Jewish Group’s Proposal To Renovate House In Historic District Results In Nit-Picking

LITCHFIELD, CT — The town’s famous green is surrounded by picture postcard churches of all stripes – Protestant and Catholic, stone, wood and brick – with an abundance of crosses, steeples and stained-glass windows.

But when an orthodox Jewish group went before the Litchfield Historic District Commission last month to informally present its plans to transform a somewhat rundown 1870s Victorian on West Street into the town’s first synagogue, the nit-picking immediately began.

According to the minutes from the Sept. 6 meeting, commission Chairwoman Wendy Kuhne objected to the Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County’s siding choice of wood and Jerusalem stone because the stone isn’t “indigenous” to the district.

She also expressed an opinion that the clock tower, which would contain the first 12 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, is “inappropriate” and that “the star of David may not comply with the district.”

The stained glass was a problem, too.

No one – not even the group’s rabbi – is accusing anyone of bias, and the dust-up should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with this town’s no-nonsense historic district.

Remember the 1996 hand-wringing over whether a menorah could be placed on the picturesque town green? (It was ultimately approved, and then ordered removed by the fire marshal.)

How about the crackdown on the unfortunate bed and breakfast owner who wanted to put window boxes on the front of her house?

Or the pitched battle over whether to allow a chain store – in this case, a respectable, tweed-filled Talbot’s – to take up residence on the green?

But while all of this might seem like evidence that the issue for the keepers of this old Yankee town is one of image, not religious tolerance, sometimes the line between the two can get a bit blurry – as with Kuhne’s remarks.

The problem with the comments became immediately clear when Rabbi Joseph I. Eisenbach pointed out that the Methodist Church, one door down from the proposed synagogue, has not one, but two, stars of David – and in stained glass, no less.

Kuhne, reached at her Litchfield home Thursday, said she is prohibited by law from commenting on matters before the commission. She also said the commission has received no formal application from Chabad Lubavitch.

But she said her concern is the building’s appearance, not its use.

“We do not care about the use of the building at all,” Kuhne said. “All we are interested in is the architecture, the historical significance of the building, and how it fits in the streetscape.”

Chabad Lubavitch is proposing a significant addition to the back of the building, which also created some concern for the commission, but intends to leave the front of the building as unchanged as possible.

While it is true that most of the concerns expressed by Kuhne and other commission members at the Sept. 6 meeting seemed to be centered around proposed changes to an already existing historic building, the lawyer for Chabad Lubavitch said these concerns might be trumped by the group’s constitutional rights.

“The commission does good work for the town,” said Peter Herbst, the lawyer. “But the issue here is we have an institution of worship, which has certain constitutional protections. We believe a church or synagogue is different.”

Eisenbach said he is confident the town will deal with his organization fairly.

“There’s an old Jewish saying, `Think good and it will be good,’” Eisenbach said. “I think once we educate them and communicate with them, everything will be fine and before you know it there will be a ribbon-cutting for our new synagogue.”

Litchfield Borough Warden Lee Losee came down in about the same place as Eisenbach and said the town is getting a bad rap. The historic district, which is about one mile square, is within the borough of Litchfield and comes under borough – not town – governance on some issues.

At the same time, Losee said, the borough must be fair in applying the rules equally.

“The Methodist church has [a star of David] and the other three churches in town have a cross on their steeple or the roof or whatever,” he said, adding that he has a “problem” with not allowing the synagogue to display its faith.

“There shouldn’t be any discrimination.”