Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s Office on May 13, 2024 at 1:52 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 April 11, 2024 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present by roll call were: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Brandon Botelho. Chairman Joseph Hanna seated alternate William Trotta for Anthony Rebeiro. Absent were Anthony Rebeiro and Rick Roos. Staff present were Assistant Director of Permit Coordination Tim Rosati, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer Thomas Bickelhaupt, and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: March 14, 2024 Motion to accept the Minutes of March 14, 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, and Juan Rivas. The next regular meeting is scheduled for April 25, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING: Motion to open Application No. 24-01, 4 Lee Mac Ave., for public hearing was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. #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 Attorney Tom Beecher was present to represent the property owner J.A.R. Associates. Ben Doto, the project engineer, was also present. The property is in the IL-40 Zone. J.A.R. Associates also owns Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 2 the adjacent property where the DMV is currently located. On June 8, 2023 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances for this project. They then applied for the special exception with the Planning Commission. During that review by the City of Danbury Engineering Department, the City found a sewer main cutting thru the back corner of the property, and would have been located under the building as it sat with the original proposed location. This sewer main had not been on a map, and there was no easement on file for it. Mike Pierwola in the Engineering Department had contacted Ben Doto during the review. He had found an old Army Corp map showing the sewer line had been moved during the work with the Still River. Due to this, they had to withdraw the application to the Planning Commission. They needed to move the building from left to right to allow a 15 ft. area for the sewer line. They are moving towards the property line where the DMV is, which is property they also own. The building will be the same as previously designed. The hardship for the variance is the existence of the sewer line because they can’t place the building on top of the line. They had previous EIC approval for the project, and now the building will actually be farther from the Still River. The building is also consistent with the neighborhood. Ben Doto, project engineer, then clarified the sewer line is a 24” main trunk line. The trunk line services the southern half of downtown Danbury. Mike Pierwola had suspected it was there based on the plans he found. He and Public Utilities worked to locate it, and exposed the manhole which had been buried under the asphalt. He then shared plans on the screen. He showed how the original plan would have the sewer main under the building since the line had been relocated during the work on the Still River. The new plan then showed the building shifted approx. 14 ft. to the right. This would allow the City access to the manhole for any maintenance or service that may be required in the future. It would also allow for the possibility of an easement to be granted. He then showed a picture of the manhole after it had been exposed. He points out how beneficial it was that it was discovered now instead of during construction, which could have led to significant delays. Mr. Trotta asked if the manhole was previously buried and there was not access, then why would it be essential for access now. Mr. Doto said they had previously thought the manhole was about 30 ft. north on the riverbank. It is a 24” main, so they typically don’t backup due to the volume of water running thru. Attorney Beecher states that access is essential though if a problem does arise. Mr. Rivas asked if the City has requested an easement at this time, and, if they do, would another variance be required in the future to accommodate that. Attorney Beecher said he expects the easement to come up in the special exception process with the Planning Commission. The current design would allow for that easement to be granted without additional variances. No one was present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-01, 4 Lee Mac Ave., was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-01, 4 Lee Mac Ave., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-01, 4 Lee Mac Ave., per plan submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. The hardship is a result of the particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant or a predecessor in title. The variance will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. The project is in line with the neighborhood and the IL-40 Zone. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 3 Motion to open Application No. 24-03, 62 Franklin Street aka Hoyt St., for public hearing was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. #24-03: 62 Franklin Street aka Hoyt St., Marcus, Neil Esq., Agent; (H13046), R-3 Zone. Sec. 4.C.3. Reduce minimum lot size from 11,250 sq. ft. to 10,000 sq. ft. & Reduce minimum lot width from 100’ to 72’ for conversion to a three family dwelling Attorney Neil Marcus was present to represent the application. The house is an old 1917 residence on Franklin Street. The homeowners used to operate a retail store for high end women’s clothing on the first floor back then, in addition to their living space. The house is currently approved for a dental office for Dr. Schleider on the first floor and apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floors. It is located in the R-3 Zone. Since this approval for the property, the R-3 zone has been amended, and the dental office is now a non-conforming use. The dentist has since retired and closed the office, and the first floor is currently vacant. A floor plan of the original apartment was provided. They would like to convert the dental office back to this original two-bedroom apartment as depicted on the original floor plan. The kitchen and bathroom still exist in the original location. The living room and bedroom(s) were used for the operation of the dental office. A variance is required because the property only is 10,000 sq. ft. which is short of the required 11,250 sq. ft. for a three-family dwelling in the R-3 zone. That is equivalent to about 416.66 sq. ft. per apartment. The second variance is required because the lot width required is 100 ft. for this proposed use, but the lot is and always was only 72 ft. wide. The lot is pre-existing, non-conforming. Attorney Marcus believes these are two minor variance requests that would allow them to have a three-family dwelling on the property. The parking shown on the map was sufficient for the two apartments and the dental office. The dental office would typically have the dentist, 1-2 employees, and 2 patients that utilized the lot at a time. The parking for the 3 units would only require 6 spots in total, and currently the two tenants don’t usually have two cars each. The hardship is the pre-existing, non-conforming lot that pre-dates zoning. They would be reducing the non-conformity of the property if the variances are granted. The floor plan of the proposed third apartment shows a spacious two-bedroom apartment that could provide much needed work force housing in the City according to Attorney Marcus. The interior would not need any major renovations, and the exterior and parking would remain the same. They just need the lot width requirement reduced by 28 ft. and the density requirement reduced by 1,250 sq. ft. Mr. Rivas asked about the extent of interior work that would be required. Attorney Marcus states that most of the partitions and rooms are there. There would be some minor construction required to repair holes and such once the dental equipment is removed. Mr. DeLucia asked if they would consider taking down the garage in the future if more parking is required. Attorney Marcus states he believes the garage is typically used for storage and not parking cars, but that it could be used for parking if needed. Dr. Schleider clarifies that there are 6 spots, including the 2 in the garage which was actively used for parking. No one was present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-03, 62 Franklin Street aka Hoyt St., was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 4 Motion to open Application No. 24-03, 62 Franklin Street aka Hoyt St., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-03, 62 Franklin Street aka Hoyt St., was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. The approval is based that this is the minimum variance necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property. They would be reducing the non-conformity by removing the dental office and eliminating the parking requirement for that use. The lot is pre-existing, non-conforming. The variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. __________________________________________________________________________________ Motion to open Application No. 24-04, 24 Westwood Dr., for public hearing was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. #24-04: 24 Westwood Drive, Murad, Charles; (D13020), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce front yard setback from 40' to 33.6' & Reduce northern side yard setback from 25' to 15' for construction of a two-story addition and front covered porch Chuck and Laura Murad were present to represent their application. They are seeking a variance to reduce the front and side-yard setbacks. They are proposing an 18.5’x 28’ addition off the rear of the house. They have about 1.5 acres of land, but the house is pushed to the front and side. They do have a variance from 1991 for a deck off the northern side yard. With the addition, the house would remain three bedrooms. One of the current bedrooms would be eliminated to add to the open space concept of the home. They have submitted an A2 Survey, along with an approved B100 plan. They had deep holes and perk tests done for the B100. Mr. Rivas asked if they would be changing the septic system. Mr. Murad clarifies they would not be, but the B100 was a requirement by the Health Department. Mr. Rivas then states he saw the variance paperwork from 1991. He sees the variance was granted to allow the deck 4 ft. from the property line. The current survey shows the deck ½ ft. from the property line. Mr. Rivas asks if the current variance request is depicted accurately on the submitted survey. Mr. Murad said the approved plan in 1991 had a 3 ft. off-set. He had a current survey done by Sydney Rapp Land Surveying, and the current variances are based on the new survey. Mr. Rivas asked Mr. Murad if the deck was in fact ½ ft. from the property line; Mr. Murad confirms that it is. Mr. Rivas questions if the 15 ft. side-yard setback shown now is accurate. Mr. Murad said the addition would be coming off the same corner of the current house, and the 15 ft. does allow for the roof overhang which is depicted by the dotted line on the survey. Mr. Hanna asked if the City had approved the deck in relation to the 1991 variance. Mr. Murad said the 24’x 16’ deck has been constructed, and he has approved Building permits from the City. Mr. Rosati said a Zoning permit had been pulled to construct the deck and mirrored the approved variance. The Zoning permit was issued by Mr. Skelley to allow for construction, but the completed work was never inspected. The Zoning Compliance Certificate related to the permit was not signed. Mr. Murad said he did receive approval from the Building Department. Mr. Rosati clarified that in 1991 Building and Zoning were done separately, and he is only referring to the open Zoning permit that remains for the deck. There is no Certificate of Compliance for the deck. Mr. Murad said the footings were inspected and the deck isn’t over the property line. Mr. Rosati said Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 5 that Zoning never approved the deck, and it does not comply with the variance granted. There is a discrepancy with the old and new survey. Mr. Rosati will consult with Corporation Counsel regarding the situation. Mr. Murad is not sure what the deck has to do with the proposed addition. He states he had the A2 survey which now shows the deck ½ ft. off the property line instead of the 4 ft. The property line and the deck haven’t changed since the 1991 variance, and he doesn’t know why the permit was never closed. Mr. Hanna recognizes that Mr. Murad has the permits, but said he had needed a Zoning inspection. He would like advice from Corporation Counsel on the situation as the deck can’t remain unapproved. Mr. Rivas asks Mr. Rosati how this (the discrepancy) would be avoided today with the current processes. Mr. Rosati informs the Board that the permitting platform in combined now with all City departments thru the OpenGov platform, so this allows all staff to see any steps that haven’t been completed. Mr. Trotta asked if the deck would be grandfathered in since it has existed since 1991. Mr. Rosati said that he has to consult with Corporation Counsel. Mr. Hanna inquired whether they could vote on the new addition, and if approved, they could condition it that the applicant has to complete the old Zoning permit. Mr. Rosati said the new addition would be held up in Zoning now that they know there is an old open permit. Mr. Murad reiterates that he had the building inspections. Mr. Rosati restates that final building approval could not be issued since the Zoning inspection wasn’t completed. He would have to contact Corporation Counsel to determine if modifications would be required. Mr. Trotta wants to verify that they could vote on this application with the contingency that the deck be inspected and a Certificate of Occupany/ Compliance issued; Mr. Rosati confirms. No one present in support or opposition of the application. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-04, 24 Westwood Dr., was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-04, 24 Westwood Dr., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. During discussion, Mr. Rivas states that, per Mr. Rosati, Mr. Murad would have to clear up the issue with the deck before receiving the permit for the new addition. Mr. Trotta agrees that he should not use this variance for the addition until the deck issue is resolved. Mr. Rivas is concerned a new survey may be required based on what is required for the deck. Motion to approve Application No. 24-04, 24 Westwood Dr., with stipulation, per plan submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. The stipulation requires the applicant to rectify the conflict involving the deck and side-yard setback approved in the 1991 variance for the property. The applicant will have to have the Zoning permit closed out/ finalized thru the City of Danbury for the old deck that was the subject of the 1991 variance. The hardship for this approval is the odd shaped property that differs from other properties in the district in terms of shape. The variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. __________________________________________________________________________________ Motion to open Application No. 24-05, 11 Francis Rd., for public hearing was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Juan Rivas. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 6 #24-05: 11 Francis Road, 6 Brothers Carpentry, LLC; (J15364), RA-8 Zone. Sec 4.A.3. Reduce front yard setback from 20’ to 12’ & Reduce rear yard setback from 35’ to 14.8’ for construction of single family dwelling with covered porch Pedro Guaman, property owner, was present to represent this application. The shape of the lot doesn’t meet the required setback in the rear (35’ to 14.8’) or the front (20’ to 12’). These setback requests accommodate the overhang of the proposed home. Mr. Hanna asked about parking for the home. Mr. Guaman said the home would have a 2 car garage and additional parking in front. There is 40 ft. to the side of the garage to allow room to turn around. His hardship is the shape of the lot. Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Guaman how large the home would be; Mr. Guaman responds 2,800 sq. ft. Mr. Hanna asked why the home would be so large on such a small lot. Mr. Guaman said the home would meet the coverage requirements for the RA-8 zone. Mr. Hanna understands that. He said that he is allowed to build a home on the lot. He feels a modest home would be more appropriate than a huge house on a small lot. Mr. Guaman said he was looking to build a four-bedroom home with a two car garage. Mr. Hanna states he could make a smaller home, such as a three-bedroom home, with a two car garage. Mr. DeLucia visited the neighborhood, and most of the other homes are 1,200-1,400 sq. ft. Mr. Rivas also visited the property, and feels the proposed home is too large for the lot. With the proposed dwelling and deck in the rear, Mr. Rivas is concerned with the amount of yard space that would be left. He also noticed the neighborhood is comprised of smaller ranch style homes. Mr. Hanna feels if the house is slightly larger than the others, that is ok, but this would be double. He would like the applicant to come back with revised floor plans that would match the neighborhood. Mr. Trotta asks if there are any zoning issues based on the current plan for the City. Mr. Rosati said the current plan, other than the required variances, would be a conforming application based on height, parking, and the presence of city sewer and water. The coverage is only 15% proposed and 30% is allowed, and up to three stories would be allowed under zoning as well. Mr. Botelho asks for clarification of the hardship. Mr. Guaman states that the shape of the lot doesn’t allow him to meet the setbacks in the front and rear. He has three children, so wanted the additional bedrooms and bathrooms. Mr. Rivas tells Mr. Guaman that the lot is similar in size and shape to others in the neighborhood. Since it doesn’t differ, then that can’t be used as the hardship. Mr. Trotta asks the applicant if he could build a smaller home; Mr. Guaman states he could. No one was present in support of the application. Elizabeth Brink of 15 Francis Rd. was present in opposition of the application. She feels the home is too large for the neighborhood, and should be equivalent to the one-story homes in the area. Mr. Hanna asked if the applicant would be willing to modify his plan, and come back with floor plans showing the dimensions and layout of each floor. Mr. Guaman said he could make the home smaller and provide revised floor plans. He said he would be able to come back in two weeks for the April 25th meeting with the revised information. Motion to table and continue Application No. 24-05, 11 Francis Road, for revised plans for a smaller dwelling was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Brandon Botelho. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. __________________________________________________________________________________ Motion to open Application No. 24-06, 17 Miry Brook Rd., for public hearing was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 7 #24-06: 17 Miry Brook Road, Reedle Deedle Realty LLC; (G18019), IL-40 Zone. Sec. 6.A.3., 6.C.2(d), & 8.C.1.c(2): Allow parking in the front yard within 5’ of the property line on Miry Brook Road and within 0’of the property line with Wallingford Road. Sec. 6.C.2(b): Permit a landscape buffer of 5’ along Miry Brook Rd. and 0’ along Wallingford Road. Sec. 6.C.2(b), 8.C.3.b., & 8.D.3.: Permit alternative site landscaping in lieu of trees and zero street trees along frontage on Miry Brook Road and Wallingford Road. Sec. 6.A.5.g(3): Allow vehicular access to automotive sales center from Wallingford Road, a local street. Attorney Meaghan Miles of Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, & Hennessey on Church St. in New Haven, CT, was present to represent the applicant. She is joined by Bob Carinci, COO of Curry Automotive, and Curt Jones of the engineering team with Civil One. The applicant is affiliated with Curry Automotive. They are under contract to purchase 17 Miry Brook Road, property on the corner of Miry Brook Rd and Wallingford Rd., from Patterson Properties, LLC. They are seeking four variances in order to redevelop the site into a Ineos –Grenadier sales and service center, along with relocating Silver Star Auto Collision to the site. Attorney Miles shares a PowerPoint presentation with the Board. She shows a photo of a Grenadier truck which she describes as a 4x4 off-roading truck. She then describes Curry Automotive as a full service auto dealer. They currently own all the properties where their dealerships are operating, so they take care of the sites. They are currently constructing the Mercedes dealership across the street. Attorney Miles then provides a Google view of the property. The property is located in the IL- 40 zone, and is comprised of 1.4 acres. The property has frontage on Miry Brook Road and Wallingford Road. It is located next to the airport, and is surrounded by aviation uses. It is also next to the Kissen Brook. The site has constraints when it comes to development. The area is developing currently with multiple luxury auto dealerships. This particular site, 17 Miry Brook Road, has been historically used for commercial office and warehouse space. There are currently three structures on the site: a garage, a commercial office, and a warehouse, along with a lot of outdoor storage. DOT owns a portion of the frontage pursuant to a taking in the 1980s which affects where the property line is. Attorney Miles then presents multiple concept renderings of the project. They would demolish the front office structure and garage, and would construct a 3,600 sq. ft. addition to the warehouse. This would house the sales and service center, along with Silver Star Auto Collision. A site plan is then displayed on the screen by Attorney Miles. She points out the clear parking areas and circulation, along with the green areas. They are requesting four variances. One of the variances is for parking in the front yard. She shows on the site plan the setbacks which will have limited parking within the front-yard setbacks. The property line is marked on the site plan with lime green which she again points out is affected by the DOT taking on Wallingford Road. She then points out they would be removing the garage which is currently built over the property line. Another variance is the request to waive the requirement of street trees. In early meetings with staff, the airport does not want trees planted in the area. Trees can grow to become an obstruction while also attracting birds which is a hazard for aviation. Another requested variance would be to allow access to the dealership off a local road (Wallingford Road). A sales and service center are not permitted to access from a local road, but that would be their desire. A planting plan was then displayed. Attorney Miles states there would be landscape shrubbery and flowering bushes in place of trees on the site. This is a common variance near the airport, and was required for the Mercedes site as well. Attorney Miles then discusses the hardships for the variance requests. She states the hardship is the existence of site constraints not shared in all properties of the IL-40 zone. Because of the two street Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 8 frontages, the property has two front yards and two side yards for zoning. They are also restricted because they are so close to the airport and the existence of the water course. They are working with a site that currently has non-conformities and previous variances. They are looking for the minimal variances necessary to permit reasonable use of the site, and the project is in harmony with the area. The building itself is far from the setbacks. They are adding green space, so it will not be mostly pavement as it is now. They are maintaining the landscape buffer on Miry Brook, and will have landscaping on Wallingford Road. They will be reducing the non-conformities as currently there is one building over the property line and one within 15 ft. of the property line. In terms of the vehicle access from Wallingford Road, most of the frontage is on Wallingford Road. This requirement was created so dealerships couldn’t use residential roads for access. Wallingford Road service Mercedes and aviation uses. Because of the amount of frontage, it would be the appropriate access point and permits clear efficient circulation for the property. Attorney Miles continues that in 2020 the Zoning Commission amended the regulations to allow dealerships in the zone to permit growth. This area will have Mercedes, North American Car, Grendier, and others. Mr. Hanna asked if the addition would be the same height as the current warehouse. Attorney Miles said the addition would be slightly taller. Mr. Hanna asked if that had been approved with the airport. Attorney Miles stated they are in the aviation overlay zone as well, so there are additional regulations on height. When they go through the special exception process, they will actually need to get FAA approval for the height of the building, light poles, etc. They would proceed with the FAA approval if the variance is granted. Ms. Llera also stated on the record that Mike Safranek from the airport did review the plans, and emailed he did not have an issue with them. Mr. Rivas stated prior to the presentation he had questions regarding the landscaping, but feels Attorney Miles had clarified that with the landscaping plan. He asks what the plans are for the storm water runoff and retention for the property. He is concerned since they will be adding paved parking and the brook exists nearby. Curt Jones with the engineering team of Civil One responds to Mr. Rivas. He states the City of Danbury has rigorous requirements for storm drainage systems, and they were able to fulfill them at the Mercedes site. They have not designed the system for this particular site. They would work with the City’s Engineering Department to meet all their requirements while designing it. Attorney Miles clarifies that they also do not anticipate any work to be done in the 100 ft. upland review area for the wetlands. Mr. Rivas asks if vehicles would be sold and/ or kept on the site. Bob Carinici responds that Grenadier only currently has the 4x4 model, and will be coming out with a pickup and possibly a third model. There would be a few vehicles displayed inside and maybe 1-2 vehicles outside. Mr. Rivas asked for verification that with the small amount of vehicles, there would not be much to load or unload on the site. Attorney Miles said there was no loading or unloading of vehicles allowed per Planning Department review for Mercedes on the public roads, and would expect the same for this site. No one present in support or opposition of the application. Mr. Rivas asked Mr. Rosati for confirmation that the City of Danbury would ensure during the site plan approval process that there would not be off-loading of vehicles on the public roadway. Mr. Rosati confirmed. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-06, 17 Miry Brook Rd., was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 11, 2024 Page 9 Motion to open Application No. 24-06, 17 Miry Brook Rd., for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-06, 17 Miry Brook Rd., per plans submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Approval was based on the applicant making the site more appealing and less non-conforming. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning district and other provisions of the Regulations. The variance won’t adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with AYES: Peter DeLucia, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, Brandon Botelho, and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary