Beer-Brewing Monks Lose Suit Over Permit for Bar in Monastery

Marblehead, Mass., didn’t violate monks’ religious rights when it suspended the building permit issued to them in order to build a facility where they hoped to sell the beer they brew, the First Circuit said.

St. Paul’s Foundation and the Shrine of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, Patron of Sailors, Brewers and Repentant Thieves were granted the permit to redevelop the property on which their shrine is located.

One area of the complex was designed to serve as an area where the monks could brew beer in the Orthodox Christian tradition. Another area was designated as a chapel, and the third area was supposed to be a fellowship hall, which was intended to be where the monks would serve the beer they brewed.

Each element of the project was given a different use code, which carried different occupancy and safety requirements. The monks couldn’t start serving their beer until the project was completed and they obtained an occupancy certificate.

Before the project was complete, Marblehead building commissioner Richard Baldacci told the monks they had to stop serving beer on the premises without an occupancy certificate. The monk’s architect quit the project shortly thereafter and Baldacci had to suspend the building permit until a new architect was hired.

The monks’ attorney notified Baldacci in February 2019 that the property was a monastery and his refusal to allow the project to continue impermissibly violated the monks’ right to exercise their religion. After additional tussling over the facility’s designation, the monks agreed in September 2019 to adhere to the original plans and the building code appeals board conditionally reinstated the permit.

The monks then sued, claiming that the temporary suspension of the permit violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The statute prohibits local governments from using land use regulations in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise.

But the monks presented no evidence that Baldacci refused to reinstate the permit for a reason other than his concern that there was a deviation in use from the submitted plans and the request for reinstatement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said.

It’s not unreasonable for a building commissioner to ensure the party seeking to reinstate a permit isn’t “engaged in a bait-and-switch,” the opinion by Judge David J. Barron said.

It’s hard to see how any juror could find that the monks were being “jerked around” by Baldacci, the court said. If anything, the evidence showed that the monks were “more worthy” of that description, it said.

State and local laws also support the conclusion that it’s perfectly reasonable for building commissioners to require that a party seeking reinstatement of a suspended building permit confirm the designation in the plans approved, the court said.

Judges Sandra L. Lynch and William J. Kayatta Jr. joined the opinion.

Goodwin Procter LLP represented the monks. Brody Hardoon Perkins & Kesten LLP represented the defendants.

The case is St. Paul’s Found. v. Ives, 2022 BL 100633, 1st Cir., No. 21-1463, 3/24/22.