NATICK – A Natick couple filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday alleging their civil rights were violated when the city turned down the couple’s offer to build a condominium project on a property in South Natick.
Joel and Linda Valentin claim they were discriminated against because of their race, skin color and national origin, according to a press release from two law firms – Todd & Weld and Relman Colfax – who represented the Valentins.
More:The Natick couple are suing the planning authorities, claiming they have been treated unfairly
“From the beginning of this process we expected nothing more than a balanced evaluation of our application,” says a prepared statement in Linda Valentin’s press release. “Unfortunately, it has now turned out that a lawsuit is necessary to get that too. We will not allow our neighbors’ racist motives to determine our ability to develop our property. “
The town of Natick is one of the defendants named in the lawsuit; Planning Committee and its members, including Theresa Evans, Andrew Meyer, Julian Munich, Glen Glater and Peter Nottonson.
A call to Evans for comment was not returned immediately.
The Natick Historical Commission has also been named a defendant along with Stephen Evers, chairman of the commission.
Todd & Weld attorney Benjamin Wish emailed the Daily News Wednesday night that the Valentins have a tough case.
“The Planning Authority’s approval and direct support of the efforts of South Natick’s neighbors to prevent the Haitian-colored Valentines ‘attack’ on their suburbs is a textbook violation of Valentine’s rights under the Fair Housing Act and their equal protection and protection the appropriate legal rights, ”said Wish.
Meanwhile, a lawsuit filed by the Valentins in the district court in January has been dismissed unscathed, meaning it is inactive and can be re-filed at a later date.
The lawsuit alleged that the planning authority wrongly denied the couple’s application to build the condominium project that neighbors had rejected.
Project is too big
The neighbors of the proposed project at 50 Pleasant St. stated repeatedly in public hearings before the planning authority that their opposition was based solely on their belief that the proposed project was too large and incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood.
Wish said the Daily News neighborhood opposition is racially motivated.
“The attempt by the South Natick neighbors to cover up their racially motivated opposition to the Valentine’s Project with alleged complaints about the properties of the project is not surprising. What is surprising is the radical insistence on the part of neighbors to prevent the ability of colored people to develop their own property in accordance with a recently passed statute. “
Details of the complaint
The complaint alleges that certain neighbors of the proposed condominium project based their disagreement on the race, color and national origins of the Valentines and potential residents who would be moving into the proposed homes.
Another charge is that the city endorsed discriminatory views and motivations from neighbors and created obstacles for Valentine’s efforts to develop the property.
According to the complaint, these hurdles include: 29 public hearings by the planning authority, more than any number of public hearings by the planning authority on a similar project; and “fabricated ambiguities” by the board of directors associated with a change to the Bylaws for the Conservation of Historic Landmarks that paved the way for Valentines to propose the project. The statute amendment was drafted by the board and the Valentines and sponsored by the board at the floor of the 2019 spring meeting.
Another alleged hurdle is the rejection of the city council’s opinion that the size of a proposed barn to be built as part of the project is permissible because of the language in the amended statutes.
More:Natick’s wife swears “justice will be served” after a legal opinion halted proposed condominium project
In addition, the appeal has accused the board of knowingly deceiving the Valentins by finding in public hearings that the neighbors’ efforts to repeal the zoning change to the statutes did not affect the pending Valentins as it was already filed had been.
After the city assembly approved the repeal in November, Evans publicly reviewed the city council’s legal opinion during the board meeting in early December. The statement essentially states that repeal means that the project proposed by the Valentins will be governed by zoning laws that will apply after repeal, not the statutes as they existed before her.
At the same meeting, the board then voted unanimously to reject Valentin’s application for special permission and approval of the site plan, as the application was based on zoning laws that are no longer on the books.
Henry Schwan is a multimedia journalist for the Daily News. Follow Henry on Twitter @henrymetrowest. He can be reached at [email protected] or 508-626-3964.
Comments are closed.