Historic District Rejects Synagogue

LITCHFIELD, CT — An orthodox Jewish group and the borough of Litchfield moved one step closer to a court battle over religious freedom on Thursday night after the historic district commission denied the organization’s application to turn a Victorian home into a synagogue.

For the past six months, Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach of the Chabad-Lubavitch congregation has been meeting with the commission about his plans to restore a house on West Street and build an addition of about 20,000 square feet on the edge of the town’s historic district.

But in Thursday night’s action — a seven-page decision read out loud by acting commission Chairman Joseph Montebello — the commission said it was denying the existing application and would welcome a new application by Chabad-Lubavitch only if it scaled back its plans to a total of 6,000 square feet.

The commission made it clear that it had worked hard to avoid any semblance of prejudice against Chabad-Lubavitch’s plan to build the town’s first synagogue, and the decision cited two recent federal decisions on religious freedom in zoning decisions.

“Several people worked very hard all day drafting this decision so that we would look completely fair,” Montebello said during a recess in the hearing.

But in remarks after the hearing, Eisenbach and his attorney, Dwight Merriam of Hartford, indicated they were not prepared to reduce the scale of their building and might rest court complaints on the principle of religious freedom. They also pointed out the proposed synagogue would be in a neighborhood with three other congregations — Episcopalian, Methodist and Roman Catholic — that have structures substantially larger than the building envisioned by Chabad-Lubavitch.

“We deliberately picked this site two years ago because we wanted to be at the center of religious worship in Litchfield and contribute to the life of the town,” Eisenbach said.

“All the Chabad wants is to be treated like other religions, to be on church row and have a structure of equal size to those churches,” Merriam said. “But the commission has denied us that right tonight, and there are many remedies under the law with which to proceed.”

While the denial of Chabad-Lubavitch’s controversial plans to renovate and expand a 135-year-old West Street home could result in legal action against the historic district commission, it was the outcome those who opposed the project were seeking.

About 70 residents, according to one published report, had joined together in recent weeks to fight Chabad-Lubavitch. They hired Danbury attorney Neil Marcus and brought in a historical architect earlier this week to testify against the plans on the grounds that the building wouldn’t meld with the rest of the historic district.

The commission appears to have agreed with the opponents. It rejected arguments from Chabad-Lubavitch’s lawyers Thursday night that the proposal had special protection under the First Amendment because they are a religious organization.

Instead, the commission followed advice from its own legal counsel, who said commissioners had an obligation under the law to treat the application as they would any other — regardless of its intended use.

The commission objected to the size and scope of the proposed addition — which would result in a building that contains a synagogue, indoor pool and 5,000-square foot home for the rabbi and his family, among other things — as well as plans to install a clock tower from the roof of the original structure.

It denied the application in a motion that gives Chabad-Lubavitch an opportunity to resubmit plans for a much smaller building without a clock tower. Instead, the commission would allow Chabad-Lubavitch to install a finial with a Star of David atop the building.

The decision was expected by Eisenbach, who issued a statement after the vote Thursday.

“Over the last six months we were given a laundry list of changes every time we met with the commission and we made over 40 changes,” Eisenbach said. “But now they have denied us and we have many options. Within a week, we will make a decision about what to do.”

Chabad-Lubavitch now has three options: scale down its plans and resubmit them to the commission; appeal the decision in Superior Court within 15 days of the published decision under current state land use laws; or appeal the decision under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, otherwise known as RLUIPA.

The act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, was intended to provide stronger protection for religious freedom in land-use and prison cases.

In the land-use context, the federal law prohibits government agencies from imposing regulations in a way that would impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person or group, unless it can prove that there is a compelling government interest or is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The project has provoked intense interest — and disagreement — since its inception. At a September pre-hearing, some members of the commission, including the chairwoman, questioned whether the Star of David “complied with the district” and questioned the appropriateness of other aspects of the plan, including the use of Jerusalem stone, the stained glass windows and the clock tower.

Accusations of anti-Semitism were leveled against the chairwoman, who is Jewish, and she eventually recused herself from deliberations. But the controversy didn’t end there.

Residents who attended the final public hearing on the plans urged the commission not to be “bullied” by Chabad-Lubavitch or the threat of litigation. Others left the hearing shortly after Eisenbach stood up to speak.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Anti-Defamation League also both weighed in on the controversy, writing separate letters reminding the commission that it must take into consideration Chabad-Lubavitch’s rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA.

“If this case is litigated, it is hard to imagine that the Congregation will have difficulty meeting its burden to show that the commission’s application of zoning laws substantially burdens the congregation’s exercise of religion,” said a Dec. 13 letter from the Anti-Defamation League to the commission.