City Council
Regular MeetingDanbury, CT · February 11, 2025
Minutes
~AD HOC REPORT~
Government Entities Review Committee
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Chairman Rotello called the meeting to order at 6:35p.m. on Tuesday, February 11, 2025. Members present were
Diane LaPine, Elmer Palma, Council Mark Chory, and Alan Boyce. From the City was Taylor O’Brien, Mayor’s
Office; and Robin Edwards, Deputy Corporation Counsel. Commission on Persons with Disabilities
Members: John Gentile, John Neumuller and (inaudible).
Chair Rotello provided an overview of the purpose of the committee and noted that the order of the agenda was
being modified to address The Commission on Persons with Disabilities last.
The Danbury Aquifer Protection Agency
Chair Rotello noted that this entity is required per state statute and it can not be sunsetted. Ms. Edwards spoke
on the state statute requirements.
Member LaPine asked about website and membership information for this entity; Ms. Edwards explained that
the Planning Commission serves as the entity. Member LaPine had additional questions regarding water testing
that she will address with Public Utilities. Member Palma asked if rules of the entity can be modified; Ms.
Edwards confirmed that that request is outside the scope of this committee; Chair Rotello spoke on past Council
actions regarding contamination including strict run-off regulations; in addition, Ms. Edwards suggested that
any suggested changes be presented to the Planning Department and possibly the Commission.
A motion was made by Member Chory , seconded by Member LaPine, to renew the agency for another five
years, per the ordinance requirements. The motion carries unanimously.
The Fair Rent Commission
Chair Rotello provided an overview of the purpose of the Commission and discussed current concerns including
month-to-month rent rates and high rental costs. Ms. Edwards noted the importance of the Commission. Chair
Rotello spoke on an uptake in Commission hearings and reiterated its importance.
Member Palma asked about the regulations that the Commission has the right to enforce, and noted the
importance of a safe living environment for all residents. Member Chory noted the frequency of meetings as a
positive. Member Palma and Chair Rotello spoke on the burden of additional fees in rental costs and the need
for a clear posting of the total rent for a property. Member Boyce noted the need for more members; Ms.
O’Brien explained that there has not been public interest in serving. She thanked Health & Human Services
staff member Denise Chance for her work in preemptive work for the city and commission; and identified state
certification needs and delays for more staffing and work.
A motion was made by Member LaPine, seconded by Member Palma, to renew for a five-year period the
Fair Rent Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
The Board of Ethics
Chair Rotello spoke on the purpose of the entity and noted very few complaints. Ms. Edwards confirmed there
were no complaints in 2024; Ms. O’Brien noted the need for additional members.
A motion was made by Member Chory, seconded by Member Palma, to renew the Board of Ethics for
another five years. Motion carried unanimously.
Design Review Board
Chair Rotello discussed the origin of this board; and explained that the were no appointments of members and
no meetings took place. He explained his opinion on the need of this board to assure that quality structures are
designed and built. Ms. O’Brien spoke on the process of business development and discussed the overview of
the Planning Department to approve or deny designs; she noted the extra step that could delay projects and
would like to provide the new Planning Director with an opportunity to review the need.
Members LaPine and Palma asked about design rules for new downtown developments; Ms. O’Brien explained
that design review is currently done through the Planning Department. Chair Rotello spoke on the lasting
impact of new buildings and the importance of having design oversite.
A motion was made by Member LaPine, seconded by Member Palma, to extend the Design Review Board
for two years. Motion carried unanimously.
Danbury Housing Partnership
A motion was made by Member LaPine, seconded by Member Palma, to take no action. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chairman Rotello explained that by taking no action, the motion made in 2024 will stand. Ms. O’Brien
explained the City’s work to address homelessness through an existing task force which facilitates actions on
homelessness in Danbury.
Commission on Persons with Disabilities
Chair Rotello discussed the purpose of the Commission. Member Palma discussed handicap parking concerns
and suggested a sticker to prevent hanging placards from being utilized by multiple users.
7:20pm – Three members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities arrived.
