Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s Office on January 16, 2024 at 3:46 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 Web-based Meeting held via ZOOM December 14, 2023 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Present by roll call were: Juan Rivas, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, and Tony Rebeiro. William Trotta was present as an alternate. Absent was Rick Roos. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean P. Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: October 12, 2023 Peter DeLucia had erroneously made a motion to accept the Minutes of October 26, 2023. Upon realizing the mistake, a motion was made by Peter DeLucia to amend the date of his motion from October 26, 2023 to October 12, 2023; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to accept the Minutes of October 12, 2023 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. 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 January 11, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING: Motion was made to open Application No. 23-22 and 23-23 for public hearing by Juan Rivas; second by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 14, 2023 Page 2 #23-22: 1 Evergreen Rd., Wimbrow, Darlene; (K02062), RA-80 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce front yard setback on Evergreen Rd. from 50’ to 26.1’ and side yard setback from 40’ to 9.6’ for construction of an addition. Darlene Wimbrow, homeowner, was present to represent the application. They have an area between the existing garage and house that has nothing there. They are hopeful to make this part of the house and close in the front porch so they would have a new entrance way. Mr. Hanna asked to clarify that the garage is existing currently at the 26.1’ and 9.6’ setbacks; Mrs. Wimbrow confirmed. Juan Rivas asked the homeowner if there was an alternative way for the addition to not connect the garage and house. Currently the home is within the regulations since the garage is a detached accessory. By joining them, they would be making the property non-conforming. Mr. & Mrs. Wimbrow said they had explored other options, but due to the limited space between the garage and house, it would work best to connect them to allow for a new entrance way. Mr. Rivas also noted a letter was included in the application packet from the Zoning Enforcement Officer confirming the existence of a legal accessory apartment in the home. He asked the homeowners if this addition would in any way affect the use of the accessory apartment or have the home be used as a multi-family in the future. Mrs. Wimbrow said it would not be used as a multi-family. Sean Hearty clarified that it was his understanding that accessory apartment would not be part of the addition or variance. The home must be owner occupied and the accessory apartment must maintain as a secondary use to the single-family home. Any expansion of the apartment would be an expansion of a non-conformity, since they are no longer allowed, and would not be covered with this variance. Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Hearty about some towns allowing detached accessory units with the new state regulations. Mr. Hearty clarified that Danbury has opted out of allowing the new accessory unit regulations. Any existing accessory apartment can be maintained. When allowed, accessory apartments had to be attached to the main structure, and were not allowed in detached structures. Mr. Rivas asked the homeowner to expand on their hardship for the application. Mrs. Wimbrow said their property has two front yards and is pre-existing non-conforming. Mr. Botelho asked the homeowner about the drainage from the new addition’s roof, and if it would be a shed or ridge roof. Mr. Wimbrow said the existing ridge lines on the garage and house are parallel to each other. There would be a new ridge that would be perpendicular to the existing ones. The water in front would go to gutters and catch basins, and then to the existing underground drainage with the water from the rear. Mr. Botelho states that they would just be reworking the gutters, but using the same underground drainage; Mr. Wimbrow confirms. No one was present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 23-22, 1 Evergreen Rd., was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 23-22, 1 Evergreen Rd., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. No discussion from the Board. Motion to approve Application No. 23-22, 1 Evergreen Rd., per plan submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Mr. Rivas stated the hardship was a result of the particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant or a predecessor in title with the existence of two front yards. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning district and will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 14, 2023 Page 3 #23-23: 2 Old Farm Rd., Goldstone, David & Bates, Roseanne, Olsen, Peter S. Esq., Agent; (H17162), RA-20 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce front yard setback on Old Farm Rd. from 30’ to 18.8’; and Increase maximum building coverage from 20% to 24% for construction of an addition, garage and porch Peter Olson, attorney from Land Use Conservation Counsel in Bethel, was present to represent the applicants David Goldstone and Roseanne Bates who own and reside at 2 Old Farm Rd. The property is in the RA- 20 zone with .366 acre, and currently has a single family home. Attorney Olson shared his screen to show the street layout and street view of the property. He pointed out that the property has frontage on two streets: Tarrywile Lake Rd. and Old Farm Rd. This creates their problem of having two front yards and two side yards. He then displayed the architectural plans as he explained the proposal. They would be adding a front porch the width of the house. They would also be putting a garage on the left hand side with living space above, and the garage would be set back. The existing home has “pieces” sticking off, and they would also be squaring off the home. The additions were displayed on the screen via red markings on the survey. The front yard setback from Old Farm Rd. is currently 18.8’, but they need the variance due to their design for an addition. They do not plan to encroach any further beyond the 18.8’. Also since they are looking to square off the house and add a garage, the lot coverage increased. The hardship is a result of the two front and two side yards. The proposed conditions are the most logical architecturally they feel. In addition, the topography of the lot helped govern the garage’s placement. There is a current garage, but it is not high enough for new vehicles. The only way to rectify the issues with the current garage would be to raise the house which is not realistic. Mr. Goldstone, homeowner, then spoke. His family has lived in the home for about seven years. They have two children who go to school nearby, and his wife owns a store nearby. They love the location, but need more room to grow and live comfortably for the upcoming years. Chairman Hanna asked how many square feet the existing house is, and what the addition would include for square footage. Attorney Olson said currently the home is about 2,600 sq. ft; part of which include a finished attic area which isn’t very useable. The addition would be about 1,600 sq. ft. Mr. DeLucia asked if the applicant considered doing the addition to the front since they have room instead of what they are proposing. Attorney Olson said that site work would be involved to extend in the rear, along with needing a variance, so they would prefer their proposed plan. Mr. Rivas asked if the garage bay proposed would be at or below grade level. Attorney Olson responded that the garage would be at the grade of the current pavement/ existing driveway. Mr. Rivas asked for clarification from Mr. Hearty about the setbacks for the property since it has two front and two side yards. Mr. Hearty said the side yard setback would be 15 ft. Mr. Olson displayed the survey which showed they would not be encroaching on the side yard setback. Mr. Botelho asked if there would be any plumbing going to the second story of the garage space. The homeowner stated the plans have not been finalized. Their current plan is for more storage, but a bathroom would be possible. Mr. Botelho asked if a kitchenette would be added in that area, and requested clarification on the ability to add a bathroom. Attorney Olson said there would be no kitchenette, as that would not be allowed per zoning. Mr. Hearty said that since the space is attached to the house, there is not a limit as to what you could put in that space; it just could not be an accessory apartment. Mr. Rivas asked Attorney Olsen if they had any intentions of requesting more variances in the future for more additions; Attorney Olsen said they had no intention at this time. No one was present in support or opposition of the application. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 14, 2023 Page 4 Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 23-23, 2 Old Farm Rd., was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 23-23, 2 Old Farm Rd., for voting session was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. No discussion from the Board. Motion to approve Application No. 23-23, 2 Old Farm Rd., per plan submitted was made by Tony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Tony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Tony Rebeiro, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary