Norwalk ZBA unanimously denies height variance for 27 Ensign Road, finds proposal inconsistent with coastal law

The Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously Dec. 19 to deny a height variance for 27 Ensign Road and separately found the proposal inconsistent with the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA).

The applicant, Eric Ziegler, sought relief for a proposed roof peak the application described as about 41 feet 9 15/16 inches, slightly above the city—s 40-foot peak limit. Architect Luis Campana told the board the project is driven by floodplain compliance and grade constraints: mechanicals and utilities will be raised above the first-floor elevation, and the house must be lifted so habitable space meets Base Flood Elevation requirements. Campana said the midpoint height would comply (about 35.14 feet) and that the portion exceeding the peak limit equates to a small roof triangle he described as roughly 2.9 square feet.

Neighbors and an attorney representing them urged denial. Joel Green, appearing for 23 Ensign Road