Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in the City of Danbury Town Clerk’s Office January 25, 2023 at 5:38 p.m. 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 City Hall, City Council Chambers 155 Deer Hill Avenue December 8, 2022 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: At 7:16 p.m. Vice Chairman Juan Rivas advised those present that Chairman Joseph Hanna had been delayed and explained the procedures for the evening. Present were Rod Moore, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Peter Delucia. Absent were Michael Sibbitt and Rick Roos. Mr. Rivas seated Peter Delucia in place of Michael Sibbitt. Chairman Joseph Hanna joined the meeting at 7:23 p.m. and the meeting commenced. Motion to open public hearings for Application Nos. 22-24; 22-25; 22-26; 22-27; and continued Application No. 22-17 was made by Rodney Moore; seconded by Peter Delucia. All in favor with Ayes. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: September 22, 2022 Mr. Moore reminded Chairman Hanna that he was present only for the first application on the evening of September 22, 2022. Mr. Hanna acknowledged. Motion to accept the Minutes of September 22, 2022 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Messrs. Hanna, Rivas, and Delucia. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2023 PUBLIC HEARINGS: #22-24: 31 Moody La., Percy Ferris, (I06001), RA-20 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3: Reduce front yard setback from 30’ to 21.5’; reduce side yard setback from 15’ to 12.5’. Sec. 8.A.2.c.(4) Allow retaining wall within 5’ of property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 2 Mr. Robert Sherwood appeared on behalf of the applicant, 31 Moody Lane. They are renovating an existing residence with an attached garage that impacts the front yard and side yard setback as it is, and they are asking for a variance to reduce front yard setback, the side-yard setback, and construct a retaining wall. Mr. Sherwood used a site plan to explain the existing garage and this distances. Renovations will keep the same footprint of the house same, but squaring off the garage, which eliminates a portion of the current non-conformance. The existing driveway swings down, and they want to increase parking a bit. He also showed the elevations of the proposed structure. Garage will be built into the slope and has a gable roof. Commissioner Rod Moore asked Mr. Sherwood to expand on the hardship. Mr. Sherwood said the hardship is that this is a tight community along the lake, and parking is very limited on the road. This will be a year-round residence for the homeowner, and they are making the non-conformity much better than it currently is. Topography is also part of the hardship. They will regrade the driveway a bit so it’s not as steep. Pete Delucia asked about the breezeway. Mr. Sherwood said it will be incorporated into the garage area. Juan Rivas asked about the type of material of the retaining wall. Mr. Sherwood said it will be a parged concrete wall. No one in support. No opposition. Motion to close Application No. 22-24 was made by Rod Moore; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. Motion to vote on No. 22-24 was made by Rodney Moore; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. Motion to approve Application No. 22-24, per plan submitted, was made by Rod Moore as the applicant said there will be some give and take to improve an already non-conforming lot. There are no health, safety, and welfare issues and no opposition; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. #22-25: 24 Hillandale Rd., GRC Construction LLC, (F08086), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3: Reduce front yard setback from 40’ to 38’; reduce side yard setbacks from 25’ to 10’; and increase lot coverage from 15% to 16.1%. Motion to open Application No. 22-25 was made by Peter Delucia; second by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. Greg Carnrick, GRC Construction and option holder, appeared on behalf of the homeowner. Mr. Carnrick explained this was approved in 1956 as a building lot. Time passes and the last lots remaining frequently need more intervention. This non-conforming lot would not be approved by today’s standards. Mr. Carnrick continued stating, “What was appropriate 70 years ago, is not appropriate now.” This lot was approved by the Wetlands Commission (EIC) in 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2019. The last approval expires in 2024. The unique challenge of this property is a portion of the road traverses the lot. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 3 Mr. Carnrick continued by stating that after speaking with representatives from the City of Danbury, he determined that portion of the property that is traversed by the City road, is best served by transferring ownership to the City for road maintenance and liability purposes. That prompted a variance request for relief on three variances. Variances are not uncommon in this neighborhood and since 1981, 24 variances have been approved for this neighborhood. Most common is for side yard setbacks. The required setback in this zone is 25’ and the front yard setback is 40’ Rod Moore asked about the measurements re: 10.3’ or 10’. Specifically if you need 10’ he does not want to build to the absolute hundredth of an inch. Mr. Carnrick said 10’ will include the overhang. Rod asked if we approve this we’re going off what is on the application, which is 38’. Mr. Carnrick explained said within 200’ of this property, there have been 12 variances have been granted. Both neighbors have variances. Specifically, neighbor to the left 10’ side yard setback and approved at 48’ feet wide ours is 44’. On the right, No. 26 Hillandale Road was approved in 2018 was also approved for a side yard setback. Mr. Hanna asked what type of house would be built. Mr. Carnrick indicated it would likely be a raised ranch. Current regulations allow 15% coverage, they are actually transferring a portion of the land, which makes the lot smaller. Asking same size house for approval after giving the City back the property. Peter Delucia said he went out on a rainy day and said there was water and asked about the engineered plan. Greg Carnrick said EIC approved an engineered plan and further stated there are three separate watercourses that go through the property, and that is a challenge. It’s not an easy lot. Upper right-hand corner will pass unabated. That will not be disturbed. Watercourse in middle flowing left to right will be put into a catch basin because it passes through the property unabated now, and the third one goes through property from Clapboard on the left and piped into a catch basin. The one on the neighbor’s property will not be touched as they have a system. A lot of thought was put into the application and this plan is best. A wider house is better than a deeper house. Mr. Carnrick remarked that the current approval from EIC is very strict. There being no further questions, Mr. Hanna asked if there was anyone present in favor or opposed. There was no response in favor of the application. The opposition continued as follows: Cid Antous of 24 Hillandale Road, approached the Board and presented a petition, signed by 37 neighbors in opposition, marked as Exhibit A to the application. Ms. Antous explained that huge boulders have been moved by the rushing water and said one of the boulders almost blocked the catch basin. She said that building a home on the property would leave no land to absorb the water, resulting in significant water flow. She provided a video for some of the Board members to view. She is concerned that development will increase impermeable surfaces, then there will be freezing. She said on a dry day water from Clapboard Ridge comes in fast. Mr. Hanna asked how far is the running water from her property? She said it is right on the edge. Mr. Hanna asked if the water is bothering her now. She said she is concerned about more erosion and asked, if it knocks down one boulder, what else will it knock down. Mr. Hanna said they cannot stop him from putting a house there if he is willing to fix the water issues. Ms. Antous said water is definitely a concern. If it gets resolved, the issues will be better for her and the neighbors. Mr. Hanna said if they leave it like this, it never gets fixed, but if he fixes it, it will be better. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 4 The undersigned read four emails of opposition, marked as Exhibits B, C, D, and E, into the record from the following: Jessica Hldalgo, 22 Hillandale; Alice Masters, 39 Hillandale; Jonathan Beacher, 37 Hillandale; and William and Janet Beacher, 37 Hillandale. Ms. Jessica Hidalgo spoke after the email submitted by her was read into the record. Mr. Hanna asked if the water issue is addressed, will you be happy? She said she will not because she doesn’t want a house that close to hers. Ken Gucker, 89 Padanaram Road, is also opposed to the application. He is here because everything that happens on Hillandale ends up in his front yard. He said this would never be approved today as a subdivision. Mr. Gucker said you have a right to build, not to a variance. He said the old maps shows a watercourse going through the property, but newer maps do not show the watercourse. He said they will be dealing with non-permeable surfaces with no absorption from the catch basins, connecting to the next four catch basins, that dump into a gully that is rapidly eroding. Mr. Hanna said they are not City Engineers and suggested he speak with the City about the issues. Mr. Gucker said granting this variance will negatively impact the health, safety, and well being of the neighborhood. Mr. Gucker does not see this as a hardship he sees it as an opportunity to take a challenged piece of property and add hardship and take away the quality of life from the neighbors on either side. Mr. Gucker further stated the EIC did not pick up on all this and asked why the watercourse is not on the map. There was a drought this year. Chairman Hanna said most of the properties in this neighborhood do not meet today’s setbacks, and the ZBA have allowed many of them relief from the setbacks. Mr. Hanna asked how this application affects all of the people who are not abutters and who signed this application will be affected. Mr. Gucker persisted and ultimately said he does not think they should grant the variance. Greg Carnrick approach the Board to answer Mr. Hanna’s questions and rebut the opposition. Mr. Carnrick is a sole proprietor and started by buying challenged lots. He understands people’s thoughts on loss of privacy and if there wasn’t a demand for housing, this lot would probably remain undeveloped. To the persons who spoke in opposition, they may have not reviewed the approved plan with the details that might alleviate some of their concerns. Watercourses have specific regulations, and he will not just cut it off and do whatever he wants, the commissions and City that hear about these concerns have made decisions. Mr. Carnrick is not going to question the plans that were put in place by other commissions. He acknowledged that the water does flow and the area of water that goes through the middle will be captured. The watercourse that does not show on the map was piped, and that is why it doesn’t show. The main water of the three comes in the upper right hand corner in the woods and exits. He is required to permanently mark it as a watercourse and not touch it. That is why the house needs to be down by road. Maybe it means modification to neighbor’s property? Commissioner Tony Rebeiro said wetlands remediation can be done without building a house and prove you have fixed the problem, and Mr. Rebeiro thinks the water cannot be stopped. Mr. Hanna said it could be reduced. Tony Rebeiro said the problem with trying to divert water is it will fill up and get clogged. House was on the plan per Carnrick. Mr. Hanna asked if Mr. Carnrick owned the property, he replied no, he has an option to purchase. Motion to close and go to voting by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Rod Moore. Mr. Rebeiro said he has a lot of experience with runoff and whenever water with dirt goes into a catch basin, the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 5 homeowner must be willing to clean and maintain these types of things. Ultimately, he thinks it will adversely impact the neighbors. A motion to deny without prejudice was made by Tony Rebeiro because it does affect the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. He would like to see “wetlands” prove that it can be done. Water going through a dirty trench will bring silt, and the homeowner generally cannot maintain the basins and what’s going to happen in years to come? Seconded by Peter Delucia. Those voting in favor of the motion were Peter Delucia, Tony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Those against the motion were Rod Moore and Joseph Hanna. Mr. Hanna said he would like to see a different plan for the house. Rod Moore made a motion to suspend the voting until January 12, 2023 when they will have obtained a copy of the approval from EIC (Environmental Impact Commission), and all of the data required to build on the property; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with Ayes from Peter Delucia, Joseph Hanna, Rod Moore, Tony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. #22-26: 16-18 Griffing Ave., Uyaguari, Marco, (I12124 & I12125); R-3 Zone. Sec. 4.C.3 Reduce side yard setback from 15’ to 7.8’. Return use to 2-family. Motion to open Application No. 22-26 was made by Rod Moore; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor. Marco Albarracin appeared and explained the house was built in 1890 as a multi-family house. The prior owner converted the house to a single-family home, but all meters existed and are still there for a multi-family house. They want to return it to a multi-family and are requesting a side-yard setback. Mr. Albarracin said this is a reasonable setback request. They have a new survey--nothing will change except the return to a multi-family. Mr. Albarracin said all the homes in the area multi family. Mr. Delucia asked if they were making the windows bigger? Mr. Albarracin said if it is requested by the Building Department, they will do it. Mr. Hanna asked the width of the property. Mr. Albarracin said, “it is 87.56’ -- plenty of frontage.” Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty spoke and explained that this was a two-family home converted back to a single-family home and then back to a two-family home. Tax Assessor records triggered an inspection, and Mr. Hearty explained the construction was over zealous, and Mr. Hearty said he could not see proof of the second kitchen, or second occupancy on the second floor. Approval of the variance will allow parking to be improved. If they grant the variance, the City will benefit in the end. No one in favor or opposed. Motion to close Application No. 22-26 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter Delucia. All in favor. Motion to open voting session was made by Rod Moore; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 6 Motion to approve Application No. 22-26 to return to pre-existing, two-family unit, was made by Rod Moore as it will allow better arrangement of parking, there are no adverse effects to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood, and it is in keeping with the character of the area, per plan submitted; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. __________________________________________________________________________________ #22-27: 47 Hunter Rd., Cordeiro, Nuno, (H08078), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3 Reduce side yard setback from 15’ to 7.2’. Motion to open Application No. 22-27 was made by Peter Delucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with Ayes. Michele Palanzo, homeowner, presented the application. This variance is for a garage needing a side-yard setback. Commissioner Rivas acknowledged the non-conformity of the lot and asked if the garage could be shifted back? Ms. Palanzo said that is another hardship—the topography. They just wish to make the pre-existing shed larger for a garage. Peter Delucia asked if it is stick built or prefab. Ms. Palanzo replied, “stick built”. No other questions. No one in favor or in opposition. Motion to close Application No. 22-27 was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter Delucia. All in favor with Ayes. Motion to approve Application No 22-27, per plan submitted, was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with Ayes. _________________________________________________________________________________ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: #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’. WITHDRAWN __________________________________________________________________________________ #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 14’; 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. Before the presentation, Rodney Moore, represented he read the minutes and watched the video and is ready to participate. Neil Marcus, Esq., Cohen & Wolf, P.C., 158 Deer Hill Avenue, represents the applicant and reviewed the comments from the Sept. 22, 2022 meeting. On 9/22/22 the Commission discussed the proposal and asked for specific plans. The Board asked they show the overhang on the house, that the parking be clearly identified, and submit a drawing showing the building facades. Jacob Williams was Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 7 not present for the meeting. Attorney Marcus recalled that Michael Sibbitt criticized the plans for not properly labeling the new parking spaces on 9 Thorpe Street. Changes to the plan have been made. The hardship is pre-existing, non-conforming residential parcels in the CG-20 zone. Mr. Marcus explained that 9 Thorpe is currently vacant, and new construction is not feasible. Seven Thorpe is an existing, two- family that they want to expand to add a second story to the cottage, which was formerly the garage and put an addition on the rear which will make three residences on two parcels. They will get all of parking off the street on the undeveloped parcel. Hardship relates to the fact that all of this is in a floodplain, narrow lots bordered in the back by Kohanza Brook. Lots of mixed uses with the properties adjacent to this property--one is a scrap yard operation. Michael Mazzucco, P.E., Danbury, CT. These are two parcels to be combined to develop the vacant parcel which is entirely in the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Mazzucco indicated the flood elevations and Kohanza Brook on the eastern side. Meeting with land use officials confirmed that it makes sense to combine the parcels. They looked for the best alternative. No. 9 Thorpe would need several variances. The former garage was already elevated and cars could be parked there. Existing floor elevations are currently above 100-year base flood elevations. Technically you cannot get onto dry land—maybe a foot of water could occur. Will be built on piers on the back. Building plan shows a modest addition to the rear . . . inaudible. Rod Moore asked if there were exterior stairs-fire escape stairs, from one deck to the other. Mr. Mazzucco said if they have fire code restrictions to meet, they will have to meet it. Joseph Hanna asked about a concrete slab – two parking spaces per unit? Confirmed they can use where the garage was. Attorney Marcus said they do not need a lot of variances. They need to reduce the minimum front yard from 25’ to 14’ in front yard. Mr. Marcus listed the three variances necessary (as shown above) and said anything they do to the site will be a huge improvement. Attorney Marcus said the bottom line is the owner is willing to invest the money to improve the area. Combining lots eliminates a non conformity per Mike Mazzucco. Commissioner Rivas thanked both for the architectural design and mentioned the egress--leave to the City to make sure in compliance. Mr. Rivas also asked to clarify which measurement was correct. Mr. Marcus said 14’. The measurement of 15.8’ was to the building; in Danbury you go to the overhang. No one in support or opposition. Motion to close Application No. 22-17 was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Rod Moore. All in favor with Ayes. Motion to go to voting was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter Delucia. All in favor with Ayes. Motion to approve was made by Tony Rebeiro, per plan submitted; seconded Peter Delucia. All in favor with Ayes. _________________________________________________________________________________ #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’. WITHDRAWN Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 8, 2022 Page 8 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None CORRESPONDENCE: None OTHER MATTERS: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Rod Moore; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes. Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary S. Larkin Recording Secretary