01945 Winter 2022

WINTER 2022 | 13
Adjacent building acquired
by Bushell during the
alleged conspiracy.
Orthodox Christian Shrine of St. Nicholas/Marblehead
Salt Co./Marblehead Brewing Co.
Egypt House (property
purchased by Bushell in
June 2022)
Annunciation House
(Bushell and Stockton's
shared residence)
Monk sued town in 2019, claiming
'religious land use' violation
© 2022 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
By Charlie McKenna
Map based on Longitude (generated) and Latitude (generated).
The Marblehead resident at the center
of an ongoing Federal fraud investigation
is no stranger to controversy, having
filed suit against the town for an alleged
“religious land use” violation in 2019.
That suit was filed in Federal Court,
and a judge sided with the town and
Building Commissioner Richard
Baldacci over St. Paul’s Foundation, an
organization controlled by Bushell that
oversaw all of his religious and economic
endeavors. Earlier this year, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
At issue in the suit was efforts to renovate
the interior of 124 Pleasant St., the
property purchased by Bushell in 2017
that houses St. Nicholas, Marblehead
Brewing Co, and Marblehead Salt Co.
Baldacci issued a building permit in 2018
permitting Bushell to go ahead with
renovations to the property to create a
space to brew beer, a chapel for religious
services and activities, and a fellowship
hall to hold religious programming.
Baldacci informed Bushell that the
property would have to be reclassified in
order to serve food or drink and to hold
religious services. In the fall of 2018,
Baldacci issued three letters to St. Paul’s
warning of noncompliance with state
building codes, including “uncompleted
and unauthorized work as required by
the code, and for occupying the space
and serving beer to the public prior to an
inspection and without a proper certificate
of occupancy.”
In November 2018, Baldacci issued a
building code violation for the conduct
cited in his letters. St. Paul’s appealed
the violation to the state Building Code
Appeals Board (BCAB), which affirmed
Baldacci’s actions in February 2019.
“In its decision, the BCAB noted that
Baldacci was justified in enforcing the
building code to ensure the public’s safety
and that a finding in favor of St. Paul’s
would “compromise life safety in ways
that would conflict with [Massachusetts
law],” the judgment in the suit reads.
Around the same time, St. Paul’s
relationship with Siemasko & Verbridge,
the architectural firm hired to complete
the renovation, began to deteriorate after
a disagreement on the work needed to be
completed to achieve certain occupancy
levels. S & V informed the town in
December 2018 that it was no longer
working with Bushell and St. Paul’s.
As a result, on Jan. 16, 2019, Baldacci
suspended the building permit issued
by the town because the renovation no
longer had a registered architect. Architect
Ryan McShera took over the project
in February of that year and submitted
a code review to Baldacci in May that
indicated that previous use designations
made by S&V were “incorrect.”
McShera and Baldacci were unable to
agree on the designations of the property,
and Baldacci informed McShera that
the town would not reinstate the permit
unless McShera amended the proposed
designations for the property.
St. Paul’s again appealed the decision,
and the BCAB again sided with Baldacci.
As a result, St. Paul’s agreed to follow
the original renovation plans and the
BCAB ordered the permit be reinstated.
The town did so in September 2019,
and in December of that year issued a
temporary use and occupancy permit
to St. Paul’s, but required that it refrain
from serving beer to the public until
renovations were completed and a plan
submitted to the health department was
approved.
The court was “not persuaded that the
town’s revocation of the permit amounts
to implementation of land use regulations”
and found that “St. Paul’s has not
alleged sufficient facts to suggest that the
town functionally utilized its building
permit process, or the interim code
review imposed by Baldacci, to make its
zoning decisions or that the process was
disingenuously used to limit or prohibit
St. Paul’s from using the property as
intended.”
“St. Paul’s has not established that the
town’s conditional refusal to reinstate
the permit was arbitrary and capricious.
Without that showing, and since
RLUIPA “does not mean that any land
use restriction on a religious organization
imposes a substantial burden,” St. Paul’s
has failed to show on the undisputed
record that the town’s actions violate
RLUIPA,” Judge Denise J. Casper wrote.