Litchfield News







Letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor or partners of Letters to the editor should be 300 words or less. Letters over the 300 word limit will be continued on another page. We reserve the right to edit and shorten the text. We encourage letters providing positive solutions for current issues. Letters should be brief and refer to current or recent events. Please include your full name, a street address and a daytime telephone number for verification; only the name and town will appear. Letters should be e-mailed to


Dear Editor:
I would like to express my concerns with the soon to be vacant Stop and Shop building next to Rite Aid. This Thursday at 6:00 PM, its operations will cease and it will be an empty store. I am primarily concerned, and have many unanswered questions, like what the immediate plans are. Surely, there is a plan for the old building right? Also, is there developer or buyer, who is or maybe interested right now in turning it into something? Perhaps, a series of small local stores, and not another box store?
Additionally, how will Rite Aid thrive with Stop and Shop gone, and having a CVS Pharmacy right down the street? With Rite Aid connected to the soon to be old Stop and Shop, how can the building be redeveloped as the building is unique? 
I am in the end, very worried that for a couple of years, the soon to be old Stop and Shop building is going to sit empty for a couple of years, and become the 'Litchfield 202 Eyesore." 
Brenden Howser
To the Editor:
I am a regular LHRR runner and run the course once a week. Last week a black bear walked across the road only about 20 yds. in front of me. It was late morning and the site was about 300 yds. before the left turn into the museum area. The bear just stayed on the side of the wooded area and watched me. I stopped running and walked backwards until about 40 yds. away and then resumed running. There was a large event taking place near the museum and I let them know the bear was close by. Surely I am not the only one to have seen the bear in the area.
Jim Burdacki
Bethlehem, CT
Dear Editor,

How can a judge twice rule preliminarily that the actual ownership of the long disputed development of a piece of Litchfield wetlands property is irrelevant to court arguments, and then, finally, without warning to the challengers, ultimately decide who legally owns it?

The case involved a public battle over whether a wetlands area on Torrington Road next to the Friendship Baptist Church and a small road development project is the proper place for a low income housing development.  Superior Court Judge John A. Danaher III recently decided this heavily controversial development is legally and environmentally valid. It is now slated for another ruling from Litchfield's Planning and Zoning Commission.

I and two other challenging intervenors argued earlier to the Inland Wetlands Commission, before the case even reached court that the developer, The Litchfield Housing Trust, failed to obtain legal ownership of the 12.66 acres of town owned land. Commission chairman Robert Blazek smiled, totally ignored my detailed ownership challenge, and did not say a single word or even make a ruling.

Yet, we, the challengers, as legally approved commission intervenors, ultimately won the commission’s final ruling anyway on other environmental grounds. However, the Housing Trust then appealed the dispute to Superior Court without notifying or naming us what we were, the legally intervening parties. Then, quickly, again without notifying us intervenors, the trust took the dispute back to the Wetlands Commission.

The commission then illegally failed to allow us, intervenor dispute parties, to stand up for our previously winning commission arguments. It then, without that legally necessary intervenor participation and appraisal, reversed its original ruling by permitting the development. How could the commission do that without allowing the continued legal participation of the intervenor-parties? continued
To the Editor:

From everyone on the 2017 LHRR Committee, we would like to thank the following for their help with the 41st running of the Litchfield Hills Road Race.

Thank you to our sponsors, O&G Industries, Union Savings Bank, WFSB, Sharon Hospital, Crystal Rock, Litchfield Bancorp, Torrington Savings Bank, The Village Restaurant, True Value Hardware of Litchfield, The Waterbury Republican American Newspaper, Litchfield Hills Orthopedic Associates, Litchfield Saltwater Grille, Power Analysis Associates, MPP - Mirror Polishing and Plating, Dolphin Pools, Cardinal Engineering Associates, Litchfield Distillery, Tavern Off the Green and A. Gallo & Company.

Extra thanks to E.J. Murphy Realty for sponsorship of all the Children's Races.

To Bantam Market and Carbone's Market; thanks for what you do to keep our runners fed and hydrated and feeding our medical team. Thanks also to the Litchfield Lions Club.

Thanks to Litchfield Ford, Litchfield Property Care, Farmington Valley Equipment, The Forman School-Scott McCarty and Adam Man--Zeller Tire, Goff's Equipment, Karl Golden, Bob Pabst Land Clearing, All Star Transportation, Sharon Sahl, Dave Pugliese and Ruwet - Sibley for the use of their vehicles.

Thanks to the Town and Borough of Litchfield, First Selectman Leo Paul, Bartlett Tree and Nathan Keller, USA Hauling and Recycling, Raz Alexe and the Litchfield Highway Department. Our Highway Department goes above and beyond the call of duty to get our course in tip top shape.

Thanks to the White Memorial Foundation for the use of their preserve as part of our racecourse. Special thanks to Forman School and Scott McCarty for their invaluable production assistance and housing.

Thank you to Norcomct/Northeastern Communications for the donation of our radios. Thanks to Sportsmen's for their unwavering support and T-shirt sales.  continued
It's a small annoyance, but...
Can SOMETHING be done about the intersection of North Street and Route 202?  Because of the placement of the traffic island, it's difficult to drive north from the courthouse and take a left onto Rt. 202. Realizing we're dealing with multiple authorities regulating this particular intersection (the town, the state D.0.T. and for all I know, the Borough's burgesses) things could bog down very quickly. 
It seems to me the simplest solution would be to widen the little strip of North Street between the courthouse and Rt. 202 by taking a bit of the Green to the west of that traffic line, which would align North Street on both sides of 202.  This would add an extra lane of traffic which would facilitate the flow in this frequently troublesome bottleneck. (Then all we'd have to worry about is the intersection of Routes 118 and 202!)
Brock Putnam
East Litchfield