Zoning Board of Appeals

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on June 30, 2025 at 2:56 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 APRIL 24, 2025 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Joseph Hanna called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present by roll call were: William Trotta, Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, and Juan Rivas. Staff present were Zoning Enforcement Officer Sean Hearty, and Secretary Melissa Llera. Chairman Hanna seated William Trotta for Anthony Rebeiro. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: March 27, 2025 Motion to accept the minutes from March 27, 2025 was made by Juan Rivas; seconded by William Trotta. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 8, 2025 Motion to open public hearings for Application No. 25-05, 85 Mill Plain Road, and No. 25-06, 6 Sage Road, and continue public hearing for Application No. 25-04, 52 Carol Street, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: #25-05: 85 Mill Plain Road, Danbury Mill Plain Realty, LLC, Marcus, Neil Esq., Agent; (D14013), CA- 80 Zone. Sec. 5.B.3.a. Reduce front yard setback from 25’ to 20.5’ for canopy, Sec. 5.H.1.b. Reduce landscape perimeter planting strip for front lot line(s) from 20’ to 0’, Sec. 5.H.1.c. Reduce residential buffer planting strip for side yard from 20’ to 0’, Sec. 5.H.2. Allow two parking spaces in required front yard, Sec. 8.C.1.c.(2) Allow parking in required front yard on Mill Plain Road only, Sec. 8.B.1.b.(4) Reduce required driveway width from 24’ to 20.4’, Sec. 8.C.3.b.(1) Eliminate landscape island adjacent to handicap space for the renovation of existing gas station and convenience store Attorney Neil Marcus of Cohen & Wolf was present to represent the applicant, Danbury Mill Plain Realty LLC. They are the current title holder of the property at 85 Mill Plain Road. The property is on the corner of Mill Plain Road and Westwood Drive. It used to be known as John’s Automotive which was a repair shop and gas station. The current owners want to convert the property from a gas station with auto repair and auto body to a gas station with a convenience store. The property is in the CA-80 zone. It is non-conforming as it is only 31,000 sq. ft, so it doesn’t meet the required 80,000 sq. ft. for the zone. It is also within the Kenosia class 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 24, 2025 Page 2 watershed. By eliminating the auto repair/ auto body use, it will be making the property more conforming than it was previously. They are requesting the following variances: -Sec. 5.B.3.a. to reduce the front yard setback for the canopy. There is currently a vending island which is 21.6’ from the property line. They are looking to reduce the front yard setback from 25’ to 20.5’ to allow them to expand the canopy over the containment grooves once they upgrade the vending island. There are currently not containment grooves. The containment grooves help contain any fuel spills, but they need to be protected from the rain to work properly. -Sec. 5.H.1.b. to reduce the 20’ landscape perimeter from 20’ to 0’ for the front lot lines. There currently isn’t any landscape perimeter, so the non-conformity would remain the same as it is today. They have two front yards: one on Westwood and one on Mill Plain. If there was a landscape perimeter on Mill Plain, cars would not be able to access both sides of the vending island. They will be adding landscaping along Westwood Drive that doesn’t currently exist, so they would be reducing the non-conformity there. -Sec. 5.H.2. to allow two parking spaces in the front yard. This would allow two cars to stop/ park at the fuel island on the side closest to Mill Plain Road. There is a slight reduction of the current non-conformity because they are moving the island approx. 4’ north from where it currently exists. -Sec. 5.H.1.c. requires a 20’ wide screened perimeter along the side yard where it borders to RA-40 zone. The property has bordered the residential zone for a long time. There is currently an unpermitted structure in the rear that would be removed. Parking would be created in the rear to give them the required parking for the site. There is currently no screening, and would not be room for the screening in the new plans. -Sec. 8.C.1.c.(2) to allow parking at the gas pump islands in the required front yard/ 25’ front yard setback. -Sec. 8.B.1.b.(4) requires a driveway width of 24’ for two-way travel. They are looking to reduce the width from 24’ to 20.4’ at the northeast corner at the rear of the building. They want to maintain it for two-way travel because they can’t guarantee the counter clockwise traffic flow through the property. -Sec. 8.C.3.b.(1) requires parking islands at the end of each parking row. On the east side of the building there is a handicap space, along with two other spaces. On the south end of the row next to the handicap space, there is no room for an island or it would interfere with the fueling area. The pre-existing location of the building and undersized lot create hardships for the property. The lot will become more conforming if the renovation is approved. The auto body repair use is pre-existing, so it could remain. However, it would not be allowed today. They would be removing that use, and putting in a convenience store use, which is allowed. They are adding landscaping and a modern gas island. They would have the required parking for the use. The owners have already begun cleaning up the site. They have worked with Planning and Zoning through multiple drafts of the site plan. If the variances are approved, they would then go through site plan approval, an Engineering review, and a special exception approval. The property is currently an eye sore, and this renovation would get rid of that. Mr. Hanna asked if they would be eliminating the whole landscape island or only part of it by the handicap space. Attorney Marcus clarifies there is not currently one there, and they would not be creating one at all. Mr. Hanna asked if any environmental testing would be required given the old auto repair business. Attorney Marcus responded that the testing was completed at the time of the property sale. The testing was clean, but any possible cleanup in the future would be monitored by the Health Department. Mr. Botelho states that the hill in the rear by the parking spaces gets a lot of water runoff, and wonders how that would be handled. He also questions the height of the retaining wall in this area. Greg Lachcik, engineer was present to respond to this. He shows the plan to the Commission. There is no retaining wall located at the front of the parking spaces on the north side. They will be demolishing the existing retaining walls. They will be rebuilding and expanding the retaining walls that will be 8’ tall at their highest point. They will also be adding an under drain in the area of the walls. The contours will be changed to eliminate the need for the retaining wall on the back edge. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 24, 2025 Page 3 Mr. Rivas asked if eliminating the far-right parking spot in the rear would be safer given the contours and water runoff. Mr. Lachcik said there are currently no safety concerns with the design, but they could provide geotechnical slope stabilization if needed. Mr. Rivas then expresses concern over the variance for the driveway width to allow the two-way traffic. Given the traffic on the area of Mill Plain Road and the angling of the parking spaces, it seems one-way traffic would be more appropriate. He is concerned for the public safety if cars are permitted to enter both sides of the driveway. Attorney Marcus responds that Mill Plain Road is a State highway. The traffic flow would be reviewed by the State DOT and City traffic engineer, and would decide if one-way traffic would be required. Mr. Rivas states that the ZBA is tasked with watching out for public safety, and if this variance if granted, it would stay with the land. He would be more comfortable with the one-way traffic. Mr. Trotta adds that if two-way traffic would be permitted by the State and City traffic engineer, the applicant could then come back for the variance for driveway width then. Mr. DeLucia asks if the State DOT has commented yet; Attorney Marcus said they have not. Mr. Trotta asks if a traffic study has been completed; Attorney Marcus said one has not been. Mr. Hanna asks to clarify if the area of the driveway is existing now. Mr. Rivas adds it is not currently existing because there is currently a building in rear of the property. Attorney Marcus responds that if the driveway width variance is not granted, they could notch the retaining wall or make adjustments to the corner of the building to achieve the 24’ requirement for two-way traffic. Mr. Rivas notes the area in the rear would have people walking to their cars, a tractor trailer possibly in the loading zone, cars pulling into parking spaces, and cars traveling; it seems there could easily be an accident. Attorney Marcus asks if the Board would be comfortable with the other variances besides the driveway width 8.B.1.b.(4); Mr. Rivas confirms they would be given they are making the property more conforming. Attorney Marcus feels the project is very beneficial, and states they could always come back and apply for the driveway width variance again in the future. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Attorney Marcus withdrew the request to vary Sec. 8.B.1.b.(4) to reduce required driveway width from 24’ to 20.4’. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 25-05, 85 Mill Plain 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. 25-05, 85 Mill Plain Road, for voting session and discussion 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. Motion to approve Application No. 25-05, 85 Mill Plain Road, omitting Sec. 8.B.1.b.(4) which was withdrawn, was made by Juan Rivas. The applicant must submit a revised site plan that excludes the omitted variance for the file. The motion for approval was seconded by Peter DeLucia. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. #25-06: 6 Sage Road, Tendler, Marlene R.; (H22104), RA-20 Zone. Sec. 4.G.1 & Sec. 8.C.1.c.