Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF DANBURY 155 DEER HILL AVENUE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (203) 797-4525 www.danbury-ct.gov (203) 797-4586 FAX) ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes September 22, 2022 ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present were Rod Moore, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Alternates Peter DeLucia and Rick Roos. Anthony Rebeiro was absent. Staff present: Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Secretary Mary Larkin. Chairman Hanna seated Alternate Rick Roos in place of Anthony Rebeiro. Chairman Hanna explained the process. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: August 11, 2022, & August 25, 2022 Motion to accept the Minutes of August 11, 2022 was made Rick Roos; seconded by Rod Moore. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Messrs. Hanna, Moore, Rivas, Roos, and Sibbitt. Motion to accept the Minutes of August 25, 2022 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Messrs. DeLucia, Hanna, and Rivas. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Motion to open Application Nos. 22-16, 22-17, 22-22, and 22-23 was made by Rick Roos; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with Ayes from Rod Moore, Juan Rivas, Rick Roos, Michael Sibbitt, and Alternate Peter DeLucia. #22-16: 1 Ives St., Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce Inc., Beecher, Thomas W. Esq., Agent, (I14262), C-CBD Zone. Sec. 8.E.4.a.(7) Increase wall sign height from 20’ to 41’. Thomas Beecher, Esq., Collins Hannafin, P.C., represented the Chamber of Commerce and the City Center Developers, Inc. that owns the property. Attorney Beecher explained the Chamber is a tenant occupying the entire third floor of the building. Clients are proposing to install a 45.5 sq. ft. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 22, 2022 Page 2 sign, which is below the maximum allowed for a wall sign on the southern face of the building, facing the Green. Two photos of the building were submitted with the application. The crescent design in the brick work is where the proposed sign will be placed. The is a three-story building and the third story has a high ceiling. The apex on this side is further up per Mr. Beecher. Mr. Hanna questioned why the sign has to be 41’ high. Attorney Beecher explained it is to fit within the crescent on the third floor. It will be visible across the Green. Mr. Roos asked if there was any additional signage proposed for the building? Mr. Beecher answered there is not; however, there is one sign there already, One Ives Street, above the ground-floor windows. Mr. Moore said that he did not see a hardship anywhere. One Ives Street is clearly identified, and the proposed sign will be overwhelming. Mr. Moore acknowledged the owners of the building and City Center Danbury, would agree the Green is a jewel that we want to preserve. Mr. Moore said this is a charming old building, built in 1910, and putting a sign on top of it stands out like a billboard. Section 8.E.4.a.(1) should be more for a retail or large office complex where there are several entries. One Ives Street looks lovely there and anyone looking for the Chamber will easily find it. Preserving the nature of the green . . . the proposed sign is not inviting or warm. The Green serves as a great gathering place for concerts and other activities. Mr. Moore said he cannot agree to this request. Mr. Rivas asked if it were to be approved, would there be any changes to the size of the signage? Mr. Beecher said it would be the 45.5 sq. ft. within the crescent. Mr. Hanna thought the sign did not have to be placed that high. Mr. Beecher did not think it was overwhelming the building and said it was advertising for the Chamber. Mr. DeLucia thought because of the speed limit on Delay Street, the health, safety, and welfare of the public would not be adversely affected. Mr. Moore reiterated a hardship has not been established. Mr. Beecher said there is a conflict in the regulations which is the heart of the hardship. Mr. Moore said the Chamber of Commerce can be located by the One Ives Street, and this sign would be harmful to the look of the Green. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was in favor. There being no response, he asked if there was any opposition. Joseph Heyman, owner of 7 National Place, spoke in opposition. Mr. Heyman stated if the sign is approved, it will create a hardship for his building. He said office rental has been very difficult, yet many tenants have chosen to rent from him due to the high esthetics created by the city recently. Approving an oversized sign is adding to the urban sprawl that is typical in other parts of Danbury. A blatant billboard will not add to their otherwise pleasant experience. Mr. Heyman displayed a variety of font sizes on a board that he felt would be appropriate based on interstate signage. Mr. Heyman wondered why this had not yet come before the Architectural Design Committee. Paul Rotello, 13 Linden Place, member of City Council representing the Sixth Ward, spoke in opposition. Mr. Rotello reminded the Board that the Chamber of Commerce has moved a few times in the City. If they allow the sign, they may take it with them, but this permits another tenant to use a sign of the same size in the same place. Granting the variance is permanent and he has not heard a hardship. He further stated there are not a lot of buildings that echo Danbury past, and this was an integral part of Danbury. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 22, 2022 Page 3 Duane Perkins, 22 Main Street, member of City Council representing the Fifth Ward, spoke in opposition. Mr. Perkins agreed with many things stated by Mr. Rotello. He has not heard a hardship. Ben Chianese, 5 Briar Ridge Road, and a member of the City Council, representing the Sixth Ward, is opposed to the application and a hardship needs to be considered. He has not heard a hardship. He said the Architectural Review Board is very important to the City, and the applicant should seek their opinion. He urged the Board to delay a decision tonight and think slowly. Attorney Beecher approached the Board and said he would not belabor the hardship; however, he quoted Section 8.E.4.a.(1): The wall sign shall be confined to that portion of the exterior building wall where the business to which the sign refers is located. Motion to continue to the next regular meeting on October 13, 2022 was made by Rod Moore; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Rod Moore, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Mr. Moore requested that he be excused from the rest of the meeting as there are enough members to vote. #22-17: 7 & 9 Thorpe St., Neil R. Marcus, Esq., (H12244 & H12245); CG-20 Zone; Sec. 5.A.3 Reduce minimum front yard setback from 25’ to 15.8’; Sec. 8.C.1.c.