Eduardo Batista has found that local residents like Dunkin' Donuts coffee and other products and has expanded his franchise throughout the region.
His latest proposal is to build a Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue in Danbury. It's one of the city's older neighborhoods, and the neighbors are upset.
Batista previously proposed a larger Dunkin' Donuts store for the site, which was rejected last fall by the Danbury Planning Commission.
Batista is taking the city to court over that rejection, a common tactic when large development proposals are rejected but somewhat unusual for a doughnut store.
In addition to taking the city to court, Batista has asked the city to approve a different version of a Dunkin' Donuts for the site. This time he says he wants to build a drive-through store, like the one on Danbury's Lake Avenue.
Because it would be smaller and because Batista now says the store would generate 498 car visits a day, not 500, the proposal qualifies for review by the Planning Department staff, not the Planning Commission, without a public hearing.
In the meantime, the neighbors are wondering what is happening to Danbury, not an uncommon feeling these days as development springs up everywhere and traffic clogs the streets.
"Our nice, quiet residential street is under siege," says Beverly McCarthy, who has lived on Springside Avenue for 50 years.
Batista certainly knows doughnuts better than the rest of us, so maybe a big legal fight over a doughnut shop on Springside Avenue isn't as odd as it seems.
But the money Batista is spending on this says something about the pressure facing Danbury from developers.
Older neighborhoods, elected officials, employees of the Planning Department and Danbury taxpayers are all under pressure. Turn a bad proposal down, the developers' message goes, and we'll sue you and run up the city's legal bills.
There were plenty of good reasons to turn down Batista's proposal for a Dunkin' Donuts on Springside Avenue. It's just not the best location for a business that will generate so much traffic. But instead of finding a different location, Batista is suing the city and offering a second proposal as a legal tactic.
Danbury has to get a handle on its growth and protect older neighborhoods from inappropriate development. It needs the help of developers to do that.
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.
