Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on December 18, 2023 at 3:47 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 October 12, 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: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, and Juan Rivas. Chairman Hanna seated alternate Rick Roos to Tony Rebeiro. Absent was Tony Rebeiro. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean P. Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: September 28, 2023 Motion to accept the Minutes of September 28, 2023 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Commissioners Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 26, 2023 PUBLIC HEARING: Motion to open Public Hearing No. 23-18, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. #23-18: 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 by approx. 300 sq. ft. per floor Neil Marcus, attorney, was present to represent the property owner for this application. They had previously presented an application to the ZBA on August 24, 2023, for the expansion on this property. That application was denied by a vote of 3 to 2. They went back to the drawing board to Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 12, 2023 Page 2 address the concerns of the members whom did not vote to approve. The property has a previous variance that was granted on December 8, 2022. These two parcels are pre-existing, non-conforming being they are in the CG-20 zone which does not allow residential. They had a two-family house on one lot and a single family unit on the second lot. With the approval of that variance, they now have turned one lot into parking, and the second lot is now approved for three units. The board in December felt that the variance made the lots less non-conforming since they added off street parking. During the current construction on the building, the contractor felt that the property would be better served to reshape the footprint which would add a new small section of living area in two of the three units. Since the variance in December was granted per plan submitted, they needed to submit for a new variance to overcome that condition of approval. The footprint that is proposed is different than the plan approved in December 2022. The expanded area would not require front, rear or side yard variances. It does increase coverage in the floodplain which was a concern of Mr. Sibbitt in December 2022 and August 2023. Expansion in the floodplain is allowable because there are no new exists in the floodplain, and the addition proposed doesn’t have any exits area. The floodplain, along with the fact of two narrow lots which are bordered by the Kohanza Brook in an area zoned for commercial use are the hardships for this application. The addition to the rear would be 10 ft. (to the north side) x 4 ft. (to the east side). This application is different than the one in August that did not pass because they are not pouring a foundation. When speaking with the architect, they could put the addition on concrete piers with steel, and a foundation would not be required. This is a costlier process due the steel, but it allows them to build a better building. They would be adding 5 sq. ft. of foundation which is for the five concrete tubes (1 sq. ft. each). The use would not change. The size on each floor would increase 300 sq. ft. per floor to make the unit’s more livable with a nicer floor plan. The owner may get more rent, but not a significant increase. This variance would have an insignificant change on the neighborhood. The real benefit will be to the people who with ultimately be occupying the units. Attorney Marcus then apologized for any confusion he may have caused by not being clear during the August 24th meeting. He then clarified that this variance request would not be adding any new units to the plan. It started as a two family, they will, in essence, remodel one unit and add the third unit. This would make it three units in total which was approved through the previous variance. Mr. Hanna asked if they would be adding 300 sq. ft. per floor. Attorney Marcus stated yes they would be. The addition would be elevated, so the water would run under this additional section. It would be a similar concept to homes on the Jersey Shore which are typically elevated. Mr. Rivas questioned if any additional construction is planned for the future given the 30% proposed building coverage which is the maximum allowed. Attorney Marcus responds that since the addition is elevated, the whole addition would not count as coverage; only the concrete piers would because coverage is foundation. The rest would be similar to an overhang on a home, and would not could toward building coverage. However, there are no additional plans for the site. Mr. Botelho asks for clarification on the fact the it is currently a two-family house. Attorney Marcus states that after construction it will be a three-family dwelling. Mr. Botelho clarifies that it is a two-family house, and asks about the addition of the third unit. Attorney Marcus states that addition of the third unit was approved in the December 2022 variance. Mr. Botelho requests to see the approval. Mr. Hearty states that the previous variance approval was written ambiguously, but read minutes from the December 8, 2022 meeting. In the minutes is stated that Attorney Marcus stated “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.” Mr. Botelho requests confirmation that that application was Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 12, 2023 Page 3 approved. Mr. Hearty states that the application was presented as a three-family, and in his opinion was granted as three-family. He is hopeful that this clarification on the record will help any ambiguity to the previous variance approval. Mr. Hanna asks if anyone was present in support or opposition of this application. No one was present. Motion to close Public Hearing No. 23-18, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., was made by Rick Roos; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open voting session for Application No. 23-18, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Brandon Botelho. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 23-18, 7 & 9 Thorpe St., per plan submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Brandon Botelho. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. __________________________________________________________________________________ Motion to open Public Hearing No. 23-21, 5 Shady Knolls, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. #23-21: 5 Shady Knolls, Neumann, Russell; (J04016 & J04017), RA-20 Zone. Section 4.A.3 Reduce side yard setback from 15' to 8' and reduce rear yard setback from 35' to 3' for a new deck Russell Neumann, homeowner, was present to represent the application. He was in front of the board two years ago to obtain a variance for a rear yard setback. He had a deck that was falling apart which he turned into a sunroom. The construction was completed last year. He also got a variance for a deck off the north side at that time. In hindsight, he should have requested for a deck on the other side of the sunroom as well. The proposed deck wasn’t on the site plan two years ago which is why he is back for another variance. He is requesting a side yard setback from 15 ft. to 8 ft., and a rear yard setback to 3 ft. (from the 440 line). The deck would also have a circular staircase from the ground level to the deck; along with a door to access the deck from the family room of the home. Mr. Hanna asks for clarification because the plan states a deck and patio in the area. Mr. Neumann clarifies that a flagstone patio exists currently under the newly constructed deck and sunroom, and will be under the proposed deck. Mr. Hanna asks if the deck would act as a continuation of the patio. Mr. Neumann says the sunroom and current deck are raised, and the proposed deck would be as well. Mr. DeLucia asks for clarification that the proposed deck is above the flagstone patio. Mr. Neumann says the proposed deck would be the same elevation as the floor of the sunroom. Mr. DeLucia asks if the 3 ft. setback for the rear yard is from the 440 line; Mr. Neumann confirms and states it would be the same as the deck on other side. He also states that part of his hardship is the located of his neighbor’s deck which is 2.6 ft. from his property line; his would be 8 ft. from the property line. The placement of the house on the lot is also a hardship. Mr. Hanna clarifies that the proposed deck will be over the patio which is 3 ft. from 440 line. Mr. Neumann corrects that the patio is probably about 2 ft. from the property line, but it was existing and is not a “structure” so it didn’t require a variance. Mr. Neumann approaches the board to clarify on the plans how the deck and patio will be situated on the property. Mr. Botelho asks about the location of the spiral staircase. Mr. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 12, 2023 Page 4 Neumann replies that it will be on the lake side of the deck, and points out on the plan the exact location. Mr. Rivas stated he visited the site and noticed the gap between the frame shed and proposed deck with a window currently there. Mr. Neumann stated he would have liked to end the proposed deck at the end of the house. When looking into sliders to access the deck from inside, he was told the maximum clearance for a door from the back of the house would be 5’9” due to the slope of the roof. Therefore, he was forced to add this 4 ft. walkway to allow for the installation of a sliding door on the side of the house to provide access with adequate clearance. Mr. Rivas asked if there are plans for any further construction; Mr. Neumann said no. Mr. Hanna asked if anyone was present in support or opposition of the application. No one was present. Motion to close Public Hearing No. 23-21, 5 Shady Knolls, was made by Rick Roos; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 23-21, 5 Shady Knolls, for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 23-21, 5 Shady Knolls, per plan submitted was made by Juan Rivas. Mr. Rivas stated the hardship is the result of the particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant, and it will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. The motion was seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Rick Roos, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary