Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on October 2, 2023 at 3:32 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 August 24, 2023 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present by roll call were: Michael Sibbitt, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, and Juan Rivas. Anthony Rebeiro was absent. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean P. Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. Chairman Hanna seated Alternate Brandon Botelho in place of Anthony Rebeiro (seated during the meeting). ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: August 10, 2023 Motion to accept the Minutes of August 10, 2023 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Commissioners Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho and Joseph Hanna. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: Motion to open public hearings 23-15 and 23-16 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Michael Sibbitt, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. #23-15: 16 Marion St., Kutner, Bruce & Sharon; (H22119), RA-20 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3 Reduce front yard setback from 30 ft. to 23 ft. and side yard setback from 15 ft. to 9 ft. for addition/ expansion Sharon Kutner, homeowner, was present to represent the application. They are wanting to expand up in the existing footprint. The pre-existing and non-conforming size, shape and location of the lot limits what can be done to make any improvements. They also sit on a significant amount of ledge. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 24, 2023 Page 2 They are requesting setback variances. They would like to make a small entry way in the front yard, so would go 7 ft. beyond; requesting setback variance from 30 ft. to 23 ft. The side yard they are requesting to go to from 15 ft. to 9 ft., so would be 6 ft. out. They are keeping the structure a two-bedroom home, but looking to add more space since both her and her husband now work from home. To her knowledge, the house was built in 1952, and there have been no prior significant improvements since then. They are also looking to add a screened in small deck in the side yard which they don’t have now. Mrs. Kutner stated she is sensitive to bug bites. The architecture and existing structure of the house limits the deck location. Mr. Hanna asked how many bedrooms the house would be. Mrs. Kutner stated it is a two- bedroom and remaining a two-bedroom. They are looking to add a loft upstairs for more space. The only addition out of the existing footprint is the entryway. Mr. DeLucia said he visited the location today, and there is a great view. The addition wouldn’t impede the view of the neighbors. Mr. DeLucia is ok with the front yard request, but has some concerns with the side yard going from 14-15 ft. to 9 ft. He asked if they could reconfigure the deck to go more inward the other direction. He is concerned over emergency vehicles being able to access if the side yard is reduced. Mrs. Kutner said the water is in the back, so they couldn’t go farther back. The only place they felt was feasible was on the side on top of the ledge in the area. She stated the septic is also in the back. Mr. Rivas also expressed concerns with the side yard request. As the ZBA, they try to allow minimum variances that allow the most reasonable use of the property. He also asked about going further to the south or out with the deck. He also sees the proposed deck goes around the side of the building. During his site visit, he saw some trees in the area, and questioned if the trees would be impacted or have to come down. Mr. Rivas also questioned if the deck would be coming up to the ledge in the side yard. Mrs. Kutner states that one tree in the side yard would come down. She also stated that the driveway on the left side of the house allows access to any vehicles, and would continue to do so. As far as the deck going to the ledge, she did not measure it, but she thinks it would hit the ledge. Mr. Rivas asked how far back on the side of the house the deck would start. Mrs. Kutner said they are just expanding the deck to the side and not to the back. Mr. Rivas also asked for confirmation that the septic placement according the B100 is why the deck couldn’t go farther west or south on the property. Mrs. Kutner stated the architect told her that the deck has to be 10 ft. from any septic. Mr. Hanna confirmed that the septic tank and leeching fields are in the back. Mrs. Kutner said they are not affecting the septic location with the deck. Mr. Hanna confirmed that the building department would address the setbacks for the septic location. Sean Hearty confirmed that, according to the septic plan presented, expanding the deck in the other direction would interfere with the septic. Mrs. Kutner stated that the septic tank is in the left rear of the house, if facing the house. Sean Hearty stated for the record that the septic location is the reason the deck placement is as presented, and the homeowner would work with the Health Department to make sure all setbacks are met. No other questions from the board were presented. Stephen Pearlman, of 14 Marion St, was present in support of the application. He is representing himself and the neighbor, Roberta, at 18 Marion St. His father was a founding member of Lake Waubeeka. The sites were never planned for larger homes, and were meant to be bungalows. For the community to survive they are in need of variances. He strongly encourages the board to approve this. For Lake Waubeeka to thrive, variances above the normal are needed. People don’t want to build summer bungalows; they want homes. No one else present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close application 23-15, 16 Marion St. was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 24, 2023 Page 3 #23-16: 7 & 9 Thorpe St., Neil R. Marcus, Esq., (H12244 & H12245); CG-20 Zone. Sec.9.C.2.a & b. Expand previously approved addition in rear of building Neil Marcus, Esq. present to represent the application. Mr. Williams could not attend because he had a funeral in India. The application is to make a slight addition to a non-conforming residence in the CG-20 Zone that was approved by ZBA in December. The variance allowed the two lots to be consolidated into one and a parking area to be constructed to service the house. The variance also allowed construction so that the one lot with the two-family is combined with the lot with no residence, and a third unit is being added to the existing two-family. The hardship is the lot is so non-conforming, as it was in December. During the course of construction, which is ongoing now, the contractor suggested that the building would be better suited if they enlarged the addition to the back of the building. This would make the rooms bigger and the units more livable, and is not to add additional units. They want to take the approved space and add 300 sq. ft. to each floor. The applicant consulted with Sean Hearty to see if the prior approval covered the addition. The addition does not affect the rear or side line requirements. Sean Hearty stated that the variance was granted on the plans submitted which showed a structure 300 sq. ft. smaller on the footprint for two floors. They needed to come back for a new variance to allow the addition to be enlarged. The hardship is the floodplain which is all over the lot. The property is bordered by the Kohanza Brook. Also the non-conformity of the whole neighborhood which is zoned commercial. Right now there is a mixed use with some commercial and some residential. This property has always been residential, but right next store is a scrap yard. The original plan will be expanded 10 ft. on the north side and 4 ft. on the east side. A drawing was submitted that shows an area in red which is the approved addition, and the L around it is what they are looking for this evening. It is a modest change. The owner has two units to rent and will still have two units to rent, and this will just cost more in construction. His client has a commitment to do things right and make a quality building. When the contractor suggested it, he grabbed on to it and consulted Attorney Marcus whom said he wouldn’t hesitate to ask for the expansion. Housing in Danbury is a disaster and there is a shortage. They are currently attempting to relocate Section 8 tenants at another property due to a code violation, and they are having a difficult time finding a place for them to go. Mr. Hanna asked if this is the final request for this property. Mr. Marcus responded that he does expect it to be since they are currently in construction. This request is a result of the contractor’s recommendation during construction. Mr. DeLucia asked if the 300 sq. ft. includes the addition to both floors or just the first floor. Mr. Marcus said the addition is 10’x 19’=190’ and 4’x30’=120’, so 300 sq. ft. of footprint. It would be 300 sq. ft. per floor. Mr. DeLucia asks to confirm if EIC approval had been received since the property is in the wetlands. Mr. Marcus said they had previous EIC approval, but did not have to go back because they would have no further impact. Mr. DeLucia asked if it would be built on slab or with a basement. Mr. Marcus stated building plans were submitted with original variance. He does believe it is on slab, and there is no basement. Brandon Botelho ask if they are trying to turn the two-family into a three-family. Mr. Marcus responds this has been approved for a three-family. The use was put onto 9 Thorpe St. instead of putting a residence on 7 Thorpe St. Seven Thorpe St. was made into a legitimate parking area to get the cars off the street. The variance allowed a three-family, and they are going back and up to make better units. Mr. Botelho asked if the parking would stay the same. Mr. Marcus said it would because they are not adding anymore units. He confirms there are 8 parking spots. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 24, 2023 Page 4 Mr. Marcus said if you look at the neighborhood, this will be an amazing improvement and will add housing. Sean Hearty stated in January ZBA approved it, and EIC approved the updated plan as well to clarify. Peter DeLucia reiterates that this neighborhood used to be very vibrant, and was negatively affected by the highway. This is an improvement to the current neighborhood. Michael Sibbitt comments that he was present during the first approval, and was against it due to building in the floodplain. Given the natural disasters around the country with record rainfall and the presence of the brook, he is against the new application because they are going farther into the floodplain. Neil Marcus responds to the comments. The owner has been monitoring the property during recent heavy rainstorms, and there has been no flooding. He does acknowledge that the brook could turning into a raging river as the Still River did in 1955 on Main St. On this property, you will have three upgraded residences, and the third residence will be slightly larger for more living space. They achieved going from two to three-family in the previous variance, and are not adding a residence. They are just making the current ones better. Michael Sibbitt states that it is not currently a three-family. Mr. Marcus states that by virtue of the previous variance, it is a three-family now. Mike Mazzucco, the civil engineer, stated previously that there was no flooding in this neighborhood due to the Kohanza Brook according to Mr. Marcus. They have been monitoring the flooding, so they would be prepared if people did need to cross flooding to get out. Mr. Marcus says you could discuss all the housing in Danbury that could be affected by the floodplain, but you are not going to empty all of it out. You just have to hope that people are sensitive to and aware of the dangers if it starts to flood, and heed any evacuation orders. Developers are asked to come up with plans accounting for drainage for 25, 50 or even 100 year storms, but can’t account for a 500 year storm. Brandon Botelho asked how long the client has owned the property. Mr. Marcus states September of 2020. Mr. Rivas asked Mr. Marcus if his client would be coming in again. Given the plan and new proposal, the property would be at the maximum for 30% building coverage. Mr. Marcus doesn’t perceive a return to ZBA due to dimensions, presence of the brook and 100-year flood line, and the need for parking; with the current zoning regulations, he doesn’t feel they could ask for anything else. Mr. Rivas asked Mr. Hearty for clarification if the addition of square footage would affect the parking requirements. Mr. Marcus states the parking present is what is required for a three family house. Mr. Rivas also has safety and egress concerns, and requested a site plan showing this. Mr. Marcus states there is no change to the study Mike Mazzucco had done in 2022. There is egress from the side of the house. There was always a deck on this side of the house. The access points were, and still are, on the front and side of the house. Mr. Rivas then said the hardship for both applications was due to the floodplain, but the proposal is to add more into the floodplain. He asked for clarification on that. Mr. Marcus said there was a pre-existing, non-conforming structure on 7 Thorpe St. that was removed. They could have put the house back up on 7 Thorpe St. which would have the same floodplain issues. They decided to go in front of ZBA and take that structure from 7 and add it to the rear of 9 which is further away from the 100-year flood. By taking away the house on 7 they improved the floodplain issues, and also improved the parking. Previously there were only two spaces and the rest of the cars were on the street. They took a third unit and put it above the floodplain. Last year the board approved it because they reduced the non-conformity of the site, the effect on the floodplain, and improved the parking. Now they want to add to the footprint to make a better, more livable unit. The review they did last year was pretty thorough with the last variance. Previously the third unit was on 7 Thorpe St. and below the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 24, 2023 Page 5 floodplain. This is an improvement to the property with health, safety and zoning compliance. Juan Rivas disagrees with it being healthier and safer. By adding the addition, you are making the building more non-conforming. He is nervous the client will come back again with another variance request. Mr. Marcus said his client felt going in front of the board again was worth a try to build a better building. If the variance isn’t granted, it will be built as originally planned, and life will go on. The client has spent money to do this application in hopes to just build a better building. Peter DeLucia comments as a Danbury landlord. He feels it is gutsy for the client to invest money in the neighborhood with the floodplain given the state of FEMA and the need to carry flood insurance which is an additional expense. He hopes the client would continue to try and improve additional properties on the street. He asked for a front view of the building. Mr. Marcus said that is was provided with the first application and will not change. The client also owns the property next door, but does not have plans for that property yet. Juan Rivas asks what is being expanded in the residence that is requiring the variance; the current and proposed layout of the units. Mr. Marcus states he reversed the properties initially: the parking is on 9 and the existing residence is on 7. There is a cottage, which is the old garage attached on the north side of the house, that will get a second story. There is one unit in the old house, one unit in the two- story cottage, and the addition is to add a second unit to the house. The house will be a real two-family. Mr. Rivas asks if they are adding a bedroom, expanding the living room or what with the addition. Mr. Marcus said it is an apartment with a living room, kitchen; it is a standard two-bedroom apartment. Mr. Marcus states the floor plan was provided with the original variance application. The board had internal discussion while reviewing floor plans and renderings from the previous application provided by Sean Hearty; much of the discussion was inaudible. Mr. Marcus also presents a plan to the board depicting the additional area and 100-year flood line. He clarifies that there are no exits in the area of the 100- year flood. He shows on the plans that the existing deck would be removed for the addition. Brandon Botelho asks Mr. Marcus for clarification that the third unit has been approved, and is shown the location of the unit on the survey by Mr. Marcus. Mr. Marcus said they are expanding the existing two-family to a three-family. Mr. Botelho asks for clarification because the application states the addition would be result in a three-family residence. Mr. Marcus states it is currently a two-family, but will be three which had been approved. The board asks for clarification from Sean Hearty. Sean Hearty states it is a two- family. Mr. Marcus states you have a two-family house and the cottage which is separate. Sean Hearty said the variance granted was to return the house to a pre-existing two-family unit. Mr. Marcus says that is correct because the cottage is the third unit and is separate. Sean Hearty reminds the board that the additional square footage is what is presented now. It is not expanded into the setback, but is an expansion of use from what was granted by the last variance. Mr. Marcus said there are three units on the same lot, but the structure for the addition is in fact a two-family and will remain a two-family. Brandon Botelho was seated for Anthony Rebeiro at 8:05 pm for voting. No one present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close public hearing 23-16 was made by Michael Sibbitt; second by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES. Motion to open application 23-15, 16 Marion St., and 23-16, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Michael Sibbitt. All in favor with AYES. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 24, 2023 Page 6 No discussion from the board for application 23-15. Motion to approve Application No. 23-15, 16 Marion St., per plan submitted, was made by Juan Rivas. He is approving the application as it is the minimum variance necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property, and does not affect the public safety and welfare. Motion was seconded by Michael Sibbitt. All in favor with AYES: Michael Sibbitt, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Application was approved. No discussion from the board for application 23-16. Motion to approve Application No. 23-16, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., per plan submitted, was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Michael Sibbitt. Michael Sibbitt requested a roll call vote. Michael Sibbitt- Nay, Peter DeLucia- Ayes, Brandon Botelho- Nay, Juan Rivas- Ayes, Joseph Hanna- Ayes; Motion failed 3 Ayes, 2 Nay. Board expresses intention for application to be denied without prejudice. Sean Hearty and Attorney Neil Marcus state that by nature of a failed motion, the application is denied without prejudice. OTHER MATTERS: Chairman Hanna reads a letter on behalf of the ZBA regarding Michael Sibbitt’s resignation to thank him for his years of service. “On behalf of the ZBA and the City of Danbury, I wanted to thank you for your many years of service. First appointed to the Planning Commission in 1988 by Mayor Joseph Sauer, and served until 1994. Your dedication to our City resulted in you accepting a position on this Zoning Board of Appeals in early 1996. You have worked alongside us, and many past members, to help uphold our City’s standards while assisting our community members. We would like to wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Thank you Mike. We wish you the best.” ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Michael Sibbitt. All in favor with AYES from: Michael Sibbitt, Peter DeLucia, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary