amount of damages to be paid to the church. The question of whether Richmond had indeed discriminated against the church had already been decided by the judge. From the same Keene Sentinel article:

“In October 2009, Superior Court Judge Philip P. Mangones ruled it would be impossible to meet all those conditions, and that meant the center was being denied its constitutional rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.”

Fourth, it appears that the entire settlement was covered by the Richmond’s insurance carrier, and that the insurance carrier forced the town into agreeing to the settlement.  From the Keene Sentinel (6/30/2010):

“But Richmond selectmen — J.C. Boudreau, Sandra Gillis and Wesley Vaughan — say no town officials are guilty of discrimination, and the settlement was just the safest bet, facing the odds against them.

“The town’s liability policy provides that the town must agree to the settlement or assume responsibility for all legal costs and additional damages over and above the settlement offer,” they wrote in a letter to The Sentinel.”

Taking all these facts together leads me to the conclusion that CRC enlisted Hanover’s insurance carrier as a co-conspirator in CRC’s ongoing campaign to bully, threaten, and intimidate the town until they get their way.  The citizens of the Town of Hanover deserve better.