Attorney: Litchfield borough counsel’s opinions are incorrect

Nowhere did the court conclude that the Chabad could not have a second floor. Rather, the court concluded that the denial of the proposed residence for the rabbi and his family was a “close call” but did not violate the Chabad’s rights under RLUIPA.

I write this on behalf of the Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County in response to the column from James Stedronsky, the attorney for the Litchfield Historic District, who offered several opinions that are not correct. As the attorney retained by the Chabad, 10 weeks prior to trial, I have the distinct advantage to have the first-hand view of the case and the decision of the court.

First, this newspaper correctly reported that on Nov. 1, 2017, the Honorable Janet Hall, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, ruled after hearing all of the evidence in a bench trial in August 2017 that the Litchfield Historic District Committee violated federal law, namely the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when it denied a certificate of appropriateness in 2007.

The only issue in the case was whether the HDC violated the law. The court found that the HDC violated the law. Specifically, the court found that the HDC violated the religious exercise of my client when it denied it to use the property for worship assembly, a Shul or in Christian parlance, a sanctuary.

The court also found that the HDC violated the religious exercise of my client by denying it a mitzvah, (a ritual bath, or sacred pool), kosher kitchens, classrooms for religious teaching, a library and the rabbi’s study. The court found that the decision to offer a “conditional approval” of a building twice the size of the current structure was completely arbitrary.

Nowhere did the court conclude that the Chabad could not have a second floor. Rather, the court concluded that the denial of the proposed residence for the rabbi and his family was a “close call” but did not violate the Chabad’s rights under RLUIPA. Indeed, at closing arguments in August 2017, and for the very first time in this arduous journey for the Chabad, the HDC informed the court that it would approve a plan they proposed which is similar is size, scope, height and has a second floor on it.

It is remarkable to state in his column that the HDC was open for the past 10 years to a reasonable plan when on the last day of trial in August 2017, for the very first time in the litigation journey, the HDC informed the court that it was ready to approve a plan they prepared in 2016 as a trial exhibit.

As the Chabad is the “prevailing party,” the law clearly provides that it will be awarded attorney fees and cost. One need only look at 42 U.S.C. 1988 to confirm this fact. The HDC has no right to fees as implied by Mr. Stedronsky. The court will make a determination as the reasonableness of the hourly rate of the attorneys for the Chabad, then determine the reasonableness of the hours expended in the case and reach a number to award the attorneys, who, carried this case through on their own backs for a decade.

Litchfield has a rich history or religious freedom — from its founding father, Oliver Wolcott, who worshipped at a church on the green, to residents of the area who faithfully attend the four churches who surround the historic downtown, and have been on the green since the late 1700s, where people visit from around the country to enjoy the freedoms of this land.

The HDC let down the community when it improperly denied the Certificate of Appropriateness a decade ago. The decision to deny the certificate, the arbitrary nature of the denial, and the perhaps untoward behavior of the very small minority has caused significant injustice to the Chabad. It is time for healing. Columns misconstruing the decision of the court do not help the healing process.