(2) Add parking within the front yard setback; Sec. 9.C.2.a. & b. Expand residence by adding a second story to the existing two-family residence and to attach a two-story addition to the rear of the building. Motion to open Application #22-17 was made by Juan Rivas; seconding by Rick Roos & Peter DeLucia simultaneously. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Neil Marcus, Esq., Cohen & Wolf, 158 Deer Hill Ave., along with Michael Mazzucco, P.E. appeared on behalf of the applicant. Attorney Marcus explained the general application. The plan is to renovate one property and change the use of the other property. The property near the Kohanza Brook will be unusable. Thorpe Street has a diverse number of uses. Mixed use properties tend to be mostly residential. Michael Mazzucco, P.E. explained the 100-year flood zone encompasses both properties. They met with Deputy Planning Director Jennifer Emminger regarding #9 Thorpe St. The flood plain regulations dictate you need to be able to vacate the premises. According to Mr. Mazzucco, Ms. Emminger suggested combining the two parcels and expanding the use, which they are doing. Mr. Mazzucco spoke about the levels of the property, and Mr. Sibbitt questioned anyone’s ability to vacate the property should a flood occur. He said this idea was not public-safety conscious. Mr. Rivas agreed with Mr. Sibbitt about safety concerns. Mr. Rivas questioned the second floor addition, the number of parking spaces, and the addition of living space to the property. Mr. Mazzucco said they are asking for six spaces, two for each unit as required. Regarding encroachment into the flood zone, Mr. Mazzucco said filling would be an encroachment; piers are not an encroachment. Mr. Hanna questioned the setback from 25’ to 15.8’. Mr. Marcus explained. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 22, 2022 Page 4 Mr. Rivas said he would not approve this plan as it is today and would like to see an architectural design of the layout of the building showing egresses and how people would be able to get out. Mr. Marcus suggested a continuance of the hearing, re-advertisement of the variance, and will obtain a new survey. Mr. Sibbitt asked if the concrete slabs would be removed. Mr. Mazzucco said it provides a good solid surface for the parking. Discussion continued about the exact location of the parking and the mapping provided. Mr. Rivas made a motion to continue this application with a correction to the setback requested and submittal of an architectural design of the building, layout, and re-identify the parking with a revised site plan. Peter DeLucia seconded. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Motion to continue was made by Juan Rivas pending reducing minimum front yard setback from 25’ to 14’ with architectural designs of the layout of the building including egresses, re-identify the parking and revise the site plan; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Attorney Marcus asked for a 30-day continuance. (October 27, 2022) #22-22: 19 Beckett Street, Leon, Carmen, (G14019), R-3 Zone; Sec. 4.C.3 Reduce minimum front yard setback from 20’ to 19.8’; reduce minimum front yard from 20’ to 4.2’; reduce minimum front yard setback from 20’ to 10’; reduce minimum side yard setback from 15’ to 12.4’ for garage addition and deck. Gregg Brauneisen, Esq., Collins Hannafin, 148 Deer Hill Avenue, presented this application on behalf of Carmen Leon. He explained they are seeking front and side yard setback variances for a garage and sun deck. The property is compromised by the widening and taking of property for I-84. The hardship is the two front yards. Mr. Hanna asked if the addition could be moved to the other side. Mr. Brauneisen said he discussed same with the surveyor, and it was not an option. Chairman Hanna asked if there was anyone present in favor or opposed, to which there was no response. Motion to approve, per plan submitted, was made by Juan Rivas, seconded by Michael Sibbitt. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. #22-23: 212 White Street, Neil Marcus, Esq., agent, (J13047), CG-20 Zone. Sec. 5.A.3 Increase maximum building coverage from 30% to 37.17%; reduce front yard setback from 25’ to 2’. Motion to open Application No. 22-23 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Michael Sibbitt. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Neil Marcus, Esq., Cohen & Wolf, 158 Deer Hill Ave., appeared on behalf of NEA Trading Corp., 212 White Street. Mr. Marcus identified this property as the former Matz Lumber Company. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 22, 2022 Page 5 Attorney Marcus explained that the front of the property along White Street was in disrepair and ordered to be demolished. The remaining property was not considered to be part of the demolished structure. The owner is seeking a variance to continue construction along White Street, and they need to increase the building coverage to 37% and reduce the front yard setback from 25’ to 2’ to match the existing building that was demolished and reconstructed. They are trying to match the front façade of the addition where people used to park their cars, which was non conforming, and changing it to a non-conforming building. Mr. Marcus explained this is a uniquely configured lot, which almost completely landlocked from White Street. Mr. Marcus presented the proposed changes . . . grading and utility plan, planting plan, etc. The rest of the property was always non conforming and will continue to be. Retail in the front; warehouse in the back, and parking on the side. The building that was demolished was an eyesore. The current owner would like to finish the project with the coverage variance and a front yard setback that currently exists. The use will not change. Mr. Hanna asked questions about the foundation, and if he had a permit, what would happen if the State decided to widen the road? Arif Mehmetaj, of 212 White Street, asked Mr. Marcus if he could answer the questions. Mr. Mehmetaj said he did not have a permit, he put the foundation there because he thought it would help because the wood floor that was there was smashed when the demolition began. Regarding potential widening, Mr. Mehmetaj said that there is 3’ to 4’ wide grassy patch that would be used, and it will not go beyond that. Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer, said before the Board makes a decision, the Building Official wants to add some information on the record, and he respectfully requests the Board continue this application. Mr. Marcus had no objection to a continuance. Motion to continue was made by Juan Rivas pending receipt of the Building Department report; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Rick Roos. All in favor with Ayes from Joseph Hanna, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Michael Sibbitt, and Rick Roos. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary S. Larkin Recording Secretary