The town received notification of the lawsuit on October 23. The town's attorney, Michael Rybak, told Voices that the town's insurance carrier, CIRMA, and its defense counsel are handling the lawsuit.

He said the case has not gone to the U.S. District Court yet; it is in the motion and discovery phase. Ms. Zurko-Smith's lawyer is Vincent Marino of Cohen and Wolf.

Ms. Zurko-Smith sought to open an eight-bed rehabilitation facility at 64 Double Hill Rd. According to the lawsuit document received by the town, she is seeking redress for what is listed as the defendant's intentional and unlawful discrimination and deprivation of property rights.

The property, which consists of approximately 62 acres, has a five-bedroom residence on it.

The process detailed in the lawsuit document begins with Ms. Zurko-Smith calling the Planning Commission office prior to purchasing the property, to notify them of her plans to open a rehabilitation facility.

According to the lawsuit document, a representative of the Planning Commission said the town has no zoning regulations and there was no problem with the intended use.

In April 2009, the center was ready to open, the report stated. On or around April 20, Ms. Zurko-Smith called the town's building official, Roger Natusch, asking if the building needed to be inspected, according to the report.

She said she was told, for the first time since she began the process, that her plans for the property constituted a change of use and needed to be presented to the Planning Commission, after she received approval from the Torrington Area Health District.

From this point on, Ms. Zurko-Smith alleges that the town and the Planning Commission set up roadblocks to prevent her from opening the facility in town, including requiring additional septic testing after she was told by Torrington Area Health District staff that Mr. Gallo said she did not need additional testing; requiring Inland Wetlands Agency approval and Board of Selectmen approval of moratoriums.

At the May 19 Board of Selectmen meeting, the board approved a six-month moratorium on applications for a change of use, from a single-family dwelling to commercial, under the guidelines of the building official and health department change of use statutes.

Ms. Zurko-Smith is attesting that the legal notice of the moratorium's adoption was not published as required by state statute and therefore never became affective.

She stated that she received a June 25 visit from Mr. Natusch, who gave her a letter regarding the moratorium, leading her to believe she could not open the facility.

At the July 9 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Zurko-Smith stated she was told to fill out a waiver application with the commission, which she did at the meeting. She stated commissioners refused to accept the waiver application, saying it was incomplete.

At the August 4 Inland Wetlands Agency meeting, she said she was told she needed a report from a soil scientist before the Inland Wetlands Agency could approve the application.

That approval took place at the September 1 meeting, according to the lawsuit document.

Prior to the Inland Wetlands approval, residents approved an ordinance to create a nine-month moratorium on the establishment of service-related housing, at an August 11 town meeting.

The draft ordinance had also been approved by the Board of Selectmen, to send to a town meeting.

The ordinance defined service-related housing as a residential facility for four or more people, where services take place that include meal preparation, laundry services, room cleaning, transportation for social and medical appointments, counseling or rehabilitation, in addition to living and sleeping facilities.

The ordinance stated that the town finds that the public health, safety and welfare may be harmed by the unregulated and unlicensed establishment or operation of service-related housing.

On August 12, the Torrington Area Health District approved Ms. Zurko-Smith's change of use application.

At the August 13 Planning Commission meeting, she stated in the report that she filed another waiver application and submitted the Torrington Area Health District approval.

The report stated that Mr. Gallo said the waiver application would not be accepted until the Inland Wetlands Agency gave its approval, which did not take place until September 1.

The second moratorium became effective on August 28 and at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Zurko-Smith filed the waiver application again, according to the lawsuit document.

She stated in the lawsuit document that Mr. Gallo tried to return the application to her, saying the waiver application could not be accepted by the commission because the nine-month moratorium on the establishment of service-related housing prevented her from proceeding with plans to open the center.

"The refusal of the commission and Mr. Gallo to accept and grant Ms. Zurko-Smith's waiver application based on the town's adoption of the second moratorium was a pretext, because the waiver application had been properly filed prior to the date the second moratorium became effective," according to the lawsuit document.

"Accordingly, the second moratorium was not applicable to Ms. Zurko-Smith's plan to open the rehabilitation center."

In closing, Ms. Zurko-Smith is attesting that per the Town Code, the town had no statutory authority to appoint the commission to grant or deny her waiver application and Mr. Gallo improperly required her to fill out a waiver application.

The lawsuit document states that the town and the commission did not have statutory authority to require that a wetlands application be filed or approved in connection with the waiver application, per the Town Code.

Ms. Zurko-Smith is alleging that the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act because the defendant's actions were taken based on the handicap of prospective residents and also violated the act by requiring the plaintiff to file a waiver application, obtain Inland Wetlands Agency approval, refusing to accept and grant a waiver application and the failure and refusal to make a reasonable accommodation, by adopting the nine-month moratorium.

"Mr. Gallo's conduct as described herein was willful and taken in reckless disregard of the rights of others, including the plaintiff," the lawsuit document stated.

Ms. Zurko-Smith is also alleging that the defendant violated the American Disabilities Act because the actions taken were based on the disability of prospective residents.

She is also attesting that a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution took place because the defendant sought to deprive her of her property right without due process.

Lastly, she is alleging that another violation of the Town Code took place.

"An actual controversy exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, concerning the authority of the defendant to act as set forth in Chapter 109 of the Town Code, whether the provisions of Chapter 109 were properly applied to the plaintiff and whether the first and second moratorium could be applied to the plaintiff," the lawsuit document stated.

The plaintiff is seeking a declaration of rights by the court that the defendant had no statutory authority to act as set forth in the Town Code, that Mr. Gallo and the Planning Commission improperly applied the Town Code to the plaintiff and the first and second moratorium did not affect Ms. Zurko-Smith's plans to open the rehabilitation center.

She is seeking a preliminary injunction, where the defendant is restrained from taking any action that hinders or prevents the plaintiff from establishing and operating an eight-bed rehabilitation center on the property.