Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on September 16, 2024 at 10:51 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 August 22, 2024 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Juan Rivas called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Vice Chair Juan Rivas seated alternate William Trotta for Brandon Botelho. Absent were Brandon Botelho, Joseph Hanna, and Rick Roos. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: July 11, 2024 Motion to table acceptance of the minutes to the September 12th meeting due to lack of an eligible quorum was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 12, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING: Vice Chair Juan Rivas informs Attorney Beecher that he will be presenting to a four-man board which will require a unanimous vote for approval. Attorney Beecher acknowledges and agrees to proceed. Motion to open Public Hearing for Application No. 24-11, 160-162 Deer Hill Ave., was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 2 #24-11: 160-162 Deer Hill Avenue, First Congregational Church & Ecclesiastical Society, Beecher, Thomas, Esq., Agent; (I14104 & I14105), RH-3 Zone. Sec 4.D.2.a.(2) & 4.D.4.b.(1) eliminate parking screening on West St. and front yard landscaping req. for church, Sec. 4.D.3.a & 3.H.2 allow max. building coverage from 30% to 36.13%, Sec. 4.D.3.a. & 3.I allow usable open space in front yards and eliminate “exclusive use” req., Sec. 4.D.3.a. reduce front yard setback from 20’ to 12.28’, Sec. 4.G.1, 4.G.3.b.(1), 4.G.4.b.(1) & 8.C.1.c.(2) allow front yard parking between street and building on West St. side, Sec. 4.G.3.a.(2) eliminate full screening of parking on sides of property, Sec. 4.G.3.a.(3) & 4.G.4.a.(2) eliminate front yard landscaping on West St., Sec. 4.G.4.c. eliminate full compliance with landscaping req. resulting from expansion of existing building, Sec. 8.A.2.c. allow grading within 5’ of property line, Sec. 8.C.3.a. & 8.C.3.b.(1) eliminate landscape islands adjacent to sidewalk and in parking rows for construction of elderly apartment building Attorney Tom Beecher of Collins Hannifan was present to represent the application, along with Bob Botelho of Victorian Associates and Dainius Virbickus, professional engineer. Attorney Beecher presented information on the application. The First Congregational Church owns the two properties. Mr. Botelho has been working to improve the church’s building and grounds, and he is the prospective purchaser of the properties. There would be a perpetual lease back to the church for the church building. The two properties would also be merged. The proposal is for 30 deed restricted apartments for residents 55 and older. The church building would remain tax exempt, but the apartment building would be taxable. Mr. Botelho has other projects in the City that have affordable housing, but he can’t promise for this project until he gets further along with pricing of the project. He intends to try and have affordable housing. Mr. Botelho also assisted the Baptist Church on Granville Avenue which was granted variances four years ago. He added an early childhood learning center which is leased to the City. There are also buildings on Osborne and Cleveland Street that have affordable units in them. The church tower and spire would be clearly visible with the proposed project. The apartment building would be brick which would match the church, City Hall, and nearby building on West Street. The church and apartment building would be connected in the rear. The rear elevator would be accessible for both buildings to allow the church handicap accessibility as well. This would also allow the residents access to the church without worrying about inclement weather. The access would be secure so only the residents could access the apartment building. The current church building was built in 1909, but the congregation was started in 1696. A petition in favor of the application was signed by church members and presented with the application. Attorney Beecher also acknowledges a letter by Farley Santos, which was provided to the Board prior to the meeting, in full support of the application. Attorney Beecher reads portions of the letter by Mr. Santos into the record. The project would allow historical preservation of the church, along with the construction of elderly housing. The property is 1.4 acres located on the corner of West Street and Deer Hill Avenue. The property has two front yards as far as zoning. It is located in the RH-3 zone which allows buildings up to 75 ft. tall. Attorney Beecher informs the Board that he and Mr. Botelho had met with Sharon Calitro, Jennifer Emminger and Allie Smith in the Planning Department about a year ago regarding the project. They were also supportive as a whole of the project. Attorney Beecher then provides a review of the variances required. He acknowledged a lot of sections are included, but many are related to the same relief. In terms of the parking screening, the church is currently a valid non-conforming property, and they are asking for relief on the front yard landscaping. Improvements have been made already to the landscaping, and pictures of those improvements are submitted for the record. There will be further landscaping in the future as well. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 3 The variance request for the maximum building coverage would allow the project to have sufficient parking and the connection between the church and apartment building. The request is for about 3,000 sq. ft., and it would not make sense to demo a portion of the church to alleviate this. The front yard setback variance is to allow for the front entrance/ portico and handicap ramp. The building itself would be farther than the required 20 ft., but the other aspects would not be. The variances for useable open space in the front yard and elimination of the “exclusive use” would allow the whole grounds, including the lawn area by West Street, to be used by both residents and the church. The don’t want to segregate areas. Also in order for them to meet the open space requirements, the front yard green space would need to qualify. They are also looking to increase from 3 to 5 parking spaces off the existing West Street driveway which triggers the grading within 5 ft. of the property line. In addition to two front yards, the property has two side yards for zoning. They are not able to accommodate the required screening along the border between the church and Armory properties due to the driveway. There will be plantings along the south side where feasible. There is also a variance for the elimination of landscape islands which they see as a safety and convenience factor. It also allows them to have enough parking on the site, and it is consistent with the non-conforming areas currently on the site. Attorney Beecher then acknowledges the concerns contained in the letter of opposition from Mr. Silva that the Board received. He sees Mr. Silva has concerns over drainage issues. He clarifies that the project engineer will be required to submit a storm water management plan as part of the Planning & Zoning Department’s site plan review process. Dainius Virbickus, professional engineer with Artel Engineering, was also present for the applicant, and shared information about the preliminary site plan he prepared. It would also be submitted for site plan review. He reiterates that the properties are 1.4 acres, and the two lots will be merged in the future. He presents a plan of existing conditions to the Board which shows the current green areas on the property. In addition, there are currently two curb cuts on Deer Hill Avenue and one off of West St. The proposed site plan is then presented notating the lawn areas in green and proposed addition in tan. The proposed addition would be 7 stories with grade level parking. There will be 15 parking spaces under the building and an additional 50 surface parking spaces for a total of 65 parking spaces, including 3 handicap spaces. They had to increase the impervious coverage to accommodate the parking, so it took away from the potential open space. The open space requirement is 500 sq. ft. per unit, and they proposed 30 units, which is a total of 15,000 sq. ft. Open space is not allowed in side yard setbacks, so this is a challenge with the property’s two front and two side yards. Mr. Virbickus then begins to review some of the variances. In regards to the landscaping and parking along West Street, they would be required to have a 20 ft. wide landscape strip on the front, but since they are adding parking and have the driveway they are seeking a variance. Also this would require a variance to allow parking in the front yard; they will be including a handicap space in this area. They are also asking for grading within 5 ft. of the property line due to this as well. The plan only has 1 driveway entrance on Deer Hill Avenue versus the current 2 curb cuts. For the front yard setback request, that would be for the front entryway to the building. For the open space, it is usually not allowed in the front yard either, but with the existing church location and lawn area on West Street, they are hoping for this to be included. They are proposing an open space area in the rear within the side yard setback that may contain a fountain and seating area. They need about 15,000 sq. ft. of open space, and the West Street lawn area and rear sitting area gives them about 6,500 sq. ft. The rest of the open space would be the deck for the units, meeting rooms, craft rooms, and open rooftop area. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 4 Attorney Beecher clarifies for the record that during the Planning meeting, these ideas were discussed in detail and would qualify for the open space requirement. Bob Botelho of Victorian Associates then spoke. He is a Danbury resident. He also disclosed he is a member of the Zoning Commission, but is able to speak since he is a principle of Victorian Associates. He was approached 3 years ago by Mayor Esposito about the church’s problem, and the Mayor stated the City of Danbury couldn’t keep the church alive. The Mayor asked Mr. Botelho if he could help since he had helped the church on Granville Avenue. Mr. Botelho said he went and visited the church and Pastor Pat about 3 years ago, along with meeting other members of the congregation and doing walk-throughs alone of the grounds. There was a good chemistry between them. This church was the first church in Danbury and were involved with the division of church and state. The church has documents from the President back then. The church has acted as a backup shelter over the years, so it is an important part of the community. He explored a lot of ideas, including a performing arts center, and ended up with the idea of senior housing. He formed a three-point plan so the church, the City, and himself all would have an agreement. Mayor Esposito was in favor of the senior housing. Mr. Botelho has been working with the church to reduce their costs like insurance. He has taken over the maintenance of the church with the use of his staff. He had his architect create renderings which he presents. The church’s steeple will be higher than everything still. The apartment building would have the same brick look with the Georgian Colonial style that fits in with Deer Hill. The floor plans show 30 one-bedroom units ranging from 888-1,0888 sq. ft. There will be 3 units on the bottom floor with a workout room, movie theater room, and other amenities. There will be 3 penthouse apartments on the top floor with the open space area. The other 4 floors will have 6 units each. The units will have an accessory room which could be a TV room or a room for an aide to have their own space. Aides can become a need for elderly people. There will be 2 elevators: 1 in the lobby and an oversized one in the rear for the church and apartments. The rear elevator will also accommodate a gurney as needed. Mr. Rivas asks if the apartment building will be attached to the church. Mr. Botelho responds that residents will be able to walk from the Victorian Regency to the church through a secure connection. A passcode will prevent church members from accessing the apartment building. Mr. Rivas asks for clarification about the intention to have affordable housing. Mr. Botelho said the project hasn’t gone out to bid yet, so he doesn’t know what his costs will be. He will work to make affordable units, but can’t promise yet. He has been in business for 55 years and will work to keep costs down through the use of his connections. He does need to cover his costs and the church’s expenses as part of this project though. He is working on a business model for the church to increase their income through the thrift shop, antennae in the steeple, and income from other aspects within the congregation, so hopefully they could support themselves in the future. Mr. Rivas asks about the need for the grading variance. Mr. Botelho clarifies that would be expanding the parking spaces on West Street from 3 to 5 spaces, including an ADA space. Attorney Beecher also adds that the space between the church and boundary line is very tight in that area, so any work almost falls within the 5 ft. Mr. Rivas understands they can’t have hedges in certain areas, but asks what landscaping would be done. Mr. Botelho said they can’t do landscaping between them and Harombee because of the driveway. On the rest of the property, if there is room for trees and plants, he will have them such as cypress trees. He aims to be a good neighbor at all of his properties. Mr. Rivas asks about the drainage plan for the parking area since they are asking for the island variance. Attorney Beecher said, if the variances are approved, they would go to site plan review. This would require their storm water management plans and calculations to be vetted by the City Planning and Engineering staff. It will likely be better than it Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 5 is now. Mr. Botelho adds that they will be required to have silt fence and other controls during construction as well. Mr. Rivas asks Mr. Hearty about the parking requirement since they show 65 spaces. Mr. Hearty points out the parking table shown on the site plan. Mr. Hearty asked Attorney Beecher for confirmation that the parking requirements are being met; Attorney Beecher confirms. Mr. DeLucia asks for confirmation that the front yard setback request is only for the portico; Attorney Beecher confirms. Mr. Botelho adds that the portico helps make the building look better. Mr. DeLucia asks for confirmation that will have the required open space; Mr. Botelho confirms if they can use the front and side yards then they would be well over the 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Rivas asks for more details regarding the proposed sitting garden shown on the plan on the West Street side. Mr. Botelho said he likes to have a flag somewhere, so he imagined a flag with a sitting area around. He would get input from the church as well for the final design. Attorney Beecher says there will also be a sitting garden in the back off West Street with a possible gazebo. Mr Botelho adds they currently expanded the Belgian block and removed 3 rotted maple trees. He also is looking to change some windows for the church and other projects, so the landscaping and sitting garden would be last to allow access for equipment. Pastor Pat of First Congregational Church, pastor of 13 years, then spoke regarding the application. She said the response was overwhelming from the public when they heard the church needed help. She then provided a detailed history of the church/ congregation. She said the church needs a leader with a vision to help them keep going and be able to share their building with other faiths and cultural groups. Vice Chair Rivas asked if anyone was in favor of the application. Multiple people in the audience raised their hands. Mr. Rivas asked if anyone would like to speak in favor; no one rose. Vice Chair Rivas asked if anyone was in opposition to the application. Larry MooreMouning, executive director of The Armory/ Harombee Center, stated his concerns about how they will be affected because no one has approached them while planning this project. He is in favor of helping seniors. He is concerned how the project would affect their use of the driveway and their use of their space such as their fundraising parties. He requests they keep the hearing open to allow the Harombee Center the chance to get more information about the project. Mr. Rivas clarifies that they are just ruling on the variances, and the project has many more steps of approval after them. Ernesto Rodriguez of 23 Thorpe St spoke in opposition to the project. He has safety concerns about flooding of the neighborhood during and after construction. He understands it may be improved, but that is not a guarantee. He also has concerns about the increase in traffic, and feels the driveway will make it like a 4-way intersection with the driveway of City Hall. He believes the 7 story building doesn’t fit in with the street. He states the Board denied Dorothy Day and Pacific House variances who were asking way less than this application. He also submitted photos of flooding into the record. Vice Chair Rivas asked for anyone else in opposition; no one rose. Attorney Beecher provided a rebuttal to the concerns shared. He reiterates that traffic and stormwater concerns will be reviewed during site plan review. Mr. Botelho adds that the church has been benevolent to allow parking in the driveway, etc., but the alley is intended for transport and not parking. He recommends the Harombee Center talk to the City and explore their options. In regards to the look, Mr. Botelho said he went with the Georgian Colonial look to match the aesthetics, and the height is allowed in the RH-3 zone. Attorney Beecher then clarifies that the Harombee Center did Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 6 receive notice about the application prior. He also says it is within the general intent of the RH-3 zone and won’t adversely affect the health, safety and welfare. He is hopeful a decision is reached tonight. Mr. Trotta shares that he had previously been involved with the Harombee Center, and agrees that parking in the rear is tough. He feels it is a large building. He asked for clarification on the arrangement and if it will be senior housing. Mr. Botelho said he will be the landlord. The housing will be for 55 and older per the CT senior housing regulations. Mr. Trotta feels it is commendable to help the church, but he was still surprised by the size of the building compared to the rest of Deer Hill even though the height is allowed. He also acknowledges the building will be additional tax revenue for the City. Mr. Botelho responds that the church steeple will be 65 ft. taller than the building. In addition, with the new City Planning Director’s vision for downtown, there will be more buildings like this. Since it is senior housing, they don’t believe all the residents will have cars which will alleviate traffic concerns. Mr. Trotta said that 55-65 will likely still have cars and be working. Mr. Botelho clarifies that the State of Connecticut sets the age for senior housing as 55 and older. Pastor Pat then shares her thoughts on the benefits of the programs that would be possible and would assist with the loneliness of seniors. Mr. Hearty clarifies that typically ZBA procedures include a presentation by the applicant/ representative, then people in favor or opposition, and then a rebuttal by the applicant/ representative. He understands that additional people want to speak from the public after the rebuttal, and it would be up to the attorney and Board to allow them. Attorney Beecher clarifies that himself, Mr. Botelho, and Pastor Pat had a collective rebuttal. Vice Chair Rivas asked the Board if they are open to allowing the public to speak in favor or opposition again; they agree. Vice Chair Rivas asks for anyone in favor of the application. Greg Pings of 97 Park Avenue spoke in favor of the application. He is responsible for the digital outreach for the church. He shared a story about how the community comes together to provide a cooler of water for people in need. He sees this application as a way to help the congregation survive and be a positive force in the community. Patricia Moriarty of 35 Wooster Heights spoke in favor of the application. She runs the thrift store for the church. She said in two years they won’t exist if this doesn’t pass. If they aren’t there, there is no way to know what a developer will put in the church’s place. Ben Chianese, Councilman for the 5th Ward, spoke in favor. He has been advocating for the lack of senior housing. This proposal would allow seniors to age in place (at home), especially with the second room for the aides. He would prefer 65 and older because most 55 year olds have cars and drive which will lead to additional traffic. He would also like clarification on the traffic patterns and driveway dimensions to allow proper access for emergency vehicles. He has concerns over the additional traffic. He also hopes that the 75 ft. height could be worked on. Mr. Chianese states that 10 variances is a lot and their hardships can’t be self-created. He questions whether the zone is adequate to support the project. Overall he feels it is good for the City. Vice Chair Rivas asks for others in favor; no one else requested to speak. Vice Chair Rivas then asks for anyone else in opposition of the application. Andrea Gartner of 112 Deer Hill spoke in opposition. She believes the weight of the building is a lot for the neighborhood. She also feels they should integrate the diversity of the neighborhood more, and recommends painting a mural to help soften the building. She then questions the ZBA’s reclusion clause in terms of having a conflict of interest as she feels two of the members have had past dealings with the applicant. She is unsure if they should have disclosed that prior as Mr. Bothelho disclosed himself being on the Zoning Commission. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 7 Larry MooreMouning of the Harombee Center spoke again in opposition. He reiterates their desire to have time to get more information on the project. He knows parking has always been an issue, and they do use the City parking lots after hours. He states the alleyway has always been used for parking and things, such as when the church uses it for their flea market. Vice Chair Rivas asked if anyone else was in opposition; no one else requested to speak. He then offers Attorney Beecher the opportunity for rebuttal. Attorney Beecher reiterates that traffic and emergency vehicle access will be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Department. In addition, it is a two-way driveway from Deer Hill, so access for emergency vehicles will not be a problem. Mr. Rebeiro agrees with Attorney Beecher that the Fire Marshall will be included in the review for emergency vehicle access, along with the Engineering Department reviewing and conditioning the storm water management. Vice Chair Rivas asks Mr. Hearty to clarify the reclusion concerns that had been brought up. Mr. Hearty replies that the Board has the proper background for any sort of ethical decisions they have in front of them, and feels it is a moot point. Motion to close Public Hearing for Application No. 24-11, 160-162 Deer Hill Avenue, was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Motion to open Application No. 24-11, 160-162 Deer Hill Avenue, for voting session and discussion was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Mr. Rebeiro acknowledges he works in the construction industry and is aware of all the new regulations and rules. He is confident that because of the new regulations, handling of the water runoff would be improved with this project. In addition, he knows the City of Danbury will require certain conditions during construction that at times are costly for the contractor. Prior to this application, Mr. Rebeiro wasn’t aware there was a river in this area. In addition, he also knows the fire department will be involved in the review and will address the concerns for egress. Mr. Rivas states he had a lot of questions prior to the presentations this evening, but feels more comfortable after the information provided by Attorney Beecher and Mr. Botelho. He also sees the deed restriction for senior housing as a safe guard in the application. Mr. Rebeiro asks Mr. Hearty, since variances are typically approved per plans submitted, would the variances still go with the land? Mr. Hearty responds that “per plans submitted” has a lot of pull, so any major modification would trigger the project to come back to the Board. Mr. Trotta expresses concern of the size and height of the proposed building and how it affects the area. Mr. DeLucia clarifies they are not asking for a height variance, and the height is allowed via the zoning regulations. Mr. Trotta understands that, but feels that what can be done and what is done can be two different things. Motion to approve Application No. 24-11, 160-162 Deer Hill Avenue, per plans submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Sean Hearty asked Mr. DeLucia for confirmation that he read the variance requests during his approval motion from the public hearing docket; Mr. DeLucia confirmed. Mr. Hearty asked Mr. DeLucia to clarify his reasoning for the approval. Mr. DeLucia acknowledges the need for senior housing and creation of the required open spaces on the plans. He notes the properties two front yards which creates the need for some of the variances. In addition, the project won’t adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. A Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 22, 2024 Page 8 second roll call vote was called for by Vice Chair Rivas after Mr. DeLucia clarified his reasons for approval. Motion passed unanimously with AYES via roll call vote: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary