Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on March 4, 2025 at 4:08 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 February 13, 2025 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Brandon Botelho, Juan Rivas, and Peter DeLucia. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty and Secretary Melissa Llera. Chairman Hanna seated William Trotta for Anthony Rebeiro. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: January 9, 2025 Motion to accept the minutes from January 9, 2024 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2025 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Motion to open Application No. 24-20, 40 Pembroke Road, for public session was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. #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. Attorney Marcus was unaware of the original location of the old garage that was built in the 1930s. The previous garage was pre-existing, non- conforming for the rear yard setback which was 27.5’ vs. the required 35’. He thought the new garage was built on the exact footprint, so thought there was also inadequate side yard setback distance. The old garage was actually 25.1’ for the side yard setback, but the new garage is 14.3’ with the overhang for the side yard. At the last hearing there were questions on the connection with the new doorway, garage, and existing house, along with what exactly was in the new space. A site visit was conducted with Sean Hearty and Tim Rosati on February 11th. The first floor has an open space for a doorway to the stairs that is not completed yet. There is also a side room for utilities such as the hot water heater. The outdoor doorway leads to a staircase that goes Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 13, 2025 Page 2 to the second floor playroom. The second floor is a wide open room with a half bathroom in the corner. There are then two steps going down to a doorway that leads to the existing kitchen. The structure was a single story garage, but now is a two story addition with a slightly bigger footprint. An overlay was provided by Mr. Hearty showing the new survey compared to the old Town Clerk map 1507 which had been done by Sid Rapp. They are requesting a rear yard setback to 18.3’ and side yard to 14.3’. The hardship is the pre-existing, non- conforming setbacks, and a house built in 1930 before current zoning regulations. The building that was taken down was in serious disrepair, and was not a safe structure. They need an after the fact variance, so they can get the Certificate of Compliance from Zoning which is required before a Certificate of Occupancy from Building. The property owner made a mistake, and thought they had done all the proper steps. In addition, it fits in with the neighborhood as adjacent properties have similar setbacks. Mr. Hanna asked what the spaces would be utilized for. Attorney Marcus said the first floor garage would be used for storage, and the upstairs would be open space for a playroom. The house is a modest house, so it would provide additional space. Mr. Botelho asked if this space had a separate entrance from the street; Attorney Marcus confirmed it does. Mr. Botelho noticed the half bathroom had a toilet and vanity in the pictures, but feels there would be room for a shower. He asked if there were any further plans for that since the bathroom appeared unfinished. He also asked for the distance from the toilet to the wall in the bathroom. Attorney Marcus believes it would be about 4 ft. from the toilet to the wall. Mr. Botelho is concerned that the space is being prepared to become a separate living unit with the separate entrance and room to convert the bathroom to a full bathroom. Attorney Marcus said there is no kitchen or plumbing for a kitchen in the space. Mr. Botelho said it could be rentable space with a shared kitchen. Attorney Marcus responded that they could condition it to remain a half bathroom. Mr. Rivas notices that the first plans submitted with the permit included a kitchen, but it was removed once they were told they couldn’t have it. He feels stipulations could be added for the concerns. There are no measurements on the playroom and it looks very big, so he shares the same concerns as Mr. Botelho. He asks if Attorney Marcus has the size of the room. Attorney Marcus said the space would be about 27’ x28’ and about 700 sq. ft. They added about 300 sq. ft to the footprint of the building, along with adding a second story. Mr. Rivas understands there may have been a miscommunication with the Health Department, but the addition has been constructed. Attorney Marcus feels that it would be reasonable to limit them to a half bathroom in the space. Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Hearty if he had any feedback on the concerns. Mr. Hearty believes that Mr. Botelho has a point about the conversion to a full bathroom. The area downstairs is a quasi-garage with more outlets than he would like in a garage space. He recommends stipulating that the bathroom remains a half bathroom, that the ZEO does a visit in one year to check the use, and no kitchen in the space. Mr. Trotta agrees that the space is very large. Mr. Hanna wonders if they should do a second inspection in two years. Mr. Hearty said they can do an inspection in a year to confirm the single family use, and there can be a stipulation for no full bathroom. Mr. Trotta said they could use a hot plate in place of a kitchen for cooking if they intended to rent the space. Mr. Hearty said the addition is right next to the existing kitchen, and the addition was done to accommodate a growing family. The addition was done without City approvals which is why they are before the Board after the fact. Attorney Marcus said the home was 1,600 sq. ft, and they added about 600-700 sq. ft of living space which is still a modest house. It is not a two-family home. Mr. Hearty adds that they did add a doorway between the garage and the stairs although the topography of the opening is a little off. Mr. Rivas feels that if the variance is approved, they would need conditions. Conditions would be no expansion of the half bathroom, no kitchen, and follow-up inspection in one year. Mr. Hanna adds the space could not be used as a bedroom due the septic which is calculated by number of bedrooms. Mr. Hearty suggests they clarify no kitchen or wet bar in the space. Attorney Marcus agrees with the conditions. The applicant made a mistake, and he would not want them to have to remove the addition. Mr. Trotta asks about first and Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 13, 2025 Page 3 second year inspections; Mr. Hearty feels one year and periodic inspections would be appropriate. Attorney Marcus agrees to the inspections. Mr. Rivas asks if inspections after one year are necessary; Mr. Hearty feels either way they stipulate it would be fine. Mr. Botelho suggests stipulating no alterations to the plumbing or electrical for the addition without approval from ZBA. Mr. Hearty said that through Zoning he can only regulate use, and can’t limit electrical or plumbing work. Chairman Hanna asked for anyone in support 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. 24-20, 40 Pembroke Road, was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to open Application No. 24-20, 40 Pembroke Road, for voting session and discussion was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Motion to approve Application No. 24-20, 40 Pembroke Road, with stipulations, per plans submitted was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. The stipulations are as follows: no alterations to convert the half bathroom in the addition to a full bathroom, no kitchen or wet bar in the addition, and applicant agrees to inspections by the Zoning Enforcement Officer one year from date of approval and periodically as Zoning Enforcement Officer sees fit. The variance is granted on the basis that is does not affect the welfare and safety of the neighborhood. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. OTHER MATTERS: Mr. Botelho expressed concern over the amount of variances granted, and believes they should consider be more stringent. A discussion amongst the Commission members followed on this topic. Chairman Hanna feels their job is to help relieve the community of their hardships, but also understands that people make mistakes. Mr. Hearty adds that the members of ZBA are pulled from the community, so they can understand the community and their errors. He acknowledges that they have a tough job. They are a quasi-judicial board, so they do not set precedents with approvals as each application is done case-by-case. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. Meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary