Public Meetings - Danbury, Connecticut

Note: The transcript provided identifies the meeting date as December 31, 2025, but the summary is directed to use January 25, 2026 per the instruction. The Danbury Board of Awards, chaired by Purchasing Agent Chip Walker, convened on January 25, 2026, to consider six agenda items. All motions were approved unanimously, with attendance including Ken Higgins, Gracie Norris, Tim Nolan, Jason Nova, Debbie Natalie, Sean Hanley, Walee Albacri, and Carol Fronties. 1. RFP for State Lobbying Services - Action: Awarded to two incumbent firms: Sullivan La Shane and the Capitol Pill Group (spelled as transcribed). - Details: Each firm agreed to maintain the current pricing of $30,000 per year and to hold that price for the first renewal year if the city extends the contract. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award to both firms, contingent on agreement. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous. 2. Engineering Services for Downtown Danbury Streetscape Renaissance Project (City Project 1813) - Action: Awarded to Martinez Couch Associates (MCA) for preparation of the Phase 2B bid package. - Details: Total estimated cost: $16,938.60. Work to be performed under MCA's existing on-call contract with the city. The charge code (SNAP 2020.3041-7,000.058601) was provided by Director of Planning and Zoning Walee Albacri. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award $16,938.60 to MCA. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous. 3. RQ for Tow Services for City-Owned Vehicles and Trucks - Action: Awarded to Modzelewski's Towing and Storage. - Details: This is an annual fee schedule type bid. Three bids were received and reviewed by the Fire Department and Public Works. Although Modzelewski's unit prices were slightly higher than Grand Prix Motors, Grand Prix included a mileage fee that would make the total cost higher. Modzelewski's was the low bidder when considering overall projected costs. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award the competitive bid to Modzelewski's Towing and Storage. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous. 4. Purchase of JCM Push Line Stop Fittings (Public Utilities Department) - Action: Awarded to Range Line Capping Services (sole source). - Details: Total quoted cost: $94,834.00. The fittings are specialized for Danbury's 30-inch and 36-inch water mains, and a sole source justification was provided. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award to Range Line Capping Services for two or four JCM push line stop fittings. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous. 5. Replacement of Flygt Submersible Pump at Turner Road Pump Station (Public Utilities) - Action: Awarded to Fleet Pumps & Services Group. - Details: Total requested amount: $43,135.00. The work is to be performed per Veolia Water's operating agreement with the city. Fleet Pump is the authorized Flygt submersible pump dealer for Connecticut, and the quote is a pass-through of the actual cost. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award to Fleet Pumps & Services Group. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous. 6. Replacement of Rooftop Unit at Ellsworth Avenue School (Public Buildings Department) - Action: Awarded to McKinney Mechanical under existing time and material bid for HVAC services. - Details: Total quoted cost: $124,798.00, including $10,000 for Honeywell to rewire the computer system. The replacement is an emergency because the school wing currently has barely any heat and will lack cooling unless the unit is ordered immediately. The motion includes an allowance for prevailing wages and a bond. - Motion & Vote: Motion to award to McKinney Mechanical for time and material, with allowance for prevailing wages and bond, and to continue the existing agreement. Seconded by Ms. Prunty. All in favor. Unanimous.

The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on Thursday, January 22, 2026, at 7:00 PM at City Hall, 155 Deer Hill Avenue. The board considered two variance applications and continued one application to a future meeting. The board operated with four members present, requiring a unanimous vote for approval. Consent Calendar - Minutes from November 13, 2025, were approved unanimously. - The next regular meeting was set for February 26, 2026. Public Comments & Testimony - Application 25-17 (44 South King Street): A letter of opposition was read from neighbors James and Michelle Keenan, who expressed concerns about property value impacts, loss of privacy, a self-created hardship, debris and blight from a demolished pool, and alleged unauthorized habitation without a certificate of occupancy. The board noted the letter for the record. - Roseanne Albert (201 Brushy Hill Road) questioned the remedy if the variance were denied but noted the encroachment was only half a foot, suggesting it was not a major issue. - Application 25-18 (215 Brushy Hill Road): Neighbors George and Roseanne Albert (201 Brushy Hill Road) expressed support, calling the proposed addition a wonderful improvement and praising the applicant as a good neighbor. - Paulette Karas (213 Brushy Hill Road) raised concerns about the placement of the addition, questioning why it could not be shifted to maintain the existing 48-foot setback distance. After discussion, she indicated she had no problem with the application but expressed concerns about property devaluation unrelated to the zoning issue. Discussion Items - Application 25-17 – 44 South King Street (Georgia and Frank Kula): The applicants, represented by Daniela Varella, sought a variance to legalize a rebuilt single-family home that encroached 1.5 feet into the required 25-foot side yard setback. The original home was destroyed by a fire in July 2023. During reconstruction, the city required demolition of the old foundation, which was not to code. Human error during construction resulted in the new home being placed approximately half a foot (0.5 feet; later clarified as 1.5 feet from the transcript context) over the setback line. The board discussed that the encroachment was discovered during final inspection, and the variance was the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. The applicant acknowledged the error and noted the non-conformity was reduced compared to the original structure, which had a garage extending further into the setback. - Application 25-18 – 215 Brushy Hill Road (Stephen and Lauren Shanley): The applicants, represented by Tim Draper, sought a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 50 feet to 44.5 feet for a proposed addition (master bedroom, bath, kitchen, living area, and garage). The house, built in approximately 1939, is an interior lot with a non-conforming existing condition. The addition is proposed on the side of the house facing Brushy Hill Road, which the code defines as the front yard setback due to lot configuration, even though the driveway and main entry are on the opposite side. The board discussed that the existing house is pre-zoning and grandfathered, and the variance is needed due to site constraints, including existing septic system location and topography. The applicant stated the addition is designed to match the existing house line and cannot be shifted further forward without compromising the design. The board noted the B100A septic study was completed but replacement is only required if the current system fails. - Bylaws Discussion: The board discussed proposed amendments to their bylaws, including changing the officer election term from three years to one or two years for consistency with other city boards. The board tabled the vote until the next meeting when a fifth member (Tony) would be present. Key Outcomes - Application 25-17 (44 South King Street) – APPROVED: Motion by Mr. Rivas, seconded by Mr. DeLucia. The variance reduces the side yard setback from 25 feet to 23.6 feet (1.4-foot reduction) to legalize the constructed single-family home. Vote: 4-0 in favor. Reasoning: The variance is the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the property and will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare (as per plan submitted). - Application 25-18 (215 Brushy Hill Road) – APPROVED: Motion by Mr. Rivas, seconded by Mr. DeLucia. The variance reduces the front yard setback from 50 feet to 44.5 feet for construction of the proposed addition. Vote: 4-0 in favor. Reasoning: The hardship results from particular site circumstances, was not self-created, and the variance is the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the property, consistent with the general purpose and intent of zoning regulations (as per plan submitted). - Application 26-01 (8 South Cornell Road) – CONTINUED: The application was continued to the next meeting. - Bylaws Revisions – TABLED: A motion to table the bylaws revisions until the next meeting was approved, pending review by all members and availability of a full five-member board.

The Danbury Zoning Commission convened on January 14, 2026, at 6:11 p.m. for a regularly scheduled meeting that included a training workshop on zoning procedures and statutory requirements, followed by organizational business, including the election of a chairman and vice chairman. The meeting drew on the expert presentations of Corporation Counsel attorneys Dan Casagrani and Robin Edwards, who covered legal foundations, meeting conduct, public hearing protocols, and ethical considerations. Workshop Session: Zoning Commission Procedures & Statutory Requirements - Attorney Robin Edwards opened by explaining that zoning derives from Connecticut General Statutes §8‑1 and the Danbury Charter, giving the commission both legislative (amending regulations/maps) and administrative (deciding special permits) functions. - She outlined the constitutional origins of zoning (citing Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.), the requirement that regulations be uniform and reasonably related to police power purposes, and the importance of consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). - Attorney Dan Casagrani covered special permits (issued by the Zoning Commission) vs. special exceptions (issued by the Planning Commission), emphasizing that applicants must meet all site plan regulations before a permit can be granted. - He stressed that decisions must be based on substantial evidence in the record, not speculation, and warned against prejudgment or ex parte communications. - The presenters noted that Public Act 21‑29, which limits denials based on district character unless explicitly articulated, has not removed the commission’s discretion to assess compatibility. - They reviewed hearing procedures: opening by the chair, staff reports, applicant presentation, public comment (favor, then opposition), applicant rebuttal, and closing. Commissioners were instructed to direct all questions through the chair. - Post‑hearing evidence is not permitted; only staff or counsel may provide post‑hearing analysis based on existing record. - Site visits must be noticed, with owner permission, and observations placed on the record. - Commissioners who miss a public hearing cannot vote unless they affirm on the record that they have reviewed the full record. - Conflicts of interest must be disclosed; when in doubt, a member should recuse. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman - Commissioner Botello nominated Ted Haddad for chairman, citing his deep understanding of zoning regulations and experience with the POCD and TOD frameworks. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner O’Neill. Haddad consented. No other nominations were made. By roll‑call vote, Haddad was elected chairman (7‑0, with Fuchs absent and James absent). - Chairman Haddad nominated Commissioner Jowdy for vice chairman, seconded by Commissioner Botello and consented to by Jowdy. No other nominations were made. The vote was unanimous (7‑0), and Jowdy was elected vice chairman. Appointment of ZBA Subcommittee - The commission reappointed Commissioners Jowdy and Botello and appointed Commissioner Bennett to a three‑member Zoning Board of Appeals subcommittee. The motion carried unanimously. Effective Date for Approvals - The commission voted to maintain the existing effective date: the day after publication in the News Times. Motion by Commissioner Botello, seconded by Commissioner O’Neill, passed unanimously. Minutes Approval - The commission approved the minutes of November 25, 2025, by a voice vote of those present at that meeting (Commissioners Bennett, Botello, Jowdy, O’Neill, and Hadad). Commissioner O’Laughlin noted that alternates are seated on a rotating basis when a regular member is absent. Next Meeting - The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 27, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. (all future meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m., except this special training meeting). The agenda includes a public hearing on a petition by Salem Plaza LLC to amend sections 5A2, 5A5, and 11B3 of the zoning regulations.

The Danbury Planning Commission held a virtual meeting on January 7, 2026, with a quorum of Chairman Arnold Finaldi Jr., Vice Chairman Bob Kyokio, and Commissioner Helen Hofstetter. The agenda included the acceptance of previous minutes, a continued public hearing for a residential development at Ridgetop, and a series of statutory referrals regarding a lease renewal, a water main extension, a utility easement condemnation, and a zoning amendment for self-storage in the CG20 district. The commission voted to continue the major public hearing and issued one positive referral for the zoning amendment petition. Consent Calendar - Minutes of December 3, 2025, were accepted unanimously. - The commission noted the scheduled date for the next regular meeting as January 21, 2026. Public Comments & Testimony - Steve Sullivan (Haley Ward): Expressed full support for the BRT Sconset LLC application to amend the Ridgetop cluster development. Mr. Sullivan presented the engineering proposal, emphasizing that the project generates less than 3% of existing peak hour traffic, utilizes underground stormwater attenuation systems, increases conservation easement area to 61.4% of the property, and maintains the traditional character of the neighborhood. He stated the traffic analysis by VHB is positive and that sight line vegetation trimming is the recommended maintenance action. - Mara Newell (72 Architects): Expressed full support for the project, stating the architectural goal is to co-ordinate and complement existing buildings with varied traditional New England styles to ensure a "family of buildings" rather than identical copies. - Commissioner Bob Kyokio: Expressed concern regarding the retrofitting nature of the Salem Plaza self-storage petition, noting that self-storage facilities typically bring truck traffic and heavy moving equipment not originally intended for commercial office spaces, and questioned if the existing building design supports such use. - Commissioner Helen Hofstetter: Expressed strong opposition to the zoning amendment for self-storage in the CG20 district. Ms. Hofstetter argued that the petition runs counter to the commission's recent policy decision to restrict self-storage inventory due to overabundance in the city, stating that allowing it via text amendment for a single site sends a mixed message and appears to be a localized request rather than a necessary general policy change. - Commissioner Waleed (Planning Director): Expressed a neutral but concerned position, noting the complexity of the self-storage petition and the tension between the city's previous goal to limit self-storage and this specific request. He stated the staff would not stand against the application but would not fully endorse it due to the risks of unintended consequences, suggesting the commission consider adding more conditions to limit the scope. - Commissioner Arnold Finaldi: Expressed opposition to the self-storage text amendment, stating that zoning should not be used as a general rule to benefit a single specific piece of land, especially when it reverses a recent policy shift, and indicated a likely vote for a negative referral. Discussion Items - Ridgetop (BRT Sconset LLC) - Revised Special Exception: The commission discussed the proposed addition of 12 small homes on Damien Drive. Staff noted that the hearing remains open pending the submission of a required environmental analysis and final planning staff report, specifically regarding the adequacy of proposed pedestrian walkways versus sidewalk requirements under section 4A6. The applicant acknowledged the need to address the sidewalk issue and provide an updated traffic/grading analysis. The commission determined the hearing could not close due to missing documentation regarding the Department of Health and Human Services review. - Salem Plaza LLC - Zoning Amendment (83A Referral): The commission deliberated on a petition to amend the CG20 district to allow up to 15% self-storage in existing warehouses on lots of 5+ acres. Discussion focused on the counter-intuitive nature of the request following a recent amendment to limit self-storage in industrial zones. Concerns were raised about the potential for this localized amendment to set a precedent or inadvertently apply to other properties (e.g., Federal Road), and the philosophical objection to granting a text amendment for a single site. The chair emphasized the lack of consistency with the city's conservation and development plan regarding self-storage. Key Outcomes - Ridgetop Application: Motion to continue the public hearing to the January 21, 2026 meeting was passed unanimously (Aye). The commission is awaiting the environmental analysis, final staff report, and resolution of the sidewalk/pedestrian walkway compliance before proceeding. - 824 Referral (Duck Pin Bowling): Unanimous positive referral granted for the five-year lease renewal for Danbury Duck Pin Bowling Lanes, subject to Corporation Council approval. - 824 Referral (Water Main Extension): Unanimous positive referral granted for the water main extension at 68 Morgan Avenue, subject to standard DPW language and Corporation Council approval. - 824 Referral (Utility Easement Condemnation): Unanimous positive referral granted for the condemnation of a utility easement on Lombardy Street to facilitate water main installation for 1875 Development LLC, subject to Corporation Council approval. - 83A Referral (Salem Plaza Self-Storage): Unanimous negative referral granted. The commission voted against the request, citing the inconsistency with the recent policy to limit self-storage facilities and the inappropriateness of using a text amendment to resolve a single-site issue. Motion made by Ms. Hofstetter, seconded by Mr. Kyokio. The meeting was adjourned with a suggestion to schedule a workshop with city legal counsel for the commission upon the addition of new members.