Jewish Group Sues Litchfield Over A Denial

LITCHFIELD, CT — In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court Wednesday, Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County and Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach are suing the town of Litchfield, the Historic District Commission and 10 unnamed individual defendants in connection with Chabad’s rejected attempt to expand and transform property at 85 West Street into a new headquarters that would include a temple.

The plaintiffs claim in the suit, prepared by attorney Kenneth R. Slater of Halloran & Sage LLP in Hartford, that the actions of the defendants in blocking Chabad’s plans represent violations of the Jewish group’s civil rights, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) and Connecticut statutes.

In fact, Chabad and Rabbi Eisenbach allege on the part of the defendants “a pattern of religious discrimination directed at the Jewish people … based in large part on anti-Hasidic animus … .”

One part of the complaint reads, “ … Defendants have made statements disparaging Plaintiffs’ religious uses. Defendants have repeatedly used administrative means to prevent Plaintiffs and the Jewish community from utilizing the Property. This targeting is the direct result of the Defendants’ opposition to the Plaintiffs’ religious sect.”

“The Defendants’ actions, all of which took place under color of state law, are and should be declared unlawful, and should be permanently enjoined,” the lawsuit goes on to say. The suit asks the court to issue a declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief and damages-as well as the appointment of a federal monitor to ensure that the defendants comply with all orders of the court.

In terms of the 10 unnamed defendants, the lawsuit says, “Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true and complete names of some Defendants sued herein, including those officers listed as Does 1 through 10, and for that reason have sued them by their fictitious names. … Plaintiffs allege that each of these … Defendants is responsible for some or all of the acts alleged herein … .”

Rabbi Eisenbach declined to comment on the lawsuit Wednesday. A message left for First Selectman Leo Paul after the town hall had closed for the day was not returned by deadline, and the Historic District Commission’s attorney, James Stedronsky, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

In late 2007, the Historic District Commission denied an application to relocate the Chabad’s headquarters from Village Green Drive to the former home of the Wilderness Shop in Litchfield center.

The commission based its denial on the scale of the proposed expansion and restoration of the 135-year-old building. The commission said it would be willing to consider a revised plan, including a downsized version.

The commission’s motion for denial stated that the proposal would overwhelm the town’s central historic district. A written statement from Mr. Stedronsky said the plan would have “dwarfed the house, altered the streetscape and been incompatible with standards of the historic district.”

Mr. Stedronsky said in 2007 that a downsized version could involve a doubling of the original square footage of the building, and that the commission would consider a plan totaling about 5,000 square feet.

Rabbi Eisenbach said at an informational meeting held earlier this year that Chabad’s plans had not changed. They call for an expansion totaling 21,000 square feet, with a four-story addition off the back of the old house. It would include a synagogue, a community center, classrooms, several kosher kitchens, offices, a swimming pool and a ceremonial pool.

The lawsuit noted that there is no temple in town where Chabad is able to hold regular services and conduct meetings. The plan to use the West Street property as a place of worship is “religious exercise” protected by RLUIPA, according to the lawsuit, which says, “Prayer will be a fundamental element of the religious use of the Property. … .”

“In our new place, the focus is to have a synagogue, to have a center outreach, to have places where people can come in and poke open a book from our library where people can learn another heritage, another faith,” Rabbi Eisenbach said at the informational meeting earlier this year. “Chabad’s mission is to do mitzvahs, to do good deeds. Chabad does not in any way shape or form look at labels; labels are for food packages not for brothers and sisters.”

The facility would also have residential quarters for Rabbi Eisenbach and his family, as well as housing for visitors and staff. The historic building was purchased by the organization in 2006.

One section of the lawsuit discusses the use of other nearby properties in the historic district, citing among examples the Oliver Wolcott Library, which consists of a historic home embellished by an addition done by a master of Modern architecture. “The square footage of the rear addition to Wolcott’s historic home is larger than the house itself, the addition extends way beyond the existing building at the south side of the structure,” the lawsuit says. “It is not half the size of the historic home-it is larger than the Wolcott’s historic home. The Defendants approved these changes to the Wolcott’s historic home.”

The lawsuit, which offers context and history that makes reference to the Nazis destruction of temples during World War II, claims that “The Defendants have engaged in a targeted and deliberate effort to prevent the Plaintiffs from developing the Property and use it as a place of worship, while permitting other development within the Town that is substantially similar to the modifications proposed for the Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs have attempted to use the Property for religious purpose affiliated with the Jewish faith, but the Defendants acted to prevent such use, constituting a pattern of religious discrimination directed at the Jewish people. This targeting has been based in large part on anti-Hasidic animus … .”