Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on October 15, 2024 at 3:30 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 September 12, 2024 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Juan Rivas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present by roll call were: Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and William Trotta. 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 Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: July 11, 2024 & August 22, 2024 Motion to accept the minutes from July 11, 2024 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Peter DeLucia, and Juan Rivas. Motion to accept the minutes from August 22, 2024 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 26, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING: Motion to open Application No. 24-12, 36 Newtown Road, for public hearing was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. #24-12: 36 Newtown Rd, 36 Newtown Road LLC, Lubus, Raymond C. Esq., Agent; (K13188), CG-20 Zone. Sec. 5.H.1.(b) eliminate front perimeter planting strip, Sec. 5.H.2. allow parking in front Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 12, 2024 Page 2 yard, Sec. 8.C.3.(b). eliminate landscape island for row of 5 parking spaces, reduce width of (1) landscape island from 8’ to 6’, and reduce tree requirement from 1 to 0 trees on one island for construction of a restaurant with no liquor permit. Attorney Ray Lubus was present to represent the application; joined by Ron Wolf, engineer, and Mario Luis, principle of LLC whom owns the property. The property is next to IHOP. It had served as an auto parts wholesale and retail space. The retail and parking for the retail space were located in the front. The property has a steep slope down and narrows in width as it goes back. There is a pre-existing nonconforming building on the site for setbacks. They have a proposed tenant that would have a restaurant on the upper level. They are requesting five variances which the engineer labeled on the plan. Ron Wolf, professional engineer from Woodbury, CT, was present to review each of the variances. On the left side of the property there is a landscape island proposed. The requirement is for 8 ft. in width, but they are requesting a variance to allow a 6 ft. wide island. There is currently no island and the left side of the property if used as a travel way. The addition of the island would prevent inappropriate access and make it less nonconforming. They are also proposing 7 parking spaces in front of the building, including one handicap space. The spaces would be 18 ft. deep which means 2.5 ft. would be located in the front yard setback. Historically the parking for the parts store was in this location. Another variance is for the landscape strip on the street by Newtown Road. They will be introducing a sidewalk, so they can’t achieve the landscape perimeter with the sidewalk, parking in front and 24’ wide driveway requirement. There is a row of 5 parking spaces on the north side of the building that has an island on the easterly side. They are asking for a variance to eliminate the other required island due to needing a retaining wall on the front, right corner of the building due to the grades. Mr. Lubus adds there is a significant drop at the retaining wall. Mr. Wolf states they need the retaining wall to maintain the grades and handicap accessibility. Mr. Wolf continues to the variance to have no tree on one island on the side of the 5 parking spaces. This would be required to maintain sightlines, and he adds the lack of sunlight in the area would limit survival. Attorney Lubus informs the Commissioners that they were originally seeking a variance for driveway width. They were able to correct that to eliminate that variance request. In addition, the rear will be the loading area so maintaining the sightlines with the elimination of the tree is important. Mr. Botelho asks if the sidewalk on Newtown Road would be 36”. Mr. Wolf states it will be a 4 ft. sidewalk. Attorney Lubus adds the sidewalk will extend from the adjacent IHOP property to this property. Mr. DeLucia notes that Newtown Road/ Route 6 is a State road. He asks if they have been in contact with DOT. Mr. Lubus said they are not changing access ways, so it has not been required. Mr. Wolf adds they will contact DOT for the encroachment when adding the sidewalk. Mr. Botelho clarifies that the restaurant will be on the second floor, and inquires what will be on the first floor. Attorney Lubus clarifies that the second floor is street level. The downstairs will be used for storage. Mr. Rivas asks how many total parking spots there will be; Mr. Wolf replies 18. Attorney Lubus said they calculated 1 space per 4 seats and 1 space per employee. Mr. Rivas states he visited the property today and saw parking next to a residential house on the north side, and wonders if that will stay. Attorney Lubus clarifies the house used to be residential, but it is currently used as a commercial office space and also owned by Mr. Luis. The plan doesn’t account for using any parking on that parcel or the adjacent residentially zoned parcel also owned by Mr. Luis. Mr. Rivas also noticed on-site a curb cut with entrance and exit arrows, and wonders if that will remain. Mr. Wolf said that is a shared apron with Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 12, 2024 Page 3 IHOP as it sits on both properties. There are no changes to the street apron except for the sidewalk installation. Mr. Rivas saw a 6-10 ft. high door on the north side, and asks if there would be proposed parking under the door. Mr. Wolf clarifies on the plan that there would be an access ramp leading to that door to deliver supplies to the kitchen and is shown in beige on the plan. Mr. Rivas said there is an unconnected electrical hookup on the southeast corner, and he wonders where the hookup to the building will be. Mr. Luis responds the electrical panel will be at the end of the ramp or under the ramp if the height allows. Mr. Rivas asks if it will interfere with any parking; Mr. Luis said no. Mr. Rivas questions what kind of restaurant is proposed, as he is concerned with the amount of car and foot traffic generated. Mr. Wolf said they sized the number of parking spaces based on the zoning regulations and number of seats approved. They have not performed a traffic study yet. Attorney Lubus said the proposed tenant is Favi. Mr. Trotta asks what type of food. Attorney Lubus said it is sandwiches and would have about 18 seats. Mr. Rivas is concerned that once they grant the variance it stays with the property; Mr. Lubus said the application was tailored to this particular use. Mr. Rivas notices on the plan the grease trap and abandoned leeching galleries in the front by the parking, and wonders if the parking will affect access to those. Mr. Wolf replies the galleries are for the old septic system. The structures will have H20 loaded manhole access points, so they can be accessed and driven over. Mr. Rivas then asks for expansion on the hardship. They stated the hardship was the shape of the lot and area the lot is in. In Section 11.B.1 of the Zoning Regulations the hardship has to differ in kinds from the properties in the district. He feels the businesses in the area are on similar lots in regards to shape and nomenclature. Attorney Lubus responds that IHOP is a rectangle lot so parking is more accessible. The hardship is the uniqueness of the property. It differs in configuration. It also has an existing commercial building whose location limits parking. The parking is forced to the front due the steepness, need for the retaining wall, and placement of the pre-existing building. There is also a watercourse in the rear they have to avoid. No further comments or questions from the Board. Vice Chair Juan Rivas asked for anyone in favor of the application; no one spoke. Vice Chair Juan Rivas asked for anyone in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-12, 36 Newtown Road, was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Motion to open Application No. 24-12, 36 Newtown Road, for voting session was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Anthony Rebeiro shared his belief that the proposed plan would be an improvement from the existing conditions on the site. Motion to approve Application No. 24-12, 36 Newtown Road, per plan submitted was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by William Trotta. Mr. Rebeiro states the hardship is the contour of the property and shape of the lot. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. OTHER MATTERS: Discussion of switching to Zoom platform Secretary Melissa Llera informed the Commission that the September 26th meeting will be Zoom in order to achieve a quorum. There will be Commissioners traveling in October, so it is up to the Commission on whether they switch to Zoom. Commissioners Rebeiro and Bothelho both state they Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes September 12, 2024 Page 4 prefer in person meetings. Mr. Hearty states we need to be able to achieve a quorum. Zoom would allow Commissioners to attend while traveling. A decision doesn’t need to be made tonight. Mr. Trotta feels they could see what attendance would be for the meetings and make a decision from there. The final settlement is that September 26th meeting will be held via Zoom to achieve a quorum. Subsequent meetings will be decided for in-person versus Zoom based on member availability. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary