Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - March 12, 2026

The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals convened on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers at 155 Deer Hill Avenue, City Hall. Chairman Joe Hanna presided. The board addressed agenda items including a variance application for a residential porch addition (26-05) and a multi-family development proposal (26-06), along with continuations of other applications.

Consent Calendar

• The minutes from the February 26, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Application 26-05 (17 Cedar Drive): Alex Bolina of Doyle Coffin Architecture, representing applicants Cody and Carrie Gunch, presented a request for two variances to construct two covered porches on an existing single-story house. The existing house already extends to within 3.6 feet of the eastern property line (required 15-foot setback) and has a building coverage of 22.47% (maximum 20%). The proposed addition would add 225 square feet of porch, offset by reducing 59 square feet of existing coverage, resulting in a net increase of 165 square feet (to 23.7% coverage). The board asked about future expansion, and Bolina stated there were no plans beyond this porch. No public supporters or opponents spoke.
• Application 26-06 (5 Clark Street): Thomas Neejam, representing Nijem Development, proposed constructing a three-family dwelling on a narrow, long lot that had been used as a dumping ground. He argued the area is predominantly multi-family and that a single-family home would look out of place. The application requested eight variances, including reducing lot size from 11,250 to 9,275 square feet, reducing lot width from 100 feet to 45 feet, and allowing front-yard parking. A letter from Robert Butello (3 Ridgewood Drive, owner of 2 Cottage Street) was read, stating the application should be viewed objectively and recognizing Nijem Development’s professional past projects. Board members expressed concerns about the number of variances, emergency vehicle access, and whether the hardship (the lot’s narrowness) differed from others in the district. Neejam indicated he was open to reducing the proposal to two units. No other public supporters or opponents spoke.

Discussion Items

• Application 26-05: The board discussed the proposed porch addition and the existing non-conformities. They noted the applicant was only adding a front porch to improve curb appeal and provide covered entry, with no further expansion planned.
• Application 26-06: The board debated the feasibility of three units on the lot. Member Williamson questioned why three units were chosen instead of two to minimize variances. Delucia raised concerns about fire truck access to the rearmost unit—Neejam noted the driveway would be 25 feet wide, allowing access within 10 feet of the first unit but not to the farthest unit. Rivis stated the hardship did not differ from other properties in the district and cited concerns over public safety and welfare. The board discussed the option of denying without prejudice to allow the applicant to resubmit with a revised proposal. Neejam expressed willingness to come back with a two-unit plan.

Key Outcomes

• Application 26-05 (17 Cedar Drive): Approved unanimously. Motion by Mr. Delucia to grant variances: reduce easterly side yard setback from 15 feet to 3.6 feet, increase maximum building coverage from 20% to 23.7% for construction of two covered porches. Seconded by Mr. Williamson. Vote: 4-0 in favor.
• Application 26-06 (5 Clark Street): Denied without prejudice by a vote of 3-0 (Mr. Williamson, Mr. Delucia, Mr. Rivis in favor of denial). The board’s stated reason: the hardship does not differ in kind from hardships imposed by regulations on other properties in the district, and concerns for safety, health, and welfare. The applicant may resubmit after re-advertising and re-application.
• Continuations: Applications 26-01 and 26-03 (73 1/2 and 75 Osborne Street) were continued to a future meeting. The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 26, 2026.