Mystic Neighborhoods Preservation Association

On May 13, 2021, the Residents file their Answer to St. Edmunds Amended Special Defenses, which include: 1) Preexisting, Legal Nonconforming Use; 2) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; 3) Statute of Limitations; 4) Laches; and 5) Connecticut General Statute 52-571b.

On April 30, 2021, the parties stipulate and agree to the following: 1) St. Edmunds will make no claims for attorneys’ fees in this matter, regardless of the outcome of the case and 2) the Residents do not object to St. Edmunds Request to Amend.

On April 9, 2021, St. Edmunds request leave to amend their Answer and Special Defenses dated June 22, 2020, proposing a limited amendment adding a single special defense with five additional paragraphs of allegations (as well as a few very minor clarifications in the answer itself). In the Request, St. Edmunds no longer makes any affirmative demand for attorneys’ fees and costs.

On March 31, 2021, the residents reply to St. Edmunds’ objection to their Motion in Limine, noting that St. Edmunds improperly misconstrue a key aspect of the Motion: that neither St. Edmunds nor the Court can adequately examine the report at trial because it is the work of one person who is not present and whose conclusions cannot be questioned.

On March 19, 2021, the residents reply to St. Edmunds’ opposition to their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, noting that St. Edmunds incorrectly cites and interprets the law at issue and attempts to conflate two different federal laws, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA); however, they argue, it is only RLUIPA that is raised as a special defense and it is RLUIPA that does not apply in a dispute between private parties.

On March 9, 2021, St. Edmunds files its response in opposition to the Resident’s Motion in Limine, which seeks to exclude from evidence the Enders Island Zoning Compliance Report; in its response St. Edmunds argues that the Report is admissible as a public record and because it is part of a judicial admission by the residents by virtue of making allegations about it in their complaint.

On February 17, 2021, St. Edmunds files its response in opposition to the residents’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that its Second Special Defense, based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, is well grounded in law and proper as applied to this case. Father Hoar, president of St. Edmunds Retreat (SER), and Christopher Rixon, SER’s Consultant for Special Projects, file affidavits in support of St. Edmunds opposition.

On February 3, 2021, the residents move the court to exclude from evidence the Enders Island Zoning Compliance Report, written by Jason Vincent, then Director of Planning for the Town of Stonington, noting that the report is entirely the work of Mr. Vincent, containing his opinions and analysis of legal issues, based largely on hearsay evidence and other unreliable sources, making the report itself hearsay; the residents also note that due to Mr. Vincent’s recent death the report cannot be challenged at trial.

On January 4, 2021, the residents file a Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to St. Edmunds Second Special Defense, based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, on the basis that it is inapplicable to a suit among private parties and, therefore, there are no genuine issues of material fact.

On October 19, 2020, the parties agree to a modified discovery schedule pertaining to claims of zoning violation and nuisance.

On October 5, 2020, Judge Schuman denies St Edmund’s motion to reargue their request to amend their answer.

On September 23, 2020, the St Edmund’s move to reargue their request on the basis of timeliness, stating that “it is possible that the Court may not have appreciated the full procedural history of this matter when entering the Order given that the Court was only recently assigned after a twisted procedural history.”

On September 15, 2020, Judge Schuman denied St Edmund’s request to amend its answer and special defenses, stating that the “defendants misleadingly state in their request … that they seek only to ‘further clarify their pleading and provide additional details with regards to their special defenses … .’ The fact is that the proposed amendment would add four special defenses and two statutory causes of action … . The defendants do not rely on any newly discovered evidence or present any other reason why they could not have raised the newly proposed special defenses earlier.”

On June 22, 2020, St Edmund’s files special defenses, which claim their use of Enders Island is a legal nonconforming use under Stonington zoning, is protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA), and that the plaintiffs have lost their rights to complain due to the statute of limitations and the legal concept of laches.

On January 2, 2020, the parties agree to a discovery schedule pertaining to claims of zoning violation and nuisance only, per Judge Berger’s request to bifurcate the case.

On May 29, 2019, the Court transferred the case to the Land Use Litigation docket in the judicial district of Hartford.

On May 24, 2019, the St. Edmund entities file a Sur-Reply to the residents’ reply in support of their petition to transfer, claiming that “the Plaintiffs have not cited traditional grounds for the complex litigation docket in support of their request, but instead are concerned with land use issues.” The exact time of the filing is unclear, so it is not known whether the filing was before or after the judge’s order.

On May 24, 2019, the Court granted the request to move the matter to the Complex Litigation docket, to be heard in Waterbury Superior Court.

On May 23, 2019, the residents file a reply in support of the petition for transfer, noting that their "case presents complex issues for which there appears to be no, or little, precedent in Connecticut Law" and that the other case related to St. Edmund of Connecticut, transferred to the complex litigation docket in Waterbury, "presents related issues which are best dealt with by the same judge." The Stonington ZBA files an objection to the transfer request the same day, adopting all the reasons set forth by St. Edmund in its objection.

On May 21, 2019, the St. Edmund entities object to the request for transfer, claiming that the suit “alleging nuisance and zoning violations is not an overly ‘complex’ case within the categories typically referred to the complex litigation docket.” The objection also states “St. Edmund’s party representatives and witnesses are primarily located in Stonington-Mystic and wish for the case to remain local to minimize interference with their other duties...”

On May 6, 2019, residents who initiated the lawsuit against the St. Edmund entities apply for transfer to the Complex Litigation docket in Hartford Superior Court. In the application the residents describe a complicated case “combining zoning, nonconforming use, RLUIPA, nuisance and deed restriction issues…what constitutes a ‘decision’ of a Zoning Enforcement Officer that may be appealed…and the administration and enforcement of a charitable trust.”

In January 2019, the St Edmund entities reiterate their arguments that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for violation of zoning regulations and violation of deed restrictions.

In December 2018, residents who initiated the lawsuit contend that they have the right to bring their complaint before the court as a private zoning enforcement action, and that they are both classically and statutorily aggrieved, giving them the standing to bring a traditional zoning enforcement action. They allege their right to enforce deed restrictions being violated on Enders Island.

In November 2108, the St Edmund entities make a motion to dismiss three counts of the lawsuit filed against them alleging that the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a claim of zoning violations. They also allege that the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims for violations of deed restrictions.

In October 2018, the complaint was amended to add the Stonington Zoning Board of Appeals as a defendant in the suit for refusing to consider the appeal made regarding zoning violations on Enders Island.

In April 2018, Attorney Whitney wrote to Connecticut Attorney General Jepsen requesting that a determination be made as to whether current commercial activity at Enders Island violates the deed restrictions in place and, if it does, for an agreement as to scaling back that activity. 

In January 2018, following the issuance of the Enders Island Zoning Compliance Report by the Town of Stonington, local residents filed an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals citing various flaws in the Town's report, including its interpretation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Town's attorney advised the Zoning Board of Appeal not to hear the appeal.

St Edmund of Connecticut, Inc. is an independent non-stock corporation registered in the State of Connecticut. In 2003, ownership of Enders Island was transferred from the Society of St Edmund to St Edmund of Connecticut. St Edmund of Connecticut is controlled by representatives of the Archdiocese of Norwich, the Archdiocese of Providence, and the Society of St Edmund.