Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on October 28, 2024 at 11:26 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 October 10, 2024 6:30 p.m. 6:30 p.m.: ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the training session to order at 6:30 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Anthony Rebeiro. TRAINING SESSIONS FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: Joseph Mortelliti of Cramer & Anderson LLP provided training to commission members. He covered various topics including motions, hardships, and imposing conditions. __________________________________________________________________________________ 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Anthony Rebeiro. Absent was Peter DeLucia. Alternate William Trotta voted in-place of Mr. DeLucia for all items on the agenda. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. A moment of silence was held for former ZBA Chairman Richard Jowdy who passed away. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: September 12, 2024 Motion to accept the minutes from September 12, 2024 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Anthony Rebeiro. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2024 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 2 Motion to open Public Hearings for Applications #24-13, 333 Main Street, and #24-15, PND SP 01-03/11, Woodland Road, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, Anthony Rebeiro, and Joseph Hanna. PUBLIC HEARINGS: #24-13: 333 Main Street, Newell Juan, Maura, Seventy2architects; (I13034), C-CBD Zone. Sec. 8.E.4.a.(7)(b) Increase maximum height of sign from 20’ to 72’ above ground level, Sec. 8.E.2(c) Increase maximum area of sign from 24’ to 70’ Maura Newell Juan, the principal architect from Seventy2architects, was present to represent the application. She also did work on Brookview West and News Times sites. The variance is for the signage at Brookview Commons. Due to the unique size and location, a larger and taller sign is required. The letters would glow at night. This would help vehicular traffic see the sign, and would reduce confusion with the original entrance on Crosby Street. Having the prominent sign would get more cars off the road quicker. The sign is taller and larger than allowed. They would be using 16” letters which is under the 18” allowance. Mr. Hanna asks why the sign needs to be so high. Ms. Newell Juan said that would have the sign visible from Main Street without any obstructions such as trees blocking the view. It is also part of the building design. Mr. Hanna asks about how large the sign is as well. Ms. Newell Juan said the sign would be in scale with the building, and would act as part of the building design. The building is a new design for Main Street and she believes the sign fits with the building. Mr. Hanna expresses concern that the size and height are three times larger than allowed. Mr. Trotta asked about the lighting for the sign. Ms. Newell Juan said the letters will be halo lit. The regulations require indirect lighting. LEDs are a new lighting option where you don’t see the bulb and the letters appear to glow. Mr. Rivas asks about the light pollution and lumens emitted. Ms. Newell Juan replies that she didn’t do the calculations, but it would not be like a sign seen in Vegas. Mr. Rivas states he read the hardship, and is hoping they could expand with something that follows the ZBA conditions of approval. Ms. Newell Juan states that they are looking to improve public safety by getting more cars off the road. Mr. Rivas feels the size, height, and lighting could actually serve as a distraction to drivers on Main Street. Ms. Newell Juan said they are looking to have the sign visible to people who are looking, but not like a billboard. Mr. Trotta questions why the sign location couldn’t be changed to where the “333” is depicted in the rendering photo. It could be a smaller illuminated sign there. Ms. Newell Juan said the “333” is located above the door to the retail space. The entrance to the apartments is in the rear, and they don’t want people entering the retail space looking for the leasing office. Mr. Hanna expresses concern that the height is too much. He feels it could cause an accident with people looking that far up. He believes it would be better in line with the current heights of signs on Main Street. Dan Bertram, building owner, is present in support of the design team. He responds that the building is larger and taller than other buildings. The market is evolving with buildings that will be built. The sign is consistent with the building scale. He has built a bridge to connect the first phase of Brookview East with this property. In addition, he purchased the Crown Plaza property and has sign ideas for that project. He shows an example to the Board of a halo lit sign. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 3 Mr. Hanna feels they could ask for something reasonable. He does not feel that asking for something three times the regulation is reasonable. Mr. Bertram appreciates the feedback, and understands they don’t seem to support the application. He feels it is clear that the sign regulations haven’t been modified since taller buildings have been allowed. Maybe he will look into a zoning regulation change instead. He feels it is a nice design with the new LED lighting which would be muted. It is very classy and would improve the area. Mr. Botelho asks if you could see a 70 ft. high sign if going south on Main Street in the area; he doesn’t feel you could if you are looking at the road. Mr. Bertram responds that the sign could be seen from many different places. He is looking to refine the theme of the overall complex including the sign design. Mr. Hanna again questions the hardship. He likes the design of the sign, but not the size or height. He feels it is too much of a change from the regulations. He understands Mr. Bertram built a big building which brings an income, but the hardship can’t be financial. Mr. Bertram responds that the ZBA has approved other applications without a true hardship. He feels the hardship would be the zoning regulations not keeping up with the building height. He helped with the regulation change for building height, but they did not get to the sign regulations. Mr. Rebeiro says that most of the sign regulations were originally for free standing signs probably. Maybe Mr. Bertram should look into adjusting the sign regulations and distinguishing between free standing and building mounted signs. Mr. Bertram feels the 20 ft. regulation is not appropriate for a building this size, and does not feel the sign will be a distraction. If the Board doesn’t approve, then he will figure out his next steps in the process. Mr. Hanna reiterates his concern for public safety if people are looking up at the sign instead of straight ahead when driving. He brings up the denial for the sign for the Chamber of Commerce in the past that they had the same concerns. Mr. Bertram said he wasn’t aware of that denial or he may not have applied. He doesn’t believe it is a public safety concern. He believes it is an enhancement to downtown, and the regulations are just not in line with the buildings that can be built. He feels the Board should look at the application as an exception, not a right. He clarifies the building is already up and operating, and the sign is the last piece. Mr. Trotta asks for clarification that there is not currently a sign up, and the picture is just a rendering of what is proposed; Mr. Bertram confirms the space on the building is empty now. Ms. Newell Juan confirms it is a rendering. She also responds in terms of the previous lighting question that the light would be comparable to that coming from someone’s apartment window. Mr. Rivas understands that, but feels since the variance stays with the land, that the lighting information should be provided. Mr. Bertram offers to continue to the public hearing so they can provide the requested metrics for the lighting. Mr. Trotta comments that it seems they are dealing with the architectural ego in regards to the signs placement. Mr. Bertram feels more letters on the ground level would be more of a distraction. Currently the “333” grabs the attention, and any additional information is provided in the windows of the retail space. He brings up Kennedy Flats who got a sign variance. He also agrees that there is a heavy stylistic piece to this request. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in favor of this application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was in opposition of the application. Duane Perkins, a member of City Council, who resides at 22 Main St, Danbury, is in opposition. He feels the applicant needs to prove a hardship that is neither financial or self-created. He feels the height is a hazard, and states other buildings in the past had low signs that were seen. In addition, he feels the Board would be setting a precedent for future projects. He feels most of the hardships listed on the application by the applicant were self-created. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 4 No one else was present in opposition of the application. Mr. Bertram reiterates that if the Board continues the public hearing to the next meeting that they could provide the data requested on the lighting. Mr. Hearty clarifies that Mr. Bertram offered to have a continuance of the lighting data if that is what the Board would like. Mr. Rebeiro agrees the sign looks appropriate for the size of building, but feels it is a huge departure from the regulations. He feels it would be best to look at changing the regulations. He doesn’t believe the information on the illumination will make or break the application. He doesn’t feel the Board can grant this big of a change. Mr. Hanna is in agreement regarding the regulation change. Mr. Bertram states he would consider withdrawing prior to the next meeting if he doesn’t have new information. Motion to continue public hearing for Application No. 24-13, 333 Main Street, was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Juan Rivas. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, Anthony Rebeiro, and Joseph Hanna. __________________________________________________________________________________ #24-15: PND SP 01-03/11, Woodland Road, Toll Northeast V Corp; (B16003), PND Zone. Sec. 3.G.3.b. Increase maximum building height from 15’ to 19’4” for construction of clubhouse Jason Gottlieb of Toll Brothers was present to represent the application. He has worked in Danbury for 8 years and helped to build out The Rivington project. They are requesting a variance for the clubhouse. The clubhouse is about 3,200 sq. ft., and is an amenity structure that is part of the approved plans. The maximum height for an accessory structure is 15 ft., and they are requesting 19.4’. The height would allow for adequate roof pitch and interior height for the gym and great room. Most of the single family homes in the area will exceed that height. He provided a rendering, along with floor plans and elevations. Mr. Botelho asked why they couldn’t extend the building out instead of up. Mr. Gottlieb responds they aren’t looking to grow the footprint, but need the roof pitches to work for adequate height inside. Mr. Botelho asks about removing the gable ends to reduce the height. Mr. Gottlieb said architecturally they are looking to maintain the two-story vestibule and great room, along with the height for the gym. Mr. Rebeiro notices that the elevation drawing isn’t to the peak of the roof. Mr. Gottlieb responds that it is showing the mean height of the roof. Mr. Hearty clarifies that the height is based on the mean between the peak, eave and ground level. Mr. Botelho asks again about making the building longer instead of taller. Mr. Gottlieb said the footprint is part of the approved site plan, and they are not looking to expand. He feels the height needs to be as proposed. Mr. Rivas asks Mr. Hearty about any regulations that would affect them expanding the footprint. Mr. Hearty informs the Board that the clubhouse, which is an amenity that most developments have, are held to accessory structure heights. The site plan would manage the footprint of the accessory structure. Mr. Trotta asks why the ceiling is higher on the sides, and why it couldn’t be straight across. Mr. Gottlieb feels the rendering may be misleading. The middle of the roof matches the mean height of the gable ends. He reiterates that the height is needed to make the inside heights work. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 5 Mr. Botelho asks for the hardship. Mr. Gottlieb states that the regulations consider the clubhouse an accessory structure, and there is not a separate regulation for a clubhouse in these type of developments. Mr. Trotta asks if there is any way to make the clubhouse without the height. Mr. Gottlieb said it is possible, but prefer not to with a luxury complex. It would result in awkward pitches and roof heights. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in favor of this application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was in opposition of the application. Emil Buzaid, a member of City Council, who resides at 7 Wilders Wood Way, was present in opposition. He is a resident of the Rivington and a president of the Board there. There are outstanding and unresolved issues with Toll Brothers at the Rivington, and now they want to begin more construction. He is requesting the hearing is continued to allow other residents to share more details on the issues at the next meeting. Steve Cook of 23 Country View Road, Danbury, CT, and President of HOA of The Mews spoke in opposition. He also asked to delay the decision on this application so they can try to resolve construction deficiencies and need for remediation with Toll Brothers at The Rivington. Mr. Hanna asked if there are issues with current construction; Mr. Cook clarifies that the construction is complete. No one else was present in opposition of the application. Mr. Gottlieb responds that he can’t speak to the issues regarding the Rivington. He is here requesting relief of the height for a clubhouse. He doesn’t feel these claims are relevant to this application. This development is approved and hoping to go to permitting soon. Mr. Hearty clarifies to the Board that their prevue is the variance in front of them now, and not concerns with Toll Brothers on other projects. Motion to close Public Hearing for Application #24-15, PND SP 01-03/11, Woodland Road, was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Brandon Botelho. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, Anthony Rebeiro, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application #24-15, PND SP 01-03/11, Woodland Road, for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, Anthony Rebeiro, and Joseph Hanna. Mr. Rebeiro asked what the height limit for a single family home in this development would be; Mr. Hearty responds 35 ft. Mr. Rebeiro appreciates the oppositions concerns, but with this application, it would make for a nice clubhouse for this large development. Mr. Rivas wonders why they couldn’t expand beyond the 3,100 sq. ft. to make the height work and not need a variance. Mr. Hanna doesn’t believe any deficiency in construction should matter for this application. He understands they are trying to make a nice clubhouse for the community. Mr. Rebeiro wonders if there is a different roof style that could get the mean height down to get the spacious feel they are looking for inside. Motion to Deny without prejudice for Application No. 24-15, PND SP 01-03/11, Woodland Road, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. He states his denial is based on the applicant not having a clearly stated hardship. Chairman Hanna clarifies that Ayes vote means you are in favor of the denial motion and a Nay means you are against the denial motion. Motion passed via roll call vote: Ayes from William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Anthony Rebeiro & Nay from Joseph Hanna. Motion of denial without prejudice carries. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 10, 2024 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, Anthony Rebeiro, and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary