OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 2, 2026

Meeting PortalTuesday, June 2, 2026
BodyDanbury, Connecticut
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, June 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:49:11

Transcript — Verbatim
0:01

Good evening, everyone.

0:03

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

0:09

Uh today is May 28th.

0:11

Time is 701.

0:14

I would uh like to begin with a roll call.

0:17

Uh Peter Delusha.

0:20

Present Keegan Williamson.

0:24

Present.

0:26

Jacob Williams.

0:28

Present.

0:30

Barry Rickert.

0:32

Present.

0:33

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

0:38

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

0:44

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

0:49

We have a motion on the floor.

0:51

Is there a second?

0:53

Okay.

0:54

Any uh discussion.

0:58

Seeing none, uh try your minds.

1:00

All in favor signify by saying aye.

1:03

Aye.

1:04

Aye.

1:04

Any nays.

1:07

Okay.

1:10

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

1:15

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

1:22

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.

1:43

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

1:46

Any discussion?

1:48

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

1:53

Any nays?

1:54

All right.

1:56

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.

2:11

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

2:18

Can you hear me?

2:19

Can everybody hear me?

2:22

Yeah.

2:23

Yeah, I can't.

2:26

Okay, good.

2:27

Thank you for uh everyone's time this evening.

2:31

And um, in regards to five Clark Street.

2:35

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.

3:03

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.

3:28

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

3:35

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.

3:46

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

3:58

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

4:04

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

4:11

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

4:19

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.

4:36

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.

4:50

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

5:04

I have a question.

5:06

Go ahead, miss Mr.

5:07

Rickard.

5:09

Uh yes, um good evening.

5:11

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

5:17

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

5:21

Yeah, thank you.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning Regulations█████████████████████████████████████████████84%
Procedural████8%
Public Safety██4%
Public Engagement██3%
Technology and Innovation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 2, 2026

The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals held a regular meeting on June 2, 2026, at 7:01 PM. The board reviewed three applications: a revised two-family dwelling at 5 Clark Street, a request for an electronic message center sign at 70 Newtown Road, and a continued case for legalization of work at 8 South Cornell Road. The meeting included roll call (all five members present: Peter Delusha, Keegan Williamson, Jacob Williams, Barry Rickert, and Chairman Juan Rivas), approval of prior minutes, and public hearings. Key actions included approval of the 5 Clark Street application with one dissent, continuance of the 70 Newtown Road application, and approval of the 8 South Cornell Road application with conditions and one dissent.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved the minutes of the April 23, 2026, regular meeting by unanimous voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 5 Clark Street: No public comments in favor or opposition were heard.
  • 70 Newtown Road: No public comments were presented; the applicant, National Sign Corporation, represented by Darcy Roy and Russ Hassman, requested a continuance after discussions about the required message hold time and enforcement concerns.
  • 8 South Cornell Road: The adjacent property owners, Arthur and Linda Stock (10 South Cornell Road), submitted a letter read into the record expressing concerns about loss of privacy, safety hazards from a retaining wall and deck, and lack of notification. They requested restoration of privacy barriers, removal of the retaining wall, an engineer's opinion letter, and grading corrections. The applicant, Myra Solano, agreed to these conditions.

Discussion Items

  • Application 26-08 – 5 Clark Street (Thomas Nejam, applicant): The applicant revised the proposal from a three-unit to a two-family dwelling, removing several variances. The requested variances were: reduce minimum lot width from 75 feet to 45.34 feet (R3 zone, required 20,000 sq ft lot area—actual lot undersized), reduce easterly side yard setback from 15 feet to 4.6 feet, waive front entrance requirement for the rear unit, and allow grading within 5 feet of the property line. Board member Barry Rickert raised concerns about fire department access to the right side of the building, but after discussion with staff, the board agreed the variance focused on setbacks and city departments would handle code compliance. The applicant offered to seek a fire department comment. The public hearing was closed on a 4-1 roll call vote (Keegan Williamson dissenting). The application was then approved by voice vote with no nays, citing hardship due to the undersized lot (Section 11 of regulations).
  • Application 26-09 – 70 Newtown Road (ShopRite / National Sign Corporation): The applicant sought a variance to allow an illuminated electronic message center sign with a message change interval of 2.5 minutes, arguing that the zoning regulations do not define “flash” and that such intervals are not distracting. Staff noted that the city considers any change of message a flash, and the applicant acknowledged the need for a variance by applying. Board members expressed concerns about enforcement of the interval, citing a similar sign at another ShopRite location that changed every 15–17 seconds despite a prior 2.5-minute approval. The applicant suggested the software could be locked to enforce intervals, and offered to reduce the interval to 30 seconds (as previously approved for Caraluzzi’s market). However, the advertised variance was for 2.5 minutes, so the board could not reduce the time without a new application. The applicant chose to continue the application to the June 11, 2026, meeting to consult with the client and possibly refile. The continuance was granted unanimously.
  • Application 26-01 – 8 South Cornell Road (Myra Solano, applicant): This was a continuation from a previous meeting. The applicant proposed to remove the non-permitted deck, retaining wall, and fence; restore the original slope; and keep only a two-story addition that replaced a sunroom (no increase in footprint). The requested variances were: reduce southern side yard setback from 15 feet to 3.6 feet, reduce northern front yard setback from 30 feet to 24.8 feet, and reduce eastern side yard setback from 15 feet to 11.5 feet. The hardship was based on the pre-existing undersized lot (7,400 sq ft vs. 20,000 sq ft required) and the pre-existing nonconforming house location. The neighbors (Stocks) testified that they were not notified initially and have safety concerns. The applicant agreed to all four conditions from the Stocks: restore privacy barriers, regrade the property, provide an engineer’s opinion letter, and complete the grading. The motion to approve included these stipulations and referenced the revised site plan. The public hearing was closed, and the application was approved on a 4-1 vote (Keegan Williamson dissenting).

Key Outcomes

  • 26-08 5 Clark Street: Approved (4-1 on closing hearing, unanimous on approval). Variances granted for lot width, side yard, front entrance waiver, and grading. No public opposition. The board noted the lot is undersized under Section 11.
  • 26-09 70 Newtown Road: Continued to the June 11, 2026, meeting at the applicant’s request. The applicant may withdraw and refile with a different message hold time.
  • 26-01 8 South Cornell Road: Approved (4-1). Variances granted for side and front yard setbacks, subject to conditions: (1) restore privacy trees/hedges, (2) provide an engineer’s opinion letter on grading, (3) regrade and remove the retaining wall, (4) complete all exterior restoration per the revised site plan. The next regular meeting is scheduled for June 11, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

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.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com