Mr. Gentile spoke on the inability of the Commission to enforce laws like handicap parking; he explained that
the commission has been working with the Police Department to address this issue which included ticket
enforcement. He explained the purpose of placards going with the handicap person and not the vehicle. Chair
Rotello recognized the Commission for using its voice to bring attention to the issue. Mr. Gentile spoke on the
need for the Commission to have input on downtown development plans to assure that special needs are being
considered. Ms. O’Brien suggested that the Planning Director meet with the Commission to review existing
plans to confirm compliance. Member LaPine and Chair Rotello thanked the Commission for all their work and
for offering hybrid meetings. Mr. Neumuller asked about the Parking Authority’s ability to ticket offenders;
Mr. Chory suggested the Parking Authority could review their policies and Ms. O’Brien identified more police
presence downtown as the weather gets warmer.
A motion was made by Member LaPine, seconded by Member Chory, to extend the Commission on Persons
with Disabilities for five years. Motion carried unanimously.
A motion made by Member LaPine, and seconded by Member Palma, to adjourn. The motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Rotello, Chair; Diane LaPine, Elmer Palma, Mark Chory, Alan Boyce
Agenda
Government Entity Questionnaire submitted 2.10.25
(Please complete as much of the survey as you can and keep a copy for the meeting.)
Danbury Aquifer Protection
Entity Name: ____________________ Entity’s Main Contact: Jennifer Emminger AICP, Deputy Planning
_________________________
Agency Director
j.emminger@danbury-ct.gov 203-797-4525
Main Contact Email: _______________________________ Phone: ___________________
1. The goals and objectives of the governmental entity.
CT General Statutes established the Aquifer Protection Area Program (Connecticut General Statutes
§22a-354a to §22a-354bb) to identify critical water supply aquifers and to protect them from pollution
by managing land use. Protection requires coordinated responsibilities shared by the state,
municipality and water companies to ensure a plentiful supply of public drinking water for present and
future generations.
2. The degree to which the original objectives of the governmental entity have been achieved and the
extent to which its operation has been responsive to the public needs.
Aquifer Protection Area Regulations were adopted and are enforced by the Planning Commission who is
designated as the Aquifer Protection Agency. They administer all provisions of the Agency and approve or
deny all permits for regulated activities in the aquifer protection areas of the City.
To the best of your knowledge, when did this Board/Commission/Partnership last meet?
They meet annually and whenever there is a renewal request.
*If the entity has not met in 10 years or more, you are now done with this questionnaire. Thank you.
3. Explain the accomplishments of the entity in the last fiscal year, and any expenses during that
period.
All registrations are effective for (5) years and must be renewed every five years. Since the original
approval dates were staggered, there are renewals that come due every year. The entity has
renewed several registrations this year. These renewals do not incur any expense to the City, only
to the registrant.
4. Can the public be adequately protected by another entity, or by a less restrictive method of
regulation? If so, which one?
There are no other regulations that protect the Aquifer Protection Areas within the City.
5. Does the entity produce any direct or indirect increase in the cost of government services, if so,
does the public benefit outweigh the public burden of the increase in cost?
This entity does not cost the City anything, the annual renewals bring in revenue.
Turn Over
6. Is the operation of the entity impeded by existing ordinances, regulations or policies, including
budgetary and personnel policies? If so, which ones?
No there are no regulations or ordinances that impede the entity's operations.
7. Has the entity recommended any statutory or ordinance changes? Would these
recommendations benefit the public over the persons regulated by the entity? If so, which ones?
The entity has not recommended any statutory or ordinance changes.
8. Has the entity encouraged public participation in the formulation of its rules, regulations or
policies?
When the entity created their regulations, it was done at a public hearing which allowed for public
input.
9. How has the entity processed and resolved public complaints concerning persons subject to its
regulations?
There have not been any complaints regarding these regulations.
10. Please add any other relevant criteria that the committee could deem to be important.
These actions of this entity are mandated by the CT General Statutes, in accordance with the
provisions of §22a-354p of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, the Connecticut General
Statutes §22a-354a to §22a-354bb and the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §22a-354i-1
through §22a-354i-10.
Prepared by JoAnne Read, Planning Asst. & Secretary to the Planning
Commission. 02/10/25
submitted 2/10/25
Get email alerts for Danbury
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.