A Christian congregation in Bethel is appealing a decision from the city's Zoning Board of Appeals that prohibits it from building a new church on Shelter Rock Lane.
"The ultimate goal, of course, would be to reverse the decision the Zoning Board of Appeals made and to be able to build a church on that lot," said Peter Scalzo, the attorney representing His Vineyard, Inc.
His Vineyard, lead by pastors Gary and Kerry Baldelli of Danbury, wanted to move from 8 Grassy Plain Street in Bethel to 22 Shelter Rock Lane in Danbury because most of the congregation's 200 members live in the city.
[...]
The ZBA rejected the application June 12, with one member, Gary Dufel, saying he wanted to preserve the city's industrial zones for economic development.
Dufel pointed out there are plenty of other places in Danbury to build churches.
However, in documents mailed to Danbury Superior Court June 30, Scalzo and fellow attorney Frank Scinto argue that churches should be allowed in the industrial zone just as hotels are allowed.
Both are places of public assembly, the attorneys argue, and prohibiting churches while allowing hotels is a violation of a federal law that gives houses of worship some leeway over local zoning regulations.
I'll stay on top of this story as this has all the makings of an interesting land-use case.
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.
