Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on February 19, 2025 at 10:55 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 January 9, 2025 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, and Juan Rivas. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: December 12, 2024 Motion to accept the minutes from December 12, 2024 was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 23, 2025 Chairman Hanna explained the procedures of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Motion to open Public Hearings for Applications #24-20 (40 Pembroke Road), #24-21 (19 West Pine Drive), #24-22 (18 Moss Avenue), and #24-23 (16 Moss Avenue) was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. PUBLIC HEARINGS: #24-20: 40 Pembroke Road, Curillo, Silvia, Marcus, Neil Esq., Agent; (G06038), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce rear yard setback from 35’ to 18.3’ & Reduce side yard setback from 25’ to 14.3’ to legalize previous construction of garage/ addition. Attorney Neil Marcus was present to represent the application. The property is a single family home with an attached garage. They are looking for a side yard setback variance from 25’ to 14.3’ and a rear yard setback from 35’ to 18.3’. The homeowner has already built a garage on the existing footprint of an old garage that was dilapidated. She did apply for a building permit for the project. The hardship Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 2 for the variance would be the existing non-conforming structure and lot size. The house was built before the zoning was RA-40. When the homeowner reconstructed the garage, she added a second floor which had plans approved by the Building Department. The vertical expansion of the non-conforming structure now requires a variance to allow the homeowner to get a Zoning Compliance certificate which is required to get a Certificate of Occupancy. The project doesn’t impact the neighbors, and is in harmony with the neighborhood. Attorney Marcus clarifies that the survey provided shows a 15.3’ side yard measurement, but that does not reflect the overhang which is why they requested 14.3’. Mr. Hanna asked if the garage was built to park a car or for storage; Attorney Marcus said it is for a car. Mr. Hanna is unsure how a car could enter the garage with the current access. Attorney Marcus said there is a gravel driveway on the north side which leads to the overhead doors. To get in and out of the garage is not easy, but that was the previous location of the garage. Mr. Hanna asks about the staircase next to the garage because the building plans are confusing regarding access. Attorney Marcus said the garage is a one car garage, and there is not room for stairs inside the garage. Silvia Curillo, homeowner, then spoke regarding the access. She said the garage has access through the front. The stairs next to the garage lead to the kitchen. She will be using the garage for one car and storage. Mr. Hanna asks if you can access upstairs from the garage. Ms. Curillo replied that you have to go outside the garage to enter the stairs that lead to upstairs. She would be willing to connect the spaces differently, if needed. Mr. Hearty then shares his screen to show notes from the building permit for the project. The project was put on hold from Zoning because a second kitchen shown on the plans was not allowed. Additionally, there needed to be direct interior connection and a variance for the setback intrusions. Mr. Hearty shows the Town Clerk map on file for the property and the new survey which shows the apparent increase in footprint. When the initial review was done, the permit was issued with the conditions of no increase in structure/ footprint and needs direct interior connection. He believes there was some confusion during the permitting process. During the Health Department review, they were alright with the expansion so the homeowner proceeded, but Zoning did not approve the expansion. Attorney Marcus asked if Mr. Hearty scaled off the Town Clerk map. Mr. Hearty said he did not, but the applicant was told they needed a variance to expand. A Zoning Enforcement Officer has not done a walk thru yet to ensure the interior design and connection for the staircase. Attorney Marcus feels the application should be continued to allow a ZEO to inspect the property inside. He feels the shape of the structure on the Town Clerk map and new survey are the same, and doesn’t feel the GIS map available is accurate. Mr. Rebeiro believes they could look at the foundation to determine if it is from 1953 when the home was built. Mr. Rivas visited the site and the foundation looks like a newly poured foundation. He doesn’t believe they stayed within the original footprint. Mr. Rebeiro says that the Town Clerk map should be scalable, and doesn’t believe it looks the same as the new survey. Attorney Marcus requests a continuance to allow him to check with Zach Rapp about the survey and Town Clerk map, and for a ZEO to do a walk thru of the property inside. He wasn’t aware of some of the concerns. Mr. DeLucia also requests that the applicant secure the second floor door for safety until the landing is able to be completed. Mr. Hearty said he will perform a walk thru and provide interior pictures to the Board. He will also have the Town Clerk map and new survey overlaid. He will provide everything to Attorney Marcus as well, so they can come up with a plan on what would be needed. Motion to continue public hearing for Application No. 24-20, 40 Pembroke Road, until the February 13, 2025 meeting was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 3 #24-21: 19 West Pine Drive, Lattin, Bruce; (E12028), RA-40 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce side yard setback from 25’ to 15’ for construction of two-car garage Bruce Lattin, homeowner, was present to represent the application. He is looking to build a two- car garage on the side of his house with a loft area above it for storage. The loft area would be open from below, and would not be used as an apartment. The existing garage space under the house now would be used for storage or possible motorcycle parking. Mr. Hanna asks if the new garage would be behind the house; Mr. Lattin responded it would be on the side. Mr. Hanna asked for a plan for the garage, and if the second floor would be for storage. Mr. Lattin said he has not completed design plans because he wanted to see if the variance would be approved first. Mr. Hanna is concerned that without a plan they can’t approve it since the Board’s approvals are usually “per plan submitted.” He would like to see a plan that doesn’t show windows or living space on the second floor. Mr. Lattin responds that he could work up some plans, but reiterates that the second floor won’t be used as living space. Mr. Hanna asks for the dimensions of the proposed garage; Mr. Lattins responds 30’ x 35’. Mr. Rebeiro asks Mr. Hearty if they could approve the variance with the plan submitted. Mr. Hearty said they could approve it since an A-2 survey was submitted for the setback variance request. They are not asking for a use or height variance, so would be held to the standard allowable height. Mr. Hearty believes the main project would be the two-car garage. Since it is attached, there could also be habitable space on the second floor. Mr. Rebeiro asks the homeowner if he is aware that any overhangs would be included in the setback measurement; Mr. Lattin said he is aware they would be included in the variance. Mr. Rivas asks what the hardship would be. Mr. Lattin responds that it would be under 11.B.1.a. It is a circumstance of the site, and wasn’t created by him. His property is zoned RA-40 which requires 40,000 sq. ft, but his is only 22,450 sq. ft. which is almost half. He doesn’t think it is realistic to reduce the garage to 20’ wide because it would be extremely tight to try and park two cars. Mr. Lattin assumes that Zoning would be reviewing any plans he submits for the project to make sure there are no problems. Mr. Hearty clarifies that the Board can request floor/ design plans if they want prior to the vote or can vote based on the plan that has been submitted. Mr. Hanna feels he would like to see plans. Mr. Hearty states that for the addition to be a detached structure, the connection would be less than 50%. The connection here is over 50 %, so it would be considered an addition with a two- car garage. The second floor could be incorporated into the home, but would not be allowed a separate outside entrance. Mr. DeLucia asks if the Health Department would need to review if the second floor is made into habitable space. Mr. Hearty clarifies that’s if the variance is granted for the setbacks, a full review by Health, Building, Zoning, etc. would be done during the permitting process. Mr. Rebeiro feels they either need to vote based on the plan submitted or continue and request additional drawings. Mr. Rivas expresses the same concerns of Mr. Hanna about the second floor, and feels a design drawing would provide a safeguard. Mr. Hearty feels the Board needs to decide if the floor plans will make a big difference as they look at the impact on the neighborhood for the addition. Mr. Lattin adds that he provided pictures of his neighbor’s homes to show it would fit in; Mr. Hanna & Mr. DeLucia agree it would. Mr. DeLucia feels it is in harmony with the zoning district. Mr. Hearty asks Mr. Lattin if this will be the only garage on the dwelling; Mr. Lattin confirms. Mr. Hearty asks if it will be a single story addition. Mr. Lattin clarifies it will be a two story garage with storage on the second floor. Mr. Rebeiro feels they could vote based on this plan, and knows that people in the future could change the use from a garage once the variance is in place. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 4 No further questions or comments from the Board. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-21, 19 West Pine Drive, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-21, 19 West Pine Drive, for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-21, 19 West Pine Drive, per plan submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. The hardship is a result of the particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant. The lot is odd shaped and undersized for the zone. The variance will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. #24-22: 18 Moss Avenue, Augusto DaSilva Enterprises, LLC, Brauneisen, Gregg A. Esq., Agent; (I13200), RMF-4 Zone. Sec. 4.B.3. Reduce setback on right side from 20’ to 7.4’ and on left side from 20’ to 3.8’ to renovate existing garden apartment building Attorney Gregg Brauneisen with Collins Hannafin was present to represent the application. Gus DaSilva, principle for Augusto DaSilva Enterprises, LLC, was also with him. Attorney Brauneisen said the application is to rebuild what was there with slight alterations by squaring it off to make it more aesthetically pleasing and more functional for the tenants. The building was over 100 years old. It would be rebuilt with the same amount of units which was seven units. They are requesting variances for the side yard setback. The coverage of the property is 19.4% which is under the allowed 30%. The hardship would be an undersized lot with the pre-existing use. They also submitted another application for the adjoining property. They function as two garden apartments with one curb cut and mutual parking easements. Mr. Hanna asked if 18 Moss Ave. is connected to 16 Moss Ave. Attorney Brauneisen said they do share one 20’ wide driveway. Mr. Hanna asked if the applicant bought the foundation line. Attorney Brauneisen clarified that they owned the buildings which were over 100 years old, so they knocked the buildings down. On the plan provided, the solid lines show the existing footprints, and the dotted lines show the proposed building. Mr. Hanna asked if 18 Moss Avenue is the front building. Attorney Brauneisen replied that both 18 & 16 Moss Avenue are about 25 ft. from Moss Avenue. Mr. Hanna confirms that 18 Moss Avenue would have seven apartments; Attorney Brauneisen confirms. Attorney Brauneisen said the proposed changes would make ingress and egress better for the tenants and the hallway inside would be improved. Mr. Hanna states the proposed building would be 3.8 ft. from the property, and asks who owns the adjacent property because he is concerned about being able to maintain the property. Attorney Brauneisen replied that Gus DaSilva owns the adjacent property, so maintenance would not be a problem. He also adds that the existing footprint of the building is also much less than the required 20 ft. setback. Mr. Rivas asks for the hardship for the variance. Attorney Brauneisen said the hardship would be the pre-existing, non-conforming building on an undersized lot. Mr. Rivas asks what the unit count would be from the old building to the new building. Attorney Brauneisen states the unit count would remain seven; there would be no change at all. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 5 No further questions or comments from the Board. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-22, 18 Moss Avenue, was made by Anthony Rebeiro; seconded by Juan Rivas. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-22, 18 Moss Avenue, for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-22, 18 Moss Avenue, per plan submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. #24-23: 16 Moss Avenue, Augusto DaSilva Enterprises, LLC, Brauneisen, Gregg A. Esq., Agent; (I13201), RMF-4 Zone. Sec. 4.B.3. Reduce setback on right side from 20’ to 13.9’ and on left side from 20’ to 9.8’ to renovate existing garden apartment building Attorney Gregg Brauneisen with Collins Hannafin was present to represent the application. Gus DaSilva, principle for Augusto DaSilva Enterprises, LLC, was also with him. Attorney Brauneisen said they are looking to rebuild an existing garden apartment that was over 100 years old. The functionality was outlasted, so they knocked the building down. They would like to rebuild with a slightly altered footprint. It would be a 5 unit building. They are looking for side yard setbacks from 20’ to 13.9’ on the right and 20’ to 9.8’ on the left. The hardship is the pre-existing non-conforming building on an undersized lot. They are looking to modernize the building with ingress and egress on both sides and improvements to the hallway. There is a shared driveway with 18 Moss Avenue and mutual parking easements. Mr. Rivas asked for the hardship for the variance. Attorney Brauneisen said it would be the pre- existing, non-conforming building on an undersized lot. Mr. Rivas asked with the shared driveway and mutual parking easements, would something be recorded through the City in the event one or both of the properties were ever sold; Attorney Brauneisen confirms they would be recorded on the land records. No further questions or comments from the Board. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 24-23, 16 Moss Avenue, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-23, 16 Moss Avenue, for voting session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-23, 16 Moss Avenue, per plan submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Mr. DeLucia stated the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning district and other provisions of the Regulations. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 9, 2025 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Anthony Rebeiro. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, Anthony Rebeiro, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary