Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - January 22, 2026

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.