Good evening, everyone.

This is the City of Danbury's Zoning Board of Appeals uh regular meeting.

Uh today is May 28th.

Time is 701.

I would uh like to begin with a roll call.

Uh Peter Delusha.

Present Keegan Williamson.

Present.

Jacob Williams.

Present.

Barry Rickert.

Present.

And myself, Juan Rivas, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Do I have a motion on the floor for the acceptance of the minutes of April 23rd, 2026?

Make a motion motion to approve the minutes of the April 23rd as presented.

We have a motion on the floor.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Any uh discussion.

Seeing none, uh try your minds.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays.

Okay.

The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 11th, 2026.

Do I have a motion on the floor to open up the public hearings for tonight's agenda?

Motion to open public hearing for application 26-08 5 Clark Street and 26-0970 Newtown Road and continue public hearing for application 26-018 South Cornell Road.

All right, I have I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Any nays?

All right.

If I can have the applicant for application 26-08, please state your name for the record and address and uh go ahead and present your application.

Yes, uh, for the record, Thomas Nee James 91 South Street, Danbury, Connecticut.

Can you hear me?

Can everybody hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, I can't.

Okay, good.

Thank you for uh everyone's time this evening.

And um, in regards to five Clark Street.

So just to kind of refresh everybody's memory, um, we you know, we were we proposed this uh three units um about two months ago and I took into we took into consideration every uh uh board members um ideas and concerns, comments and concerns and over the last two months.

Um I worked uh diligently with Sean and Melissa um to make sure we addressed everyone's you know comments and concerns and uh with with that being said, we were able to get get rid of a few variances, um which is which is a plus, I would say.

Now we also had to add one because of uh of how we changed it, but it's um a very minimal one.

And and again, working with Sean and Melissa, um they were very helpful and and guiding us and and uh on on what the best route for the uh for the city was.

Um with that being said, um we were able to remove the front parking and you know put it in the rear.

Um that was a big you know, big hit, especially for uh emergency vehicles.

We were re able to reduce it to a uh two-family dwelling, which which did a lot of things.

Um it removed the variant the uh unit uh lot area um because of the unit reduction.

Um the we reduced the lot width variance, and then we removed the uh left side yard setback variance request, and then um we also were able to remove the open space variance request.

So it took away a lot of variances, and um again, I believe we address everyone's concerns, and uh hopefully you guys hopefully guys like it.

All right, are there any questions from the board members?

I have a question.

Go ahead, miss Mr.

Rickard.

Uh yes, um good evening.

Barry Rickard, um new to the board of uh zoning board of appeals, and uh thank you, Mr.

NJ for coming to the meeting tonight to address uh concerns.

Yeah, thank you.

Now um my concern is that I don't see any paperwork here from the uh public safety components of the city.

No, you've addressed some with that with your parking issue.

What I'm concerned with is the side yards or access for a fire department in particular.

Um as you know, God forbid there's a fire had to put a ladder up to a building.

You need so much um distance in the bottom of the building to the base of the ladder to put the ladder up correctly.

I don't see that outlined anywhere here, and I don't see any paperwork from the fire department saying they did actually take a look at that lot.

Isn't there a lot?

I went out there and looked at it myself.

Um so I would like to get some type of input uh to let my concern be alleviated that stuff.

They certainly have access building on four sides.

Um and uh if you've addressed it, I don't see it as being addressed here.

Yeah, I don't I don't think that I don't think that would be a you know problem.

Um you know, a standard size driveway is uh 12 feet and it um is 12 feet and we have a total of 16 feet there.

I see that on the left side, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

I'm uh actually I'm looking at the but but but also the um ex the per, you know, I don't know if you could see where it says proposed edge of the paved driveway.

We're we're also you know needed to have a little bit, you know, it's like a shared driveway.

That's what's that?

The neighbor on the other side of the city wall.

So you know, with with the shared driveway, would we'll have the um you know, I believe plenty of room to get a fire truck to the back of the property to the rear of the property.

I see that, and I and I appreciate that.

Um I would like uh a note that the fire department has visited the site.

And I know it's not three family, which would have the fire marks looking involved, it is down to a two-family uh however accessibility for emergency vehicles priority in any property.

Um so is there a way that uh we can have them go out there and take a quick look.

Give it a piece of paper.

I could I could certainly ask, yeah.

Certainly.

I'm sure that I'm sure they'll be open to it.

I would any further questions from the board.

But through through the chair really quick through the chairman.

Is is the applicant agreeing to push this off for report from fire.

Uh I'm not too sure what I'm hearing.

Are we are we agreeing to what's what's what's the I don't what's the result of the of the of the of the question then?

Are we are we waiting?

What is the applicant agreeing to?

And um Mr.

Rickard, what are you asking for?

Very simply, uh very simply, but um, I'd like a uh a report from the fire department that they do not have a concern with accessibility to the building.

Um obviously the driveway is fine, the front of the building is fine, it's the right side of the building that I have a concern with.

If they don't have a concern, then I'm all set.

So it's uh it would be we'd be putting this off, basically, until you oh you're so you're concerned of the right side, not the actual access.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um yeah, I guess I I yeah, I guess we could uh I have no I have no problem, you know, ask asking them, but I mean uh for example, Mr.

Bouchard.

Um I just we just did two units on cottage, which is two streets away.

And I mean literally it's almost the same condition.

It's um as this property here, and you know, there you only have access on you know one side of the property, and that was approved, permitted, and we're going through the COCO process right now.

So I don't believe it's a problem you know whatsoever.

But yeah, Mr.

Nean Jane, just uh for clarification, what what is the distance between the the building and the edge of that property line there?

Uh 4.7.

Okay, all right, okay, I see it here.

All right.

4.74.6.

And then a question for you, Sean.

Is this something that would be addressed at the letter later stages of the construction process through the buildings department, the um the health and the uh the fire marshals.

Well, like I said, like uh Commissioner Ricker said, it's you know basically three family and up, and usually three family I'll review and do a zoning permit on, and there's no fire review for that except for the building portion of it.

Um then the building code would apply for the two, and that's proximity of buildings together and such and such, different code, not mine.

Um you know, like I said, but do we normally don't send these back for fire review?

Uh single families, two families, and three families do not get a fire review.

Um normal course of business.

Uh the variants that they're asking for are side yard variances, they're not asking for any sort of waiver from the fire code.

They're just asking for setback variances.

And if there was an issue, I'm sure that building the park would would address any sort of uh an issue.

But as far as ladder trucks, that's out of my purview.

That's uh that would be something I I don't normally deal with.

So I don't I really can't speak to it as far as what would be convenient or not.

I know as a normal course of business, we don't deal with this.

We we don't we don't require a fire report on uh residential one, twos, and threes as no normal course.

Threes and up, or sorry, fours and up go through a site plan review process that will have a fire marshal review.

Um, but up to three, we normally do not.

So my question to Mr.

Rickard would be is this something that is holding you from moving forward with this application?

It's a concern again.

I I went out to the property, took a look at it, understand what Mr.

Nijam is uh attempting to do here and appreciate uh the work and the uh variants proposals to be comfortable with this.

It's a simple fire department takes a look.

They can get it with either a ladder truck or a ground ladder.

I'm I'm not sure if they if there's any wires in front of the building.

I didn't look at that very closely.

Um so you see, my mindset is fire department goes here, god forbid for a fire, and they have to rescue someone.

And uh is it accessible?

I see three sides that are accessible, no problem.

It's the side on the right, which concerns me.

And if the fire department says we can take care of this, then we're all set.

So I would I don't want to hold up anybody's application, but I don't want to make sure that uh when our fire safety people fire fire department personnel respond to a fire, they have every opportunity to do their job.

Understood.

Uh I guess uh yeah, I I mean again, I don't have a I don't have a problem with them look at it.

I don't know how we you know if we could continue the you know the meeting, but I I mean just through experience of excuse me, Mr.

UK.

Can we make it contingent upon uh the fire department um doing a cursory view and uh taking a look at this and saying, okay, we want to move forward this project.

I understand that.

Uh but the fire department could take a look at this tomorrow if they wish to, or next week.

And I don't want to have to come back and say, you know, oh my goodness, we didn't think about how we're going to uh address an emergency situation.

Rickard it's yeah I I would just hate to you know delay the you know the meeting uh another month and and again the the reason is is because I have I've had you know some quite a uh you know experience in building you know for ex for example we're doing three different units on um in Reynolds Road in Danbury and you don't we don't have access we only have access like the fired truck would say and and this these units are granted permitted and and built um uh actually there's three three of them done and there's a one going up now and there's you know so total of six believe it or not but would they only have access um to the front of the unit one side of the unit not three like this and in regards to space um there almost is no uh you know space so I I think the way they know kind of manage it and look at it is with like a bucket truck and you know a bucket truck and a hose if if you can't do a ladder again I'm not a I'm not a fireman but you know just out of you know experience I would I would hate to delay this um the process another month and I respect what you're saying and I and I I truly do um but that's just that's just me having experience in building on like what was what was approved and has been approved and and so forth um within that you know two you two three unit range well to your comments and to uh the chairman's uh uh question I will not um uh vote against this uh I don't see why we should vote against it but I still would like to have someone go out there take a look I'm not gonna hold up your application tonight in my mind uh but I think uh going forward we may want to just put that in the uh in our back pocket on certain cases where uh properties are very close to a line um and uh certainly the fire department will adapt they always have um but just to make me feel a little bit better move forward with the application and just get a little uh comment from the uh not an approval but a comment uh from the fire department yeah I have no problem doing that I'd love love to love to do it for you uh I want I want to say something um I think if there's anything else that we should discuss uh before um the fire department looks at it let's get it out now this way uh if that's all we're waiting on then we could uh you know rather than get to the next meeting and then something else comes up so if anybody else I would think has anything to say regarding this application it would be uh the best time to to do so well okay uh I think there seems to be some sort of confusion here the uh I think to Mr.

Rickard's question earlier with uh contingency plan uh on the approval of this application I don't think we can do that um because we're voting on the variance it's is itself and um if now if we wanted to make a stipulation where we can add a fence or um a um uh barrier as far as you know um line of sight to the property that's something that we can add but I it correct me if I'm wrong Sean I think this is something that we cannot stipulate in the approval of the variance uh because once we approve it it's set in stone and it goes forward uh within the process I agree with the chairman okay so um with other applications that I've dealt with in the past I think that we focus on the variance it's itself uh and then we put our faith and trust in the city departments within the city to make sure that all city codes ordinances and uh regulations are adhered to and and followed um but it's up to Mr.

Um other questions from the board members seeing none.

Um is there anybody in favor of this application?

Is there anyone in favor of this application?

Is there anyone in favor of this application?

Is there anyone in opposition of this application?

Is there anyone in opposition of this application?

Is there anyone in opposition of this application?

All right, seeing none.

Do I have a motion on the floor to close this application from public hearing?

I make a motion to close public hearing for application number twenty-six dash zero a five Clark Street.

On the floor, is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Any further discussion on the motion?

See none, I'll try your minds.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Do we have one nay?

All right.

Uh you know what?

We'll do roll call vote.

Is I I didn't get the y's or the ayes.

I didn't I don't know who the nay was.

Uh all right, roll call vote on the motion to close the application from public hearing.

All and uh Peter Delusia, this is to close the application uh from public hearing.

What is your vote?

Yay, Mr.

Rickard?

Yay, Mr.

Williamson.

No.

Mr.

Williams, yes.

And I'm yay.

Do I have a motion to open application twenty-six dash zero eight for discussion and voting?

I make a motion to uh open twenty-six dash zero eight for discussion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All uh all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

All right.

Board members, I'll try your minds to any discussion or motion on the application.

I I would like a little bit of discussion.

Okay.

I I would I would like to understand within the board what the hardship, what we see interpret the hardship to be more than that more than or you know, in addition to what was stated in the application.

I I think and I'll pull the rule the regulation book up.

It's in an R3 zone, if I'm not mistaken.

Um let me pull that up.

Think the law for what the what it's zoned in is severely under undersized.

Um under section eleven of the regulations.

One of the um one of the exceptions to the conditions would be an undersized lot.

Uh let me see how to find it here.

Give me a second.

Right.

Usually pretty good with having all this.

Oh, are you looking for the lot width?

I'm just sure.

Look in the uh regulation.

R three.

Here we go.

R three.

Um minimum lot area square footage is twenty thousand feet.

If you look at the site plan.

Yeah.

I mean, I I saw the site.

I understand it's very narrow.

Um yeah, uh, I mean, like I said, one of the conditions is uh, you know, the lot is in an R three zone.

Um, the conditions in under Section Eleven would be uh for a undersized lot would be a reason for you know hardship within the section eleven.

Um so that would be it could be uh subsection A of eleven B one, you know, where the hardship is the result of a particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant or predecessor in title.

Um it could be section B.

The hardship differs in kind from hardships imposed by these regulations on other properties in the district.

Um so uh those are some of the sections.

Um just wanted to clarify yeah, no, thank you, thank you.

I think that that clarifies for me or answers my question.

Okay.

And the um further discussion within the board.

All right.

I'll try your mind if anybody wants to make a motion on the application.

I can make a motion section eleven Bariances minimum variance necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property.

Yep.

And uh Mr.

Williams.

Uh you're stating the the reasons why I need a proper motion before we can get to that point.

I'll let Pete do it.

I make a motion to approve twenty-six-08 five Clark Street, knee jam development J one five one five one R3 zone section four C three reduced minimum lot width from 75 feet to 45.34 inches, so 45 feet point three four inches and reduce easterly side yard setback from fifteen feet to four point six, section four G three B two.

Waive the requirement of a front entrance facing the street for the rear unit only, section eight A two C four, allow gradient within five feet of the property line for the construction of a new two family dwelling per plan submitted.

And your reason why, uh Mr.

Delusha.

Um the first two that um were stated.

Um let me well, let me read one.

Mine, the variance is a minimum variance necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property.

Um and also um the hardship differs in kind from other hardships imposed by uh these regulations on other properties in the district.

And the hardship is a result of a particular circumstance on the site that was not created by the applicant or for the predecessor uh entitled.

I I looked at the area there, and there's there's mostly two and three family homes.

So it it blends in as best as can be given the you know um the law width being only 45 feet.

Um I think is the the most possible use for it for for that property.

All right, we uh we heard the motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

Um discussion.

Saying none.

Uh I'll try your minds.

All in favor secondify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any nays?

All right.

The application is approved.

Mr.

Nee James.

Thank you.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

If I can have the um applicant presenting for application 2609, please state your name uh and address for the record.

Uh good evening.

My name is Darcy Roy.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Um, I reside at 7 Burning Tree Lane in Wallingford, Connecticut.

Um, good evening.

Um, I'm here uh tonight on behalf of National Sign and the Singhari family ShopRite store at 70 Newtown Road in Danbury.

Um, I'm here to request a variance to sections 8.e.5.b and 8.e.6.d of the Danbury zoning regulations in order to allow an illuminated sign that will change at intervals of no less than 2.5 minutes.

Um the existing ground sign at this location will be removed and replaced with a new sign in the exact same location.

The overall size of the new sign is 15 foot by 10 foot or 150 square foot, and it will stand at overall height of 20 feet.