(2) to allow parking in required front yard of single family dwelling Attorney Neil Marcus with Cohen & Wolf was present to represent the applicant Marlene Tendler. She is looking to rebuild a property that suffered a fire and is in disrepair. She is seeking a variance to allow parking of 2 vehicles in the front yard between 20’-30’ in the front yard setback. The driveway plan was designed by Ralph Gallagher. The property has a lot of limitations due to ledge for the septic location which in turns limits the driveway location. The driveway was designed to have a backup area that would allow the homeowner to backup and then pull out onto the road. The 30’ setback is displayed on the plan. Attorney Marcus points of the two triangle sections of the setback area that are within the driveway. Currently the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 24, 2025 Page 4 parking for the lot would be on the street. Lake Waubeeka Association is encouraging people to have driveways or off-street parking where possible. This lot, like most lots in Lake Waubeeka, is undersized with sloping grades. The applicant is looking to rebuild the house in the same footprint as the pre-existing, non- conforming location prior to the fire. Mr. DeLucia visited the property. He asks for verification that the driveway grade won’t exceed the allowed 12%. Ralph Gallagher, engineer, confirmed that the driveway won’t exceed the 12% grade. It was a challenge, but he achieved it with the use of two stone walls. Mr. Rivas notices that the northeast side of the driveway crossed both septic galleries, and wonders if that would be a problem. Mr. Gallagher said it is not because they are not cutting. They will be filling with the appropriate fill. Mr. Rivas also visited the property, and is concerned about water flowing toward the neighbor given the ledge and slopes. Mr. Gallagher said they would be using the slopes and walls to retain the water on the property. The walls will be porous, so it will allow the water to flow similar to how it does now. The driveway won’t affect water flow much from the current ledge that exists. Mr. Rivas asked if the driveway will be blacktop or gravel. Mr. Gallagher said blacktop will be required due to the grade. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 25-06, 6 Sage 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. 25-06, 6 Sage 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. 25-06, 6 Sage Road, per plans submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: #25-04: 52 Carol Street, Nadler, Marilyn & Jeffrey, Artel Engineering Group LLC, Agent; (I23002), RA- 20 Zone. Sec. 4.A.3. Reduce southern side yard setback from 15’ to 10.1’ & Reduce front yard setback from 30’ to 16.9’, Sec. 4.G.1 Allow parking in required front yard, Sec. 3.G.3.a. Allow detached accessory in front yard, Sec. 3.G.3.d. Allow detached garage within front yard setback, Sec. 8.C.1.c.(2) Allow parking in front yard, Sec. 8.A.2.c.(4) Allow excavation within 5 ft. of property line for construction of addition, detached garage, and retaining walls Attorney Neil Marcus of Cohen & Wolf was present to represent the application. The application was continued previously to resolve an issue with the driveway grade which was above 12%. The pre-existing driveway could have remained, but since it was new the Commission requested it meet the 12% regulation. He then defers to Dainius Virbickas. Dainius Virbickas, professional engineer with Artel Engineering, was present to discuss the new plan. He has revised the initial drawing, and now was able to meet the 12% grade with the driveway. The original driveway went up close to the house with a 20-25% grade. The initial plan had a new driveway with about 16% grade. They are looking to have the driveway to keep the cars off the street for parking, along with a better driveway for winter conditions. The original retaining walls were about 5 ft. The walls have now increased to about 6’-7’ in height to achieve the driveway grades. Mr. Hanna asked how the driveway grade would be verified after the work is completed. Mr. Virbickas said that Zoning would do an inspection and have to sign off on it for the permit. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 24, 2025 Page 5 Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in favor of the application; no one spoke. Chairman Hanna asked if anyone was present in opposition of the application; no one spoke. Motion to close public hearing for Application No. 25-04, 52 Carol Street, 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. 25-04, 52 Carol Street, 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. 25-04, 52 Carol Street, per revised plans submitted was made by Peter DeLucia; seconded by William Trotta. Motion passed unanimously with AYES from: Peter DeLucia, Brandon Botelho, William Trotta, Juan Rivas, and Joseph Hanna. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn 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. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary