Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s Office on April 15, 2024 at 10:09 a.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 March 14, 2024 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Juan Rivas called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Present by roll call were: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, and Anthony Rebeiro. Vice Chair Juan Rivas seated alternate William Trotta for Joseph Hanna. Absent were Joseph Hanna and Rick Roos. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean P. Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: January 25, 2024 Motion to accept the Minutes of January 25, 2024 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor by those eligible to vote: Commissioners Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 28, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING: #24-01: 4 Lee Mac Ave., J.A.R. Associates, Beecher, Thomas W. Esq., Agent; (K14122), IL-40 Zone. Sec. 6.A.3: Reduce side yard setback from 20' to 7' on eastern side of property *Applicant has requested the public hearing be rescheduled for April 11, 2024. Application was cancelled and rescheduled for April 11, 2024. Vice Chair Juan Rivas informed the Board of this on the record. __________________________________________________________________________________ Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 2 Motion to open Application #24-02, 1 Greenview Road, for Public Hearing was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. #24-02: 1 Greenview Road, Weiss, John, Agent; (G10063), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce side yard setback from 25’ to 14.5’ to construct addition of office/ bedroom John Weiss, builder, was present to represent the application. The application is to construct an 18’x16’ addition off the house to serve as a bedroom/ office space. It is an existing non-conforming lot. The survey shows the existing house 15.6’ from the property line, and the addition will follow the same line. The addition will be going to the rear 18 ft. The client and her husband currently work from home, and are working on opposite ends of the home. They are looking to use the addition as an office and for future aging in place. Mr. Rivas asked for them to expand on the hardship, and for clarification if the 15.6’ accounts for the roof overhang on the addition. Mr. Weiss responds that the variance needed is for 14.5’ which is noted on the survey for the overhang. Linda Harrison, homeowner, stated that her and her husband work from home. During Covid they converted a bedroom into a master bathroom. Her husband had a major procedure, so this bathroom was required to allow proper access during his recovery. He currently uses a room in front of the home for an office and exercise room, while she works in the current living room. This additional room could provide better office space. It would also allow them to separate in the home, as they did when they had contracted Covid, with this additional sleeping space available. Mr. Botelho asked if the current bedroom(s) were on the first or second floor. Mr. Weiss clarified that the home is a ranch style, so it is only one level. No one was present with any additional comments. A motion to close Application #24-02, 1 Greenview Road, for Public Hearing was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. A motion to open Application #24-02, 1 Greenview Road, for voting session was made Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Motion to approve Application No. 24-02, 1 Greenview Rd., per plan submitted was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES via roll call vote: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A motion to continue Public Hearing for Application 23-26, 15 Barnum Road, was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Anthony Rebeiro stated on the record that he watched the video of the January 11, 2024 meeting. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 3 #23-26: 15 Barnum Rd., Cedar Gables Preschool; (G06021), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.5.e.(2) eliminate requirement for municipal sewer and water facilities, Sec. 4.A.5.e.(7) and 8.C.1.c.(2) to allow front yard parking for a handicap parking space, Sec.4.A.5.e.(10)(a) Reduce front yard setback from 50’ to 26’, Sec. 4.A.5.e.(10)(b) Reduce side yard setback for daycare center from 50’ to 36.2’ on northside and 27.2’ on southside, and 8.A.2.c.(4) to allow bottom edge of excavation to be within 5’ of adjoining property line Alex Kopp, attorney with Cohen & Wolf, was present to represent the application in place of Neil Marcus. The public hearing has been continued for the completion of the B100a which has been submitted. He is aware of the discussion from January 11, 2024. Mr. Kopp states that daycare is sorely needed in Danbury. He offered to answer any questions that the Board had in regards to the application. Mr. Botelho states he reviewed the B100a that was submitted. He noticed that they have 736 s.f. of leeching galleries according to the B100a, and requests confirmation that that is enough to accommodate the expansion. Mr. Kopp confirms that is enough to handle the expansion per the approval which was granted by Joe Kmetz. Tara Kennedy, owner, states there is currently daycare downstairs and was an apartment upstairs. There are three septic tanks on the property: two for the childcare downstairs and one for the apartment upstairs. They will be expanding the childcare to upstairs, so will be using the capacity of the systems to serve both areas. There will no longer be an apartment. Mrs. Kennedy states there is a chance they may require additional fields for drainage, along with the installation of a curtain drain to protect the septic leeching fields. Mr. Botelho requests confirmation that their current capacity is sufficient, but that they have the approval for more if needed. Mrs. Kennedy confirms that is correct, and the B100a shows they have the land and soil required if the system(s) fails for a replacement. Mr. Rivas understands that the City has approved the B100a, and they have received an installation permit for it. He questions if the intention is to install the new system or if the B100a approval is just in case of failure. Mrs. Kennedy responds that the B100a is in case of failure/ worst case scenario. Mr. Rivas asks if there is any data or testing that was done on the current systems that show it can sustain the expansion. He also asks what the plan is if one or both of the systems begin to show signs of failure. Mrs. Kennedy states the B100a addresses the scenarios for failures. She points out in the permit of the B100a approval that it states the existing systems will be used, and if the new system is required then an engineered plan would be needed for installation. She also confirms that testing was completed on the septic systems. Mr. Rivas states his concern that they have not seen the testing on the existing systems. He wants to make sure everything is addressed since, if the variance is granted, it stays with the land. Attorney Kopp consults with the Kennedy’s, and the Board has inaudible internal discussion during that consultation. Mr. Kopp then informs the Board that the septic was inspected two years ago when the property was purchased, and the site was inspected to complete the B100a for this application. They did not have an engineer complete anything because the system for the apartment was being underutilized during that apartment use. Mr. Rivas asked if the testing was a cleaning, check the tank’s integrity or a flow test for the systems. Mr. Kennedy, co-owner, informs the Board they were looking for the inspection report on their laptop currently. In the meantime, Mr. Rebeiro asked if the Health Department had weighed in on the situation. Sean Hearty replied that the Health Department approved the B100a, and that any modifications or failures of the systems would be dealt with through the Health Department. Mrs. Kennedy then presents the septic inspection/ flow test from March 2022 to the Board via her laptop. The Board members reviewed the report on the laptop. Mr. Rivas states after reading the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 4 report that some of his questions are answered. He understands that daycare is needed especially in that area of the city. He also recognizes they have an approved B100a. Mr. Rivas would feel more comfortable if a contingency plan or timeline was in place to install the new system given the current systems are over 30 years old according to the report. The additional students and staff will add stress to the systems which may create an issue resulting in the beginning of a failure. Mr. Hearty states that any sign of failure would initiate the B100a with the Health Department. Mr. Rivas asks if the installation would go through the Health Department. Mr. Hearty responds that it would, but that we could follow or get updates as well. He also asks for the clarification on the Board’s desires. Do they want a date for replacement or just at the sign of any failure then the full repair would be made? Mr. Kopp informs the Board that his client would prefer to implement the B100a at the sign of failure, but they would agree to periodic inspections. Attorney Kopp consults with the Kennedy’s, and the Board has inaudible internal discussion during that consultation. Mr. Kopp states his clients are agreeable if Health Department sees a failure then the system would be replaced. It is a daycare with many children under 3, so the system is utilized less than in other scenarios. Mr. Trotta asked if they had a timetable since the system is 30 years old, and what the plan was for the daycare if the system failed. Mr. Kennedy replied that if money was not an issue it would be different, but they need to be careful with their expenditures since they still have the remodel. It was difficult to find a property in Danbury that allowed daycare under the zoning regulations, or they could have possibly built a facility from scratch. They have another center on Clapboard Ridge Road with a 50-year-old septic, and they have had no problems. Mr. Hearty asks what the plan would be for the daycare during the replacement if the septic failed. Mr. Kennedy said they would rent port-a-potties or could utilize the other floor if only one system had failed. They rent port-a-potties during the summer currently to allow easier bathroom access for the children when they are playing outside. He also said they would be willing to connect to city sewer and water if it was brought to the area. Mr. Hearty states there is not a current plan for that. Mr. Rivas again expresses his concern that the variance will stay with the property. Mr. Kopp points out that through this variance it would only be approved for daycare use. Mr. Rivas restates that he would like a contingency in place or plan of action if any failure was to happen. Mr. Kopp asks if periodic inspections would be acceptable to the Board as they would typically show any signs of failure. Mr. DeLucia believes annual inspections would be good or a 2-3 year timeline for replacement rather than having a failure. He believes Danbury could use the daycare. Mr. Rebeiro agrees with Mr. Hearty’s idea as that any sign of failure they have to implement the full B100a. Mr. Trotta asks how often the Health Department performs their inspections; Mrs. Kennedy states every other year. Mr. Hearty said the Board could request an inspection report be filed every year with the Health Department until the system is replaced. Mr. Kopp said the clients would agree to bi-annual testing. Mr. Hearty also stated the Board could request the B100a be fully completed to include inverts and other information from an engineer. Per the Health Department approval of the B100a, a new engineered plan would need to be submitted to the Health Department for installation. Mr. Rivas asks if the Kennedy’s would agree to complete the engineered B100a, do bi- annual testing, and upon any failure implement the full B100a; Mr. Kopp says the clients will agree to that. Mr. Hearty points out to applicants and attorney that the ZBA rarely deals with this in-depth analysis regarding septics, so it has been a little different for the Board. Mr. Rivas asked Mr. Hearty who would monitor the front yard parking variance, if approved. Mr. Hearty said Zoning would check the location, and Building would verify for the handicap assignment of the space. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 14, 2024 Page 5 A motion to close Public Hearing for Application No. 23-26, 15 Barnum Rd, was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. A motion to open Application No. 23-26, 15 Barnum Road, for voting session was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Motion to approve Application No. 23-26, 15 Barnum Rd., with stipulations, per plan submitted, was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. The stipulations are as follows: Engineered plan for B100 to be completed to city satisfaction, bi-annual septic inspection reports to be provided to the Health Department, and at the sign of any failure the full B100 will be implemented. The variance is being granted as the hardship is the result of the particular circumstances of the site, as there is no city sewer or water available, and was not created by the applicant or a predecessor in title. The approval is per plans submitted. All in favor with AYES: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. (Note- Upon review of the recording, after the legal publication of decision, I noted that approval was per plans submitted. This is noted now in the above minutes, and will be reflected in the approval certificate.) OTHER MATTERS: ZBA Meeting on April 11, 2024 will be held on Zoom due to a scheduling conflict in City Council Chambers. Vice Chair Juan Rivas informed the Board that the April 11, 2024 meeting will be held via Zoom. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by William Trotta; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with AYES from: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary