Litchfield, CT – While the lawsuit filed last week by Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach and the Chabad Lubavitch of Northwest Connecticut has been sending shock waves through a community that is essentially being accused of anti-Hasidic prejudices, town officials are reluctant to respond to the allegations.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, accuses the Historic District Commission of improperly denying Chabad’s plans to expand, renovate and turn a building in the center of town into a large new headquarters that would include a synagogue. The lawsuit also says 10 unnamed individual defendants contributed to the denial of organization’s attempt to expand and transform property on 85 West Street.
“We had gone through the due process; sadly we were forced to reach out to the Federal Government as a last resort. We are sure that G-D willing the power of good will overcome the hurdles being put in front of the loving [and] tolerant community of Litchfield,” Rabbi Eisenbach in a release sent Sept. 9, the same day the lawsuit was filed.
The plaintiffs claim the Litchfield Historic District Commission’s denial violates the federal Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), several provisions of the federal Constitution and Connecticut’s Constitution and Connecticut statutes, 52-571b.
The property is located in Historic District of Litchfield, and in late 2007, the Historic District Commission denied an application that would have allowed Chabad to relocate its headquarters from Village Green Drive to a building that would have been renovated and significantly expanded.
The Chabad’s plan calls for a 21,000-square-foot expansion to the site of a former business, The Wilderness Shop, with a four-story addition off the back of the structure. The expansion would include a synagogue, a community center, classrooms, several kosher kitchens, offices, a swimming pool and ceremonial pool.
The facility would have residential quarters for Rabbi Eisenbach and his family, as well as housing for visitors and staff.
The commission based its denial on the scale of the proposed expansion of the 135-year-old building. In 2007, the commission said it would be willing to consider a revised plan, including a downsized version. The commission’s motion for the denial stated that the proposal would overwhelm the town’s central historic district.
“The Chabad has enjoyed the general support of the community. It’s unfortunate that they have to look to the court to further their need to establish a synagogue in the community,” said Kenneth R. Slater of Halloran & Sage LLP in Hartford, the attorney for the plaintiffs.
According to Mr. Slater, the plan is to proceed with the litigation as quickly as possible. There will be a conference held within the next month for the parties involved to discuss court dates. Mr. Slater added that attorney Frederick H. Nelson from the American Liberties Institute, a public interest law firm based in Florida, is expected to be the lead council should he be admitted to the Connecticut bar. Mr. Nelson explained that he has done work for Chabad organizations across the country, and has been involved with the Chabad Lubavitch of Northwest Connecticut for two years.
“We have been trying to resolve the situation without litigation. This is our last alternative,” said Mr. Nelson. “We have only gone to the courts because we had no other choice.”
Because the town is named as a defendant, James K. Robertson of Carmody & Torrance LLP, based in Waterbury, has been retained as special counsel for the case.
“It is my understanding that Chabad Lubavitch and Rabbi Eisenbach enjoyed a very warm and supportive relationship with the Litchfield community,” said Mr. Robertson in an e-mail. “Hopefully this basic land dispute will not now be sensationalized into something ugly and untrue. The lawsuit itself is ill-conceived, and it will probably be dismissed by the court in its entirety.”
The release Rabbi Eisenbach issued alleged that Selectman Martha Bernstein hired her own lawyer to fight the plans for a synagogue. Mrs. Bernstein said she never hired her own lawyer to fight the synagogue.
“I never hired a lawyer … it was a Historic District Commission situation, not a town situation,” said Mrs. Bernstein, who acknowledged that she attended the public hearings in 2007 as a spectator. Mrs. Bernstein added that she was surprised about the allegations in the lawsuit.
This arrogance only creates further hostility and anti-semitism. Their proposed building is way out of proportion to the neighborhood and makes a mockery of the historic preservation concept. They will lose their lawsuit and rightfully so.
What could be more “historic” than practicing Judaism? I wish Chabad much success and I hope the muncipality is made to pay a large damage award. Only through large awards will other localities learn to stop fighting these things all of the time. I understand loads of people are going to say Chabad has no right to go where they’re not wanted or “don’t belong” BUT… whatever happened to America being a free country? Why can’t they build what they want to build on their own land that they bought and they own? The fact is, religious use is given zoning preferences throughout all levels of government – and rightfully so. Its only when Jews try to exercise that right do people have a problem. Sorry if we tend to pray or organize differently than other relgiions do.
I was for a shabbas by Rabbi Eisenbach a few years ago, he;s the nicest person ever, and is moser nefesh for the local community, I will keep you and your family in mind this Rosh Hashana, that you win this case….
Ksiva V’chasima Tova
I wouldn’t want a church on my block. And if there already was a church on my block, I wouldn’t want it to expand another 21000 feet.
for all u readers that ugly self hatting jews: i think that atleast erev rosh hashune talk positive about ur brothers. dont be so busy with anti semitisim. (did u know that by talking bad about ur brothers sparks more anti semitisim then anything else. so its time for tshuva
This was an arrogant lawsuit and has resulted in more anti Jewish feelings
Religious freedom does not mean that you can trample on others. We need to be good neighbors.
Isn’t it interesting that we embrace “law” when we believe it to be in our favor and we ignore it when it prevents us from achieving our goal.
1) We have to take into account feelings of neighbors and try to live in peace with them.
2) Even if something is legal, doesn’t mean you have to do it. Sometimes you have to use common sense too.
Here are the facts from the town minutes:
A. Chabad is JUST adding 3500 sq feet on two floors. Total sq footage, including basement , storage crawl space, attic is under 19000 sf. total above ground foot print expansion 3500 SF. 21000 SF is 1939 BERLIN PROPEGANDA
b. Every church has a rectory, the Jewish community is entitled the same. There is NO MENTION anywhere about building rooms for guest, visitors.
C. All the statements from the Historic commission is on file ON THE HISTORIC C. MINUTES. its amazing how they are all denying factual statements NOW.
Its amazing how the few intolerant always come up with very sophisticated allegations for why not to allow us to build/expand.
We have nothing to worry, if our historic commission said/did nothing wrong there case will be thrown out.
Why all this hate, when law & order will take care of it.
I support Chabad, this request is not out of line, and if you do your research and see the stupid comments the board members have made you will know this is not a “zoning” issue. I wish it was, as I would say find another site, but this is not fking ground zero