Around the State: Litchfield

           On December 20, the Litchfield Borough historic district commission turned down plans by Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County to convert a 19th-century house into a synagogue and community center. The house, built in 1872 and long associated with the town’s prominent Deming family, was converted to commercial use in the 1980s, but according to the commission it retains much of its historic residential character. 

            Chabad proposed to restore many of the house’s features, with some modifications to make it identifiable as a religious structure, and to construct a large addition on the rear for, among other things, worship space, kitchens, a swimming pool, meeting and class rooms, and an apartment for the rabbi. Any alterations or new construction visible from a public right-of-way are subject to approval by the commission, the oldest of its kind in Connecticut. 

            The commission hired John Herzan, former National Register coordinator for the State Historic Preservation Office and now Preservation Services Officer of the New Haven Preservation Trust, to comment on the plans. Chabad hired Jared Edwards, FAIA, a Hartford architect, to champion its design. In addition, a group of neighbors opposed to the alterations hired a third expert.

            Chabad’s architect made several modifications to the proposed design, in response to Herzan’s suggestions. Nonetheless, the commission voted to reject the application, as announced in a decision written by James Stedronsky, the commission’s lawyer. 

            In general, the commission commended Chabad for its restoration plans, noting that they “…constitute a historically appropriate enhancement to the house and neighborhood.” However, the commission rejected the use of double doors on the façade; the existing door, while not in its original position, is either the original door or else one from the same period that matches many others found in the district. Also rejected was a proposed clock tower on the roof, which was found to be completely different in design from the monitors or cupolas found on some 19th-century houses and incompatible with the historic residential use. 

            The commission stated that it would, however, approve replacing the glass panels of the present door with stained glass, as well as adding cresting to the roof, along with a finial or other roof emblem in the form of a Star of David. “While such a finial and emblem is not historical in style, this is an accommodation that the Commission would allow to this Applicant because of the importance of announcing the religious, adaptive reuse of the building.”

            The real difficulty was the size of the addition, nearly 20,000 square feet in area and four stories in height, with its roofline substantially the same as that of the Deming house. The commission determined that this would dwarf the original house and its neighbors, particularly given the tight site.

            The decision notes that the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines “specifically recommend that when additions are added to historic structures the historic relationship between buildings and the open space is to be preserved.” It also quotes Herzan’s report: “Rear additions to historic houses are common in the Litchfield Historic District, but most are smaller in size, scale and mass than the buildings to which they are attached. Additions to historic buildings in the district are commonly less than half the volume of the principal residence.” Where the commission had approved additions equal in size to original houses, they were visually subordinate, by virtue of lower ground, lower rooflines, or larger sites where the additions were less visible from the street. 

            The commission indicated that it would approve an addition equal in square footage to the Deming house, which would result in a building with more than 6,000 square feet of usable space. 

            In its presentation, Chabad argued that the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, which forbids regulatory bodies from putting undue burdens on religious practices, overrode the historic district regulations in this case. However, the commission argued that it was ruling solely on the appearance, not the use, of the house and noted that it had taken special care not to rule on religious matters or to treat Chabad differently from any other applicant. 

            Chabad let pass a deadline to appeal the commission’s decision in state court, but there remains speculation that the group may be planning to sue in federal court, claiming infringement of its religious freedom. In previous cases, however, courts have generally upheld historic district decisions that were consistent, well documented, and dealt only with appearance, not use.