I believe that both the proposed uh size and height meet the current regulations.

Um, however, within the new ground sign is a proposed six foot by 10 foot or 60 square foot electric message center, also referred to as an EMC.

Um, this EMC will change its message at intervals of no less than every 2.5 minutes.

Uh it will not rotate, pulsate, flash, move, or be animated in any way.

It will be used to advertise current sales, employment opportunities, same-day pickup and or delivery services, public service announcement announcements, etc.

Um, there is no prohibition specifically from electronic message centers and the Danbury zoning regulations.

The sections that apply deal mainly with um illumination, uh flashing, animation, road rotating, beacons, strobe lights, zip chasing or zip lights, string lights, search lights, etc.

The variance for this new EMC sign is required to the extent that a 2.5 minute interval for a change of message might be defined as a flashing sign by the Danbury zoning regulations.

However, the regulations do not define flashing or flash.

Um, according to Miriam Webster Flash is to give off light suddenly or in quick bursts.

Two and a half minute intervals does not meet this definition of suddenly or in quick bursts.

Sudden is defined as happening or coming unexpectedly and marked by or manifesting abruptness or haste.

It defines quick as fast in development or occurrence or done or taking place with rapidity.

Um a two and a half minute interval, we do not feel meet those definitions.

Traffic operating uh northbound and southbound on Newtown Road is subject to a speed limit of approximately 35 miles per hour.

At that rate of speed, the message on the EMC will be visible for approximately three seconds for the drivers.

Um they were only see a maximum of one content change, if at all.

And as I said earlier, there will be no movement or animation on the EMC that might be defined as flashing sudden or quick.

Each 2.5 minutes minute message will be static.

We understand that the primary reason for a prohibition on certain types of signs and the zoning regulations is for the health and safety of Danbury residents.

And in this case, um, obviously to avoid driver distractions.

We don't believe that the proposed EMC fits within those prohibitions.

As a 2.5 minute interval for content change is long enough that it will not create a distraction, nor will it pose any real risk to the health and safety of the public.

I'm happy to take any questions.

I have a few questions, but I'll let the uh rest of the board go ahead first.

They would like to take away.

I have a person for Ms.

Darcy.

Um I go by the shop right in Danbury by North Street.

And while I was at the traffic light, I just kind of timed it.

And the illumination happened like every 17 seconds.

That's also on by the same shop right, correct?

It is correct.

Um I I'm I'm I don't live in Danbury, don't um frequently drive by there.

Um I was told in during this application process that the interval would be two and a half seconds.

You mean two and a half minutes.

I'm sorry, two and a half minutes.

You're right.

Sorry about that.

Quickly, Juan to the chair for the uh flashing discussion.

Um and two and a half minutes when you're making your way through that intersection, and it does change.

Well, that's a flash when you're looking over.

And that's there is there is case law out there in the state of Connecticut regarding what's a flash and what is not a flash, and it's any sort of them they call transitions or message changing.

The city of Danbury has always been the opinion that electronic billboards or message message centers, um, when they do change, that is a flash, whether it's in a minute, two minutes, 20 minutes.

When you're driving by, that message changes.

So it's changing while you're going by, whether it's in two minutes or it's in three minutes.

So it's a flash.

And that's the distraction thing that the aspect of the signage is not supposed to distract drivers.

Um either way.

Um, so that's if if that it was true that we were enforcing it improperly, they would be challenging my denial to a zoning permit.

They are not.

They're coming in for a variance to vary the regulation.

So just by the act of coming in to the ZBA, they're acknowledging the fact that the city is correct, and we considered it a flash.

So that's just a quick response for making sure that you don't think we're improperly enforcing the zoning regulations here in the city of Danbury.

Thanks.

Thank you, Sean.

Um Ms.

Roy, uh I as well um timed the uh flash or the change of message at the Panarum Um Shop right, and I timed it at 15 seconds.

Um in 2018, uh the same owners came to us for approval.

It was approved with the stipulations that it be uh no more shorter than two and a half minutes.

If we're having a change of message at the shop right at Pananarum for 15 at 15 seconds, uh, how can I be assured as a board member here tonight that if this was to be approved that the regulations be followed at whatever stipulations are put onto the application if they're not being followed at the current shop right across town.

Um Russ, is that something that you can help us?

Yeah, I'd be I'd be happy to do that.

Um, for the record, as uh as uh Darcy uh indicated.

Uh, my name is Russ Hassman.

I'm the president and CEO of National Sign Corporation that's located at 7804 Rod Road in Berlin.

Um with respect to your personal observations at uh at our clients' other store.

Um I'm I am uh uh I am uh unaware uh that that was indeed the case.

Um, and I certainly respect your personal observations.

Um I did have a lengthy conversation uh with Joe Singari this afternoon uh in preparation for this meeting.

Unfortunately, he had a uh another commitment and he was unable to join us.

Um but uh I did you know I did uh we did speak very specifically about uh the two and a half minute requirement and um and he agreed, you know, he you know with approval of the board, he did agree to that.

And we can certainly have a conversation about that and the fact that you know that you're bringing it up and uh and your concerns about you know the his agreement on this particular application.

Um I'm happy to answer some other questions.

I do have some, I would like to share some of the research that I did today uh for the benefit of the board uh with respect to um with respect to electronic message centers and and uh and hold times.

Um so I did in the research that I did uh today, I did find out that both the Connecticut DOT and the US DOT standards uh because they've been dealing with uh um uh LED billboards.

Uh and I guess you know, based on the studies that they performed, they've actually uh they've actually settled in on an eight-second hold time uh for billboards.

Um I I was a little surprised by that.

You know, as a sign professional for almost 40 years, I found that that that that uh hold time uh was lower than I would have guessed without doing the research.

Um and I did take a look a little bit more about like and I I did look at nor we just put a board for them in at Norwalk uh for the same client uh last year.

Um and their their hold time requirement is 12 seconds.

Uh and then I also uh I also did a little bit more research.

Uh this the zoning board of appeals in Dan Berry approved an application for Caraluzzi's market uh at 102 Mill Plain Road in um in 2022 and found that uh they were looking for two variants, one for was for sign size, but we are compliant uh you know, based on uh the preliminary work that Sean and I did.

Um so the size of the sign uh and the height of it is compliant.

So as Darcy uh stated in her opening state uh the opening uh comments that we were looking just to uh to uh define what the hold time would be.

Uh what I did learn in reviewing that application uh that was approved by this board on May 12th of 2022, uh that the board approved a 30-second hold time.

So uh so I guess from uh from uh uh you know, and and I and I apologize that I'm coming kind of late to the table with this.

I probably should have done a little bit more homework uh before we you know, in my early convert earlier conversations with Sean uh and with and his uh the assistance that he gave us in drafting this application.

Um but I guess from a procedural standpoint, what is the uh what would be you know, what would what how would we would we be able to uh request you know changing that two and a half minutes at this point to 30 seconds since that's what this board approved.

I would just like to get some feedback from you on how how we might have that conversation.

Through the chair, if I may clarify that.

Um at this point, it was advertised at two and a half minutes.

Okay.

So you can only reduce the request.

Um you could say we want to change it every five minutes.

You could not increase it without having to come back um with a complete new application and new advertisements.

Okay, so uh thank you for uh thank you for that uh clarification, Melissa, and I certainly do understand the legality of the advertisements and so forth.

So um happy to uh answer any other questions that you may have.

Um what I might on behalf of uh representing our client, uh, you know, if uh if if there is um if there isn't any opposition to our two and a half minute request, I can advise the client of the findings that I did today because I have not debriefed him on this because I I was doing the preparation for this meeting about an hour ago.

And um, and we could certainly come back, file a new application to change, you know, reduce the time.

But I would like to get some input from the board if that's something that you would entertain or you know, uh, you know, because it I would I don't want to come back and waste your time to ask for 30 seconds based on what the board has previously approved in a previous app in a in a previous application.

Uh if this board, I I understand that boards change, so the uh you know, I'm sure that you know some of you may have been on that last one, you know, four years ago.

But uh if you could give me some input whether or not you would entertain uh a uh a supplement supplemental application to go to 30 seconds, that would help me in providing some guidance to my client.

Well, I'm I'm for whatever we agree on that we stand by.

I I was on that board that approved that and we approved that in good faith.

And you know, you pointed out Carlozzi, you know, we're not bound by any precedence.

Yeah, I understand that we may have, you know, and we're acting in good faith here as you know, um good members of our community, and whatever we uh agree on, you know, I I'd like it to be held to.

You know, having been, you know, my second rodeo here.

If I could follow follow that up with a with a question, and this ties in maybe to what Sean mentioned earlier, is you know, coming to the board for a variance or coming to us means you need a variance.

And I read the the letter in the application, you know, that justifies explains and justifies, but I would like more information on what the hardship is in the request for a variance.

Well, I think I think uh I think uh Mr.

Williamson that the hardship really is is that the even the even though the regulations do not specifically prohibit this type of technology, uh it doesn't fully define uh it doesn't fully define what you know what the up what the um the hold times need to be.

Uh and you know, and and I did talk to the to the to the LED board manufacturer rep today.

Um, you know, and we both felt uh very strongly that if you know if we could provide some some uh consultative assistance to the town to help define what you know if you're gonna allow this technology, uh you'll help further define uh what those hold times need to be based on research and what other towns are doing in the Connecticut and USDOTs are doing uh to have some consensus.

So when applicants like ourselves come to Sean for uh you know for a permit, uh maybe give him the uh the opportunity and and direction to approve those applications uh administratively rather than wind up in a you know variance application uh you know as we are doing this evening.

Understood.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Any further questions from the board?

Well, I'll uh piggyback on Mr.

Delusia and Mr.

Williamson's uh comments.

Um I understand the letter that was written um as far as explaining um the hardship.

Uh but like Mr.

Haredy said, uh there is a regulation within the book.

I understand, Mr.

Heisman that it for you guys it may not be well defined or uh explained um to your liking, but uh I didn't, you know, there's still uh a variance there, and I'm not seeing the hardship quite well.

I also I'm having an issue uh uh well before I get to that to get back to your comment on the Carlusi um application, like Mr.

Delusha said, the uh there's no precedent uh precedent on the other applications, but with that application, we also added stipulations to it where you know it would be turned off by a certain time.

These are other stipulations.

Uh I can't recall all of the uh stipulations that were added to the the application at that time.

Uh but this is something that you know, as a board, we might come up with and say, hey, is this something that you guys are willing to do if this was to go forward and and be approved?

Um I at least for me uh it would be something that I would bring up as a board member and having uh a cutoff time on the light pollution within the uh signage.

Um the other thing is what I alluded to earlier um in my comment was that the same owner of the of the business had uh the application approved in 2018, they're not adhering to to the stipulations within the uh regulations.

My concern is if this was to continue forward and be approved, how are we as a board giving these stipulations and putting the power within our CEO, um uh Mr.

Haredy, to be able to make sure that you guys adhere to the stipulations stated within the the um variance acceptance, um, if it was to be approved.

And that's a concern for me, um, being that it's not followed already at one location, and we're here now with this application.

And if it was to be approved, you know, how you know we would like to make sure that Mr.

Haredi doesn't have to be running around trying to keep track of who's not following the rules when it came to a variance acceptance or approval.

Yeah, I I understand your position and your comments uh uh uh Mr.

Rivas.

Um so um you know, I'm not you know procedurally, I I guess I would need to understand.

I mean, if we have if there's any if there's no more questions, uh I know that we're in the public hearing, we're in a public hearing phase of this uh application uh presentation, correct?

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, we so um so at one point I would like to talk about you know what our options are, you know, where you know, where do we go from here?

It would we do that now in the public hearing portion, or would we do that once we close the public hearing and talk about next steps?

What do you recommend uh Chairman Reeves?

Well, well, if you uh if you if we close the application from public hearing, uh it's it's a it's a done deal.

So we as a board would have to either vote uh for it or against it.

Uh you can ask for a continuation.

Um if that's something that you guys would like to um do and seek for you know uh to refer back to Mr.

Haredi and uh uh Melissa or uh you know, or if you like to just withdraw the application after the continuation, um that'll leave that up to Melissa.

She can explain it a little bit better, or Mr.

Haredy.

Um, but if we close the public hearing uh as a board, we would have to then vote on it.

Um we wouldn't be able to continue a public hearing.

They we would be able to continue a public hearing, but it would only be reopened to just have us vote on it.

Um so there wouldn't be any input from from the applicant or the public at that point in time.

If if I could just make it to the chair a suggestion really quick.

Um enforcement's a nightmare when we got timing on it.

However, the technology has definitely changed and and shop rights been awesome as far as anything we needed, they they've done for us.

However, I can't enforce these timing things that we're currently looking at approving because I can't physically do it.

However, I'm sure that technology exists to put a lock on these items.

So if they're choosing to move forward with these transitional message signs, um is there a way if they could come back to us and continue?

And is there a way for them to guarantee to myself and to the board that they can lock these software that doesn't allow any any advanced uh transitions that the board does not approve.

And this would trickle down, in my opinion, it trickle down to all of them.

If there's some way that I can actually enforce your timings that you did guys do agree or deny it, doesn't matter.

But if I'm to look at something and you go, okay, another two and a half minutes, at least give me a shot, give me a chance to say, okay, uh meeting with the manager and the manager is going to be locking down the software, it's going to be at two and a half minutes.

Something that gives me the sad the the security that I can report back to you guys and say what you're approving is actually happening, because I can't sit by these signs and wait for them to start turning, or if a new manager comes on board or uh assistant manager was there and somebody programmed it in.

Um if you get my point, Mr.

Chairman, yeah, that's that's that's something that may be helpful moving forward.

Yes, uh, and I'll let Mr.

Hossman answer that if he has an answer.

Um so yes, Sean, the uh the software in talk in doing my research with the uh board manufacturing rep today, uh the software does have a feature where the where the interval times can be locked.

So that techno, that part of the technology exists.

Um and um so you know, and but but also I would like to address Chairman Reevas' comment about you know, you know, uh not only inner interchange times, but you know, maybe taking the Carlozy uh, you know, approval where they're turning it off at certain times, you know, we could look at that.

So I I guess my I think my choices really are, and I I would love I would welcome your guidance, uh, you know, if um you know per Melissa's uh statement, uh we can't ask for less than two and a half minutes without you know another advertisement.

So I think really my choices are you know, withdraw the application, refile uh with the time uh, you know, with with a time that may be similar to what Carluzi's was approved, but I'm still like to hear if that would be supported if when we come back, or I can continue it um and um you know uh make sure that uh you know I could offer I could ask uh I could ask Mr.

Um I could ask the client to be present for the meeting so you can hear it from him rather than from me as his representative.

Uh so I you know I would welcome your input on you know if I should, you know, would I be would I be better off procedurally withdrawing the application and coming back or continuing it to the next meeting, which I believe you said was on June 11th.

Well, uh I will say this uh in regards to your comment uh with the asking if something like the Carlusi's plan would be uh favorable and uh uh to the board.

I don't think we can opine or comment on that because we're here for this application.

So that's something that uh as a board, I don't think we would be able to speak on tonight.

Uh when it comes to your other questions uh with either withdrawing or continuing, I think Melissa would have the best knowledge on that.

Um, whether what's beneficial for the applicant, Melissa, you know.

Um as far as so through the chair, um you could proceed also with this application.

Um if if approved, you have an approval and you could still come back to kind of change that to 30 seconds, um, which then could be denied, and then you still have this.

Um or you can withdraw um and come back with the new application with the increased ask.

Um the board can't comment on how they would feel, like the chairman said.

Um but you can also continue and have Mr.

Singhari present um to maybe respond to some of these procedural things that are being questioned on the current operations.

It's really up to you.

Um okay.

So um uh what then why don't I think I think I'll make the decision to withdraw the application.

Um I'll I'll spend some time with Sean.

Uh I certainly want support of staff uh on this application, and um and I'll have a conversation with Mr.

Sangari this evening uh to let him know uh the decision that I made.

Um Melissa for if withdrawing the application, and I just want to make sure I'm making the right decision on my client's behalf.

Uh if we withdraw the application and we start over again filing deadline, uh we probably would not be able to advertise in everything for the next meeting for the 6-11 meeting.

Nope.

The next meeting you would be eligible for would be the June 25th.

Um, and we would need that by June 8th.

625 meeting.

Just to just to get Mr.

Hausman uh uh a little bit of uh room to or time to think, would it be beneficial for Mr.

Hosman to continue the application?

Sit down with you guys, discuss this, and then and then you can make you can make your decision then uh Mr.

Hosman.

Uh, you know, I I wouldn't want this, I wouldn't want you to do something prematurely that you're not comfortable with.

Okay, I appreciate that, Chairman.

Yeah, you do not need to withdraw now.

You can withdraw up until minutes before.

I mean, you could withdraw the next meeting as well, um, but you can withdraw we ask prior to the meeting so that we all don't come.

Um and talking about Singari's prior.

Absolutely.

Yeah, um, I appreciate that guidance.

So then uh I will make the decision then to continue it.

I will that'll give me an opportunity to consult with my client, uh, share uh your personal observations of the board of the uh operation of the uh uh message center at his other store.

Um and then Sean, if you don't mind, I'll spend some time with you uh, you know, and uh polishing this up and uh you know, and we'll come back with a we'll either withdraw and refile or we'll come back to the next meeting, which would be on June 11th, to uh you know, with uh you know, with the other items that we're willing to agree to and give you the sense of comfort that whatever you whatever we agree to will be adhered to, and uh, you know, and and not put any undue stress on uh on Sean to be the to be the cop.

So that you know so we that that's that's not necessary and unfair.

So okay.

Uh board members, uh the applicant is choosing to uh continue the application before we have a motion on the floor to continue the application.

Do you have any further questions to the applicant so they can have this information uh to take back to the um applicant and uh address these issues or concerns?

All right, seeing no further questions from the board, I'll try your minds for a motion to continue the application 26-09 to the next scheduled meeting.

Motion to continue application number 26-09, 70 Newtown Road until the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Um per the request of the applicant.

Second, all right.

There's a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Okay.

The application is continued until the June 11th meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Do I have anyone representing application 26-01?

If so, please state your name and address for the record.

Hello.

Um my name is Myra uh Solano, and it's 8 South Cornell in Danbury.

Hello.

Hello, hi, hi everybody.

Good evening.

Um, so I uh met with uh Sean and Tim and Melissa, and uh we basically reviewed everything um in regards to the house.

And um what I was basically what I'm willing to do is remove all the exterior work that was done that we have done, which that included the patio, the retaining wall, and the deck, and um we're just gonna like put uh instead we're gonna proceed with creating like an exit just out the patio door in the backyard with uh like the stairs and like a railing.

And then um, and basically I'm just restoring the entire slope.

Everything from the exterior, I'm restoring everything to its original uh the original plan that I had in the beginning.

And um also willing to restore the plants and all trees and bushes to ensure the privacy of the neighbors, because I know that was like one of their concerns that we had removed some of their trees and they wanted their privacy.

So we're willing to uh restore all that too.

And um basically right now my only request is uh to uh my the proposed that I have is to allow me to keep the additional the two-story additional on the right side of the house, which replaced the sunroom in the deck.

Um we didn't increase any of the footprint on the house, and then the roof that we did as well.

Okay, thank you.

I I also updated the survey.

Did you guys see the survey I updated and I uh put where we're removing everything exterior?

And we're just gonna put the the exit from the patio door, the railing.

Um and yes, that's going down to the backyard.

All right.

Any questions from the board?

Um so uh you you're removing uh um all the added footprint uh that you did.

My question is on on the second floor.

So you you went within the um to second, you created a second floor.

Um has any of that been through the building department, like for inspection for wiring for you know uh mainly for for wiring.

Um I mean no no we haven't.

I mean they they've walked through.

Uh I had two inspectors come into the property and they they saw the whole property when they they ordered a work issue, but no, they haven't like done the inspection.

So basically right now, what is I'm trying to do is try to get this if I can move forward with this, and then I'm gonna proceed with get going through all the inspections with every one of them, like that for all the electricity, the plumbing that we did, uh, you know, the sheet rock, any the everything that was done, we will proceed with that.

Yeah, we're gonna be able to do that.

I think you did some beautiful work.

I mean, I I just need somebody to sign off on it.

Yeah, and that's why that's so right now they stop all my work.

I can't touch anything.

So this is where I am right now, and if everything goes good here, then I'm willing to move forward and do everything, like get everything expected and put everything to code and everything if if it isn't, you know.

Okay.

Well, on the site plan, go ahead, Mr.

Williams.

Oh, thank you.

Uh Myra, just a question.

Have you met with your neighbors?

Uh addressed the concerns they had about the privacy fence and shrubbery and things like that.

Uh no, I I wasn't able to meet with them.

I actually was someone in my office was supposed to meet with them, but um, but I haven't met with them.

No, I haven't.

But I'm willing to, like I said, I'm willing to restore all their trees.

I do have the picture.

I see where we what the trees that we did remove.

So I'm willing to put all their trees back and actually the across the whole side of their property so that they can have their privacy.

We're willing to do all that, restore all their trees.

Just to be honest.

Are you removing the uh retaining wall?

Yeah, we're removing that.

That's on the we're gonna remove it and yeah, we're removing that, and we're just gonna restore the the slope, the original slope.

I'm removing the deck, the patio, the stairs, everything that was exterior.

I'm willing, we're removing it all, and then we'll just restore it and put the trees back.

Okay, yeah.

Any uh quest other further questions from the board.

I I have just one more.

Um, I remember the last meeting.

Um, I guess there was some safety concerns.

Uh your neighbors have grandchildren that play near the retaining wall.

Like if you could refresh my memory, I I remember there was a safety concern that needed to be addressed.

Yeah, because by the patio, when you go up the stairs on the deck, there's like a a retaining wall to the right, and then that retaining wall between the stairs and the retaining wall, there was like a there's kind of like you can fall, like maybe like three feet where it's kind of like a hole, you would say, right?

So that's where I'm gonna just when I remove the whole thing, it'll just be restored.

So that won't that wouldn't be there no more.

Okay, yeah, that that would be uh restored to its original.

So yeah, we wouldn't have that.

Okay.

Just to clarify, when you say everything restored to original, there's still a deck or porch in the plan off the eastern side, right?

With just the stairs are changed.

Um the the stairs on the on the side of the house.

Uh I mean in the on the eastern side where the you know the area we're talking about with the deck and the retaining wall and everything like that.

Uh you you just mentioned you were gonna you know remove the tiny retaining wall and the current stairs and return everything, the original slope and everything, but in the plan, right?

There still is a I mean uh a deck, maybe a smaller deck than in the previous plan.

Correct.

I I just want to make clarify that that it's it's it's not just removing everything from that side.

Yeah, well, yeah, we're basically everything that we did exterior.

We are gonna remove it, and all I'm gonna do because I have a patio door in the backyard, like the back of the house.

So I just want to create like stairs coming out, like I need an exit to it.

Everything else will be removed.

Okay, yeah.

Uh let me uh I got the old site plan here.

Uh oh, yeah, which one are we talking about?

Through the chair real quick.

I asked uh Mr.

Rosati to come to the meeting in case it's any historical questions you had regarding the property.

He's been involved in it since the beginning.

So Mr.

Rosati is here for any questions for uh history or any referrals.

Oh Tim, I'll I'll ask them just to confirm because I got both the old site plan and the new site plan here to Mr.

Williamson's uh um comments.

It looks like on the old site plan the deck or the fencing for the the back uh yard area there came to the property line or encroached over the property line, whereas it looks like it's a smaller uh it looks like the new site plan, they're removing the steps and they're keeping that back patio area.

So they're removing the steps coming down or adding the leaving the steps there.

So similar to what the applicant, Myra was stating, they have a sliding glass door that comes out of the house, but it's at a higher elevation than the grade below.

So they're creating a stoop, like a landing, and then stairs descending from the back of the house.

So that that would essentially the would replace what was a deck and a fence and a retaining wall.

That's what would be in its place.

Okay.

Any further questions from the board?

Oh, go ahead.

Sorry.

We're also removing the fence.

I mean, it's on the plans too, but like the fence that was kind of over.

We'll be removing that too.

Right.

Yeah.

That'll that'll be gone too.

Any further questions from the board?

Well, I appreciate uh you listening to our concerns and addressing some of the concerns of your neighbors.

Uh although a lot of things were done without approval of variances and um city knowledge.

I appreciate you making it less non-conforming and um making some changes and coming back in front of the board.

Yeah, and I apologize for that.

I do appreciate that.

Um other questions from the board.

Anything from Tim or Sean.

No, I have nothing further to add.

Thank you.

Um I'll try the board's mine on a motion.

Oh, through the chair really quick.

Two things.

Um I believe Mr.

Rickert watched the previous recording of 8 South Cornell.

Um, if we could just get that on the record.

I did.

Okay.

And um, in favor and opposition, there is the stocks are here, but there is the email that does need to be read into the record.

There is the the what an email from the stocks to be read into the record.

I do have it if you need me to do it.

Um yeah, I don't let me see if I can pull it up.

You know what?

Just to save time, if you don't mind reading it, Melissa.

I apologize.

Um, this was an email received on Tuesday, May 26th at 1218 p.m.

Um, to myself regarding the construction at 8 South Cornell Road.

We want to express our serious concerns and dissatisfaction with the project and its impact on our property at 10 South Cornell Road.

What was presented as an addition became in effect a completely new structure that is significantly larger and much closer to our property line than the original home.

The deck is especially very close to the property line.

The previous house was a small cape style home.

While the new structure is a large colonial that is not keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Most importantly, the new construction has caused a major loss of privacy for our family.

We are especially troubled that this work proceeded without our knowledge or input.

We were never notified of any variance requests or ZBA hearings, despite being the adjacent property owners most directly impacted by the construction.

We later learned from a neighbor about the January 22nd ZBA meeting and obtained the application materials ourselves from the permit center.

We discovered that nearly all surrounding neighbors were included on the abutters list, except for us, which is deeply concerning.

Before construction, a natural hedgerow, approximately eight to ten feet high, provided privacy between the properties.

That hedge was removed during construction.

We were told it would be replaced with the tall fence, and later that trees would be planted, but neither has occurred.

We have spoken to the owner on a couple of occasions and asked about this as well.

Another concerning fact is that the owner stated that this home was built for her mother, but the house is currently listed for rent on Zillow.

We are also very concerned about safety issues related to the retaining wall and deck construction.

A ravine exists between the retaining wall and the deck, creating a dangerous condition for children playing in our yard.

We have already found a baby deer trapped after falling into this area.

In addition, the retaining wall was never fully completed, and portions of the original wall behind our shed remain partially dismantled.

Our requests are straightforward.

Restore privacy between the properties with a substantial natural barrier, such as tall trees or hedges.

Relocate or modify the deck to create an appropriate buffer from our property line.

An engineer's opinion letter regarding the resulting grading created by the removal of the retaining wall regarding the impact of erosion to our driveway and shed.

And correct and complete the retaining wall to eliminate the current safety hazard.

We have lived in our home for 32 years and hope to continue enjoying it peacefully and safefully.

We respectfully ask the city to address these concerns and help restore the character privacy and safety that existed prior to this construction.

Thank you for your consideration.

Arthur and Linda Stock.

All right.

Can I say something?

All right.

Um go ahead.

Um okay.

So my mother was supposed to move there, but since they stopped the work and we were never able to like nobody was able to live in there, so she was she we ended up buying my mom a different house.

So that's why she never moved in, but that's the plan for her to move in.

And now, in regards to the house being closer, it's like we just we didn't add any footprint to the house, we just went up.

So there was a in the fence.

I mean, the the porch, the in-screen porch, and then there were a small deck.

All we did was go up.

So when they say we got closer to their property, maybe with the retaining wall and stuff, but not the house itself.

And I'm willing to, like I said, restore the trees.

I haven't done any of it because I can't do any work, and I don't want to get in trouble if they see my guys or anyone out there doing work.

So I just rather not do anything.

But I am planning to restore, and I'm willing to, like I said, work with them and do anything I need to do to you know make them happy.

This is their home, this is where they live.

Well, it um just to ask again.

So you haven't removed the retaining wall, but you will be removing the retaining wall.

Yeah, yeah, that's uh yeah.

I haven't removed it because I mean I'm waiting for you guys to give me the go on uh on any any work, but um, that's my plan to remove the detaining wall, restore the slope, and all I need to do is just create the exit from the patio because like uh like Tim said, you know, I have to create something to exit the house, but everything else will be be restored, so it's original.

All right.

Uh if this moves forward and it was to be approved, if we add these stipulations to the approval of the variants, are you okay with that?

Like the stipulation of adding trees for uh privacy screening of the neighbors' property.

Um backfilling the grading that was caused uh when the retaining wall was put in and when it's gonna be removed and you know backfilled.

Are you okay with these stipulations of this type?

If this was to move forward and be approved, yes, I'm okay with it.

I'm gonna let you do it.

All right, any other questions from the board members for the chair real quick um to the chairman.

We'll be willing, we will be requiring an engineer's letter as well as standard practice for any sort of uh an addition or change.

I know that was one of the conditions the stocks mission mentioned, but so there will be an engineer's opinion letter.

Okay, it will I'll be working with one okay.

All right, seeing that uh board members have no further questions.

Is there anybody in favor of this application?

Anyone in favor of this application?

Anyone in favor of this application?

Is there one anyone in opposition of this application?

Anyone in opposition of this application?

Anyone in opposition of this application?

And uh, board members, if you have any last questions you would like to ask, um ask them now.

If not, I'll uh try your go ahead, Mr.

Rickert.

Yes, I'm looking at the application here, and I see uh number three, the abutters list.

And I see uh I think it's 14 different people who are notified of this application, exception of Mr.

and Mrs.

Stock.

Has anybody else commented on this application?

On this, I think there's 14 people, 14 other properties.

Is anybody else commented on this application to the board?

Not that we're aware of it.

My office notified everyone, and we also did certified mail.

That was my question.

Not my question.

Oh, sorry.

My question is has anybody responded with any negative or positive comments?

Oh no, okay.

Not to you.

Oh, Sean or to Tim in particular.

I think Tim could speak to that better.

The only um person that has reached out to me is uh Arthur and Linda Stock, the uh adjacent property owners.

I haven't spoken with any other neighboring property owners.

And they have not called you and said that they had a concern.

Not to me, no, not that I'm aware of or anyone else.

But there so there were you know, to go back in time.

This this property has been sitting for quite a while, idle.

Um, you know, stop work orders by the building department, uh cease and desist order by myself were issued.

Um, you know, when when this non-permitted work was brought to our attention, so there was action in regards to that.

But other than those actions taken by um building, you know, department officials.

Um I don't believe there are any other interactions by other neighbors that I'm aware of in our office.

Sean is also on your end, Sean.

On my end, just just quickly too.

The the yeoman's lifting here were basically by the stocks during this whole process.

They were the ones that had a stare at this, they're watching the construction.

I just their patience is just epic.

Um, so I gotta give them full credit for what they're asking for is minimus.

They're not asking for the full tear down, and then they'd be within their rights to ask for something like that.

So this just good people.

I just um I can't say enough about people that actually rise to the top like that.

So it's uh those are the primary ones, but they it's been what three years, Tim.

Yeah, I believe you're right.

Going back to 2023.

Long time they've been patient.

I appreciate that.

Take that in consideration.

A little curious of why they were left out of the loop here.

Uh I don't know where we would go with that.

It is a question.

So, Mr.

Chairman, um the safety concerns in the recent communication of May 26th.

Bring forth an awful lot on my mind.

Um certainly don't want to see anybody injured or any concerns on the stocks uh uh minds.

They are living next door to this home, and they are being good neighbors and asking questions as they should, and responsible uh neighbors.

And myra, you're being responsible to acknowledge that and to hopefully move forward.

So I want to be real sure that all the safety concerns are addressed, and that there's nothing left to chance or concern on the adjacent neighbors, Mr.

and Mrs.

Stock.

So my question, if I could ask Mr.

Mrs.

Stock at this point.

I'm not out of order.

Um, do you can do you at this point see an issue going forward?

Yeah, I know it's only been two days since you wrote the letter, but if she was to take care of the concerns that we listed, we would be okay with that.

Especially we want the taller trees back so it blocks because now with the second story, it gives us even less privacy because people could be looking down on us, but that's neither here or there.

But the retaining where the retaining wall is we don't even allow kids to play.

We have grandchildren, we have a grandchild.

We have a uh son that likes to play basketball with his buddies, he'd older, but we don't even want to play.

We have a basketball hoop in our backyard.

We don't let him use it because we're afraid that someone would run over there and fall into the as we had said there was a deer that fell in there.

We actually had to call the uh animal control to come rescue that deer.

So it that's how wide it is.

But with a smaller deer, but we couldn't we couldn't get it out.

And I just as soon as I saw that, I said this is a problem if a kid falls in there, or even on a young young adult fall in there, you can get hurt.

So we don't allow anybody to play basketball in there.

We haven't allowed anybody to play basketball in our backyard for at least a year and a half, other than my son going shooting some hoops by himself practicing, but no games.

Well, I certainly empathize with your concerns and you should be able to use your home for your leisure um pleasure at your time frame.

So yeah, there's one other thing I find a little bit misleading.

Said that uh it was for her mother, but that house has been for it was it's been on the market a couple of times for rent.

So that's that that's not really adding up to us either.

That we're not sure we're getting a straightforward honest answer there, but I don't really care what happens as long as we have good neighbors and all the safety concerns are taken care of.

And again, we don't want we we don't want to ruin her life or have her have to tear her house down either.

That's not that's not uh what we're about.

We just want it we want the neighborhood that we had before all this went down.

That's what we're looking for.

I hear you're okay with the stipulation that all four of these requests are you know part, you know.

And actually, you you also asked the only the only way we found about this is the neighbor that lives on the opposite side of the street, Mr.

Duncan, he actually came to me and showed me the letter that he received and said, Did you get this?

And we said, No, we didn't get this.

So he actually he did attend the January meeting with me, and that was the in-person meeting, and then that meeting got continued because the Selenuses couldn't show up.

Uh they they at the last minute we heard that they weren't gonna be there.

Then you got continued to the next meeting, and then Paul Paul's been unable because he works at night.

So even then unable to attend these these uh Zoom sessions.

Thank you.

And we have um that does it probably can't enter this into the record, but other neighbors have come up to us and asked us what's going on.

I said, Well, you guys got the letters, but um they they all wished us luck.

That's that's all that's the best I could say.

That no one nobody stepped forward and wrote anything, apparently.

So but there has been considered the general consensus of the neighborhood is the character of the neighborhood changed because of the size of that house, you know.

That's neither here or there, but just I'm just telling you what we hear from the neighbors.

Thank you.

Your comments have been uh put into the record officially.

Um any other questions from the board members.

If not, I will try your minds in closing the application from public hearing.

I make a motion to close public hearing for application 26-01, eight South Cornell Road.

I have a motion on the floor.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Um in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any nays.

Okay.

Do I have a motion on the floor to open up application 26-01?

Uh for discussion and voting.

Motion to open application number 26-018 South Cornell Road for voting session and discussion.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Um all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Any nays?

Okay.

All right.

Uh gentlemen, you've uh heard the applicant.

Um, you've seen the revision done to the uh property and the proposal.

Um the applicant is removing um or scaling back some of the the um the variances.

The applicant also stated that they will be removing the retaining wall.

Um, you've heard public commentary on some of the requests that the neighbors have.

Um you are more than welcome to add stipulations to the variants if you deem to approve the application.

Uh I just would like to note to the board, whoever does make an uh a motion, and if it is for approval, that when you're reading the um the motion, uh we are removing the last line of the of the of the uh the variants there.

If you're reading the agenda, um section eight a two c four is um is to be removed from the motion if you if anyone decides to vote in favor of this application.

that when you're reading the um the motion uh we are removing the last line of the of the of the um the variance there if you're reading the agenda um section 8 a 2 c 4 is um is to be removed from the motion if you if anyone decides to vote in favor of this application i'll let you guys discuss if you have any further discussion if not i'll try your minds on a on a motion for approval or denial or continuation i i don't think we can continue but through the chair really quickly yep um if there is a motion for approval um it needs to be those amended measurements that were provided based on the new survey oh so it the on the agenda it's not updated either i can't i couldn't update the agenda because that's the advertised oh okay does everybody have this list that melissa provided yes yeah all right so if if there is an approval then i guess we're going off of this list that is that the sorry is that the paper titled updated variance info at the top yes yes just want to make sure i saw mr rickert's uh hand raised do you did you have a i do have a question i do have a question and a comment so exactly what is the hardship here that they did something wrong and we're asked to say it's okay now or is it is it something dynamic that was part of it I believe that was part of it uh uh I mean they were caught again if we look at the application and um where is it we didn't ask that at this meeting I believe it was discussed at the last meeting that we had um yeah I mean I I I recall from the pre from the previous meeting and application the stated hardship was a issue with the con the stated hardship in the application was a stay uh an issue with the contractor yeah um I mean there's more I'm sure there's more but but I basically have uh the same question as is Mr.

Rickard so not to interrupt you sir but uh where is that a hardship in the rules and regulations that we are to monitor a contractor did something wrong there are other ways to correct the contractor when he or she does something incorrectly um I'm well Mr.

Rickard uh you know uh and that and that was uh we had discussed that at the last meeting and uh and I think that you know um the the board wasn't uh satisfied with what was done and what had happened um so we you know the application uh if I'm not mistaken was denied or no was not denied it was continued believe it was Melissa can you just refer my mind because I don't have the meeting minutes from that um meeting they believe I can pull it up now I believe it was continued because of the safety concerns that were brought up by the stocks if I recall and yes through the chair um Juan yes the the the hardships that were brought up was the pre-existing nonconforming lot size the pre-existing location of the house was the beginning of the hardship that came in underneath their uh um agenda to under hardships what's what they cited and then they rolled into the contractor uh mouth easen or whatever after that now uh mr rickard just to finish what i was discussing with you thanks Melissa and Sean for that um the the dissatisfied with what uh brought before them the application was continued and this is what is now being presented today a revised site plan and the um revision on the variances um here before us today it's not perfect um it's less non-conforming um then what it was when it originally presented uh before us but um i i mean i i'll just leave it we'll say i think mr rickert was mr rickard's question was was a good one it i think getting at you know is the stated hardship uh a hardship as defined by the zoning regulation

We'll say I think Mr.

Rickert was Mr.

Rickert's question was was a good one.

I think getting at you know is the stated hardship uh a hardship as defined by the zoning regulations I think that's why Sean said it was it it was the again a lot size uh non conformity uh because due to the regulations and when they were created to when uh uh the lot that you know was created and then the zoning regulations being put in place uh back when they were put into law is that correct Sean Yeah, the lot size is undersized for its the standard would be 20,000, it's about 7400 square feet, and also the pre-existing location of the home if they if if if a hardship is what you're the contract, you're correct, uh Commissioner Record would not be a hardship that would be you know again, but the pre-existing location, the undersized lot would be one.

However, there was a legal work there, this is why we continued it so long, like the chairman's been saying.

So it's a tough one.

This is a really tough one.

So just so I make a uh a decision that makes sense to me and to the board.

The hardship began because of new zoning or relatively new zoning regulations after this building was built.

Is that no uh no?

So uh Mr.

Rickard, what you're gonna notice on the ZVA um with a lot of these applications is that you're gonna get a lot of applications that come in, and a lot of these lots that people come in with variance requests, they're gonna be uh most of them are gonna be severely undersized uh in accordance to the regulations um that are in place.

So uh, you know, a lot of them are gonna come in and and one of the conditions that we spoke to about earlier tonight was that the lot is um you know uh undersized.

And again, if you go back to section eleven, which I'll pull up again, um the first condition is the hardship is the result of the particular circumstances of the site and was not created by the applicant or uh or a predecessor in title.

Um, or B, the hardship differs in kind from hardship imposed by these regulations on other properties in the district.

So you know uh whenever these regulations were put in and into law within the city and and um these lots were already created, they were pre-existing, non-conforming, is what you would call it um lots.

So that's a condition that you can be used for approval of uh a variance application.

Thank you.

That makes sense to me.

Yep.

Not looking to reinvent the wheel here.

I just want to make sure that the people would live next door.

The people live next door are are satisfied with the proposal and that as this moves forward that all the conditions that we are gonna put into place are met and zone well, zoning enforcement officer, Sean and Tim, I presume you're gonna be watching over this as it moves forward.

Yes, we were correct.

So well, like again, I like I stated uh uh before if any of the members here decides to make a motion on on approving this application, you have you have the ability to add as a stipulation to to the approval of the application that um some of these requests that the uh neighbors asked for uh be implemented.

The applicant uh during the public session of the meeting stated that she's willing to um you know uh abide by these stipulations if they were added to the approval of the variance uh application.

So be it.

I add the stipulations, especially the ones from Mr.

Mrs.

Stock.

Well, we need we need a an official uh motion made through the chair.

One other thing to keep in mind is that you are basing your conversations tonight on a revised plan submitted.

Um so that wording should be included if that's the plan that you're going to want to associate it with an approval if one is made.

Yes, correct.

Thank you for that reminder.

Okay.

Whenever you guys are ready.

So do you guys need something for me now, or I'm waiting on you guys?

No, wait well, you're you're waiting on us, unfortunately.

Okay, because I'm like, wait, do I have to need do I need to say something?

No, we're just waiting to say the right thing.

Okay, I'll make it a very complex motion.

Okay, sorry.

Okay, the the revival is complex motion before somebody is says the right or wrong thing.

Obviously, we have the revised uh variances.

Yes, I'll correct you if if you if you get something wrong.

Can we use the revised data variance information?

I'm not saying it in the mean way.

I'm just saying that I'll correct you.

So uh go ahead, Jacob.

Sorry.

No, I said we can use the updated variance information to make the motion, correct?

Yes, and then uh the late the latest yes.

And it if if you go to approve this, uh at the end, you're going to say per plan revised site plan.

Yeah, for the as per the revised plan submitted.

We're gonna yes, Pete.

You want me to do it?

Yeah, you go first.

Okay, I make a motion to approve application 26-018 South Cornell Road, eight Solana Brothers LLC H17055 RA-20 zone section 48, reduce southern side yard setback from 15 feet to 3.6 and reduce northern front yard setback from 30 feet to 24.8 feet for legalization of previous edition for the deck fence and retaining wall for the for the request of variance for the deck retaining wall fence reduce southern site set site yard set back from 15 feet to 4.6 feet, uh reduced eastern site yard setback from 15 feet to 11.5 feet allow grading eight uh eight dot a dot two dot cacob Jacob that that one's we're that one's being withdrawn okay, got it.

That is being withdrawn.

Okay, and this is subject to submitted updated site plan submitted with this application.

Jacob, are you adding any stipulations to this motion?

Hold on, hold on.

Yes, yes.

The stipulations that are the four conditions that was submitted by the neighbors and also required by the zoning board are to be met.

Okay.

When it comes to when it comes to short members when it comes to removing the retaining wall and I don't remember all the four conditions that was in there.

The regroup the grading of the um property and the engineers opinion letter.

That's right.

Engineers opinion letters.

Yes.

Privacy barriers.

All right.

Did we get the privacy barriers?

Gentlemen, you've uh yeah, yes.

Uh that that's that's what Jacob meant.

Yes.

Um all right, gentlemen.

You you've heard the the motion with the stipulations and the revise submitted.

Um I should say.

Do I have a second?

I see Mr.

Rickard with his hand up.

Uh seconding the motion.

Well, that's not the second, yes.

Yep.

Okay.

So I just want to make sure that that my and the neighbors' concerns are addressed in our motion from the May 26th email.

Well, Mr.

Ricker, before we you discuss, I just need a second so we can through Robert's rule of order and procedural wise.

We we are following the rules.

So I'll need a second, then we can discuss the motion, and then we will take it from there.

All right, second.

Now you may discuss the motion.

So again, want to make sure that the stipulations and concerns of neighbors are met, especially regard to the most recent um email uh regarding the safety concerns, and of course the other stipulations in the uh in the variance request.

So uh that's just my you know my comments on that.

Um seeing that we got this most recent uh uh correspondence.

We need to put that into the record that we are so Mr.

Rickard uh Mr.

Williams' motion uh uh was on the revised uh variances uh uh brought up uh in front of the board, and Mr.

Williams also addressed the engineer's opinion letter, the uh removal of the retaining wall, uh the privacy uh shrubbery uh for the property line and the stocks, and uh regrading of any um prop any uh property that was dug up or uh affected with the construction of the property.

Uh so that was the motion that was made by Mr.

Williams.

You second it.

Um I think uh we have it covered and it's with the revised plan submitted.

Um all right.

Any further discussion on the motion?

Saying none.

I'll try your minds.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye, aye.

All right.

Any nays?

No.

We have one nay, Mr.

Williamson.

We have a five-member board, correct?

So that's uh that's an approval with one nay.

All right.

The application is approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

All right.

There is no old business, no new business, no new correspondence, no other matters.

Do I have a motion on the floor to adjourn?

I make a motion to adjourn.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

Is there any discussion on the motion on the floor to adjourn?

Saying none, all signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Right.

Any in case all right.

Thank you, everyone.