Adath Israel –

Synagogue Construction Proposal

Draws Opposition From Neighbors

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is considering a controversial proposal from Congregation Adath Israel to build an approximately 11,200-square-foot synagogue on an almost two-acre site at 115 Huntingtown Road to replace the congregation’s existing nearby synagogue at 111 Huntingtown Road.

The proposed new building would be almost triple the size of the existing synagogue, an aspect of the project that drew concerns from some nearby residents who spoke at a July 15 P&Z public hearing on the construction application.

The current construction proposal calls for a somewhat smaller synagogue than the one that the P&Z approved for the congregation in February 1999 in a 4-to-1 vote. That controversial proposal specified a 13,220-square-foot structure. That P&Z approval prompted an unsuccessful lawsuit against the P&Z by a Huntingtown Road man, who charged that the P&Z acted illegally when it endorsed the project.

In the fall of 1998, the congregation’s initial proposal for synagogue construction proved controversial when it was submitted for P&Z review, with nearby property owners charging that the proposed 13,220-square-foot building was too large. In October 1998, P&Z members rejected that initial application in a 3-to-2 vote, in part, due to the building’s size. The congregation then sued the P&Z over that rejection.

Currently, the congregation is seeking a “special exception” to the zoning regulations to build the synagogue. The structure would be built on two levels, with the upper level facing Huntingtown Road, and a basement level exposed along the other sides of the building. The site is in an R-2 (Residential) zone.

Local builder and developer Kim Danziger is the congregation’s agent for the construction proposal. Mr Danziger would serve as the project’s general contractor. The existing synagogue at 111 Huntingtown Road contains approximately 4,000 square feet of space, including the main and lower levels, Mr Danziger said.

Mr Danziger told P&Z members that the congregation found that the earlier 13,220-square-foot version of the building was too ambitious a plan to accomplish, so the project languished. By the time the group was ready to proceed with the plans, the zoning permit for the work had lapsed, he added.

The congregation is now proposing a building that omits a social hall, he said. That omission means that the proposed building is approximately 2,000 square feet smaller than the earlier version, he said.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil asked how many vehicles park near the existing synagogue at well-attended services, to which Mr Danziger responded 30 to 35 vehicles. The congregation uses a parking lot situated across the street from the building.

Mr O’Neil asked whether a larger synagogue would result in a larger congregation. Mr Danziger replied the membership might increase by 50 percent, rising to 150 people.

The structure would have facilities for religious education classes in the basement, Mr Danziger said.

Public Comment

Resident John Salley of 107 Huntingtown Road said he is concerned about the volume of traffic that would be generated on daily basis by child day-care services offered by the congregation.

Although the building would include space for day care in the basement, the congregation, according to Mr Danziger, is not now formally requesting approval for such day-care services from the P&Z.

Mr Salley added that he expects that a new building would allow the congregation to grow, resulting in much more traffic in the area. Mr Salley said the proposal amounts to constructing a big building on a small lot on a narrow, busy road.

Mr Salley said he will submit paperwork to the P&Z in seeking to trigger a regulatory mechanism that would require four out of five P&Z members, instead of three out of five members, to vote in the affirmative in order to approve the construction proposal.

Keith Kling of 101 Huntingtown Road said he has lived in Newtown for a decade and had moved here for the town’s rural aspect.

Mr Kling objected to the congregation seeking a “special exception” to the zoning regulations for its project, adding that the proposal amounts to the construction of a “commercial structure” in a residential zone. Mr Kling asked how the existing synagogue would be used if a new synagogue is constructed.

Huntingtown Road is now used as a “cut-through” road by motorists who are headed elsewhere, he noted.

Mr Kling urged the P&Z to reject the construction proposal, saying that it would result in decreased property values and increased traffic flow.

 Brian Williams of 100 Huntingtown Road said the proposal amounts to squeezing a commercial building into a residential area. The proposal calls for a “huge” building, he said.

Traffic travels faster today on Huntingtown Road than it did five years ago, he said. “Traffic moves exceedingly fast, certainly more than 50 miles per hour.”

 The scale of the proposed synagogue would dwarf existing houses in the area, he said. The structure is not designed in a New England architectural style, he said, adding that its roofline is “enormous.”

If the congregation were to acquire additional land near the site, the proposed synagogue would likely expand in size, Mr Williams said.

The presence of the building would hurt nearby property values, he said. “Building such a huge building on such a tiny lot is outrageous,” he said. The lot is 1.96 acres.

“If this building gets built, that neighborhood is destroyed forever,” he said, adding that the structure amounts to a commercial building.

Houses of Worship

Mr O’Neil then pointed out that the town zoning regulations allow houses of worship to be built in residential areas. Federal law supports allowing such construction in residential areas, he stressed.

P&Z member Lilla Dean said religious groups are afforded special protection under federal law to construct houses of worship. That law has been enforced throughout the United States, she said. “We’re a country based on religious freedom,” she said.

“We’re in a defensive position,” Mr O’Neil observed. If the construction proposal involved a subdivision of land, or was a retail complex, then the local zoning regulations would be in full force, he noted.

Mary Salley of 107 Huntingtown Road said her family has invested much money in their residence. The architectural style of the proposed synagogue does not blend with the visual character of the area, she said, adding that the proposed structure looks like an “Eastern European commercial building.”

Ms Salley said if the building is constructed, there would the potential for expansion in the future. If the project is approved by the P&Z, there should be no future expansion, she stressed.

Stephen Jones of 108 Huntingtown Road objected to the construction proposal, saying that the building would be very different than existing architecture in the area.

Lois Jones of the same address said, “This is a busy road. This is a cut-through.”

P&Z member Robert Mulholland suggested that the architectural plans be redrawn to decrease the proposed synagogue’s roofline.

Mr Danziger said he would consider that suggestion.

The congregation has been located on Huntingtown Road since 1913, Mr Danziger said. “It’s time to update it. We’re not coming in from the outside. It’s a house of worship. It’s not a residence. We’re basically going to do it in style,” he said.

The original congregants were farmers, Mr Danziger said, adding that the proposed structure would be reflective of modern times.

P&Z member Jane Brymer asked whether vehicle parking spaces could be located at the rear of the proposed building instead of in front of the structure.

Mr Danziger said such a configuration would not be practical, but added that the property would be well landscaped.

Development applications for houses of worship sometimes prove controversial.

The P&Z currently has a court appeal pending against it over its February 2003 rejection of the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc’s, proposal to build a 7,600-square-foot Buddhist temple/meeting hall at 145 Boggs Hill Road.

Citing religious freedom, as protected by state and federal law, the society filed an administrative appeal in Danbury Superior Court, in seeking to overturn the P&Z’s rejection.

The P&Z had unanimously rejected the Buddhist society’s proposal for the society’s ten-acre property, saying that the envisioned use of the site, involving increased traffic and noise, would be “far too intense for this particular site.” The Buddhist society now has a monastery at its property.

The Buddhist temple/meeting hall proposal drew heavy opposition from nearby property owners, who listed traffic and noise among their chief complaints about the development application.

Some nearby property owners challenged the Conservation Commission’s wetlands construction approval for the Buddhist temple, but lost that lawsuit in court.