Undeterred by its rejection from the city, Stew Leonard's dairy store is pressing on in its quest to build a liquor store right next to its Federal Road store.
This month, Stew Leonard's representatives will go to court to argue in favor of a zoning change that would allow them to build right next door to the dairy store.
Stew Leonard's has a wine shop, but in a different building on another part of Federal Road almost one mile away.
Stew's lawyer, Ward Mazzucco, said that shopping would be more convenient for customers if the wine shop were located right next to the store.
"It's one-stop shopping that everyone likes," Mazzucco said. "It's natural that when people buy food, they want to select wine for their meals."
A Superior Court hearing on Stew's request had been scheduled for Monday, but has been tentatively continued to Nov. 28.
Back in October of 2004, Danbury's zoning commission denied Stew Leonard's request to change zoning laws to allow liquor stores within 2,000 feet of one another.
Discount Liquors is within 2,000 feet of the Stew Leonard's dairy store.
Those against the Stew's proposal say that the law should stay as it is because it protects the quality of life.
Tom Saadi, a city councilman who testified against the proposal before the Danbury Zoning Commission, said that the regulations are there for a reason.
The only people complaining about the rules are the people who want to change them to make a profit, he said.
Saadi said that studies have shown that between the 1920s and 1960s, when the liquor stores were concentrated in certain areas, those areas went downhill.
"You had issues of crime, issues of loitering," Saadi said.
The city's lawyer could not be reached on Monday.
One Danbury liquor store owner, Rocky Patel, said he thinks Stew's should follow the city's rules. "It's a quality of life issue," Patel said. "How many more things can you put on Federal Road?
All things considered, seeing how important a situation this is for Stew Leonard's, it would of been nice if The News-Times got a comment from the guys.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
