LITCHFIELD, Conn. — The scenic village green of Litchfield has long symbolized the charms of Connecticut small-town life. Settled in 1721, it hosts tourists drawn by its Revolutionary War history: Litchfield served as a “safe town” for Continental forces seeking refuge while the British occupied New York City.

But this fall, the celebrated tourist town of about 8,500 will receive publicity for quite a different reason: charges of religious discrimination.

This summer, a federal judge ruled that sufficient evidence of “discrimination against Jewish people” may exist, warranting a trial over the Borough of Litchfield’s denial of a Hasidic group’s application to build a synagogue on the west end of Litchfield Green. The ruling virtually guarantees a trial this fall on a controversy that has deeply divided the town.

In December 2007, the borough’s historic district commission, after contentious hearings, denied an application by Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County to extensively renovate a historic house just below the green. The group’s plans included a synagogue, living space for Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach and his large family and a swimming pool for the Chabad group’s popular summer camp.

Among other objections, the commission cited plans to replace a single front door with double doors and said that the addition would dwarf the existing historic home and others in the neighborhood.

But it was the tone of the commission meetings that now forms the core of Chabad’s federal suit.

At one meeting, commission Chairwoman Wendy Kuhne objected to Chabad’s proposed use of a Star of David on the synagogue by stating that it “may not comply with the (historic) district.” In the uproar that followed, Kuhne was depicted on a local website wearing a Nazi uniform, and she recused herself from the vote on the synagogue.

Another commission member, according to Chabad’s complaint, said of the group’s plans to use facing stone from Israel, “Stone from Israel? We’ll have to get the whole town out for this one.”

The tensions between commission members and the rabbi do not appear to have diminished with time.

In April, when Kuhne appeared for her deposition in Litchfield, she left the room when Eisenbach arrived, stating, according to Chabad’s complaint, “I will not be in the same room with that man.” Kuhne was deposed on another day, and then only after Eisenbach agreed to sit in a corner of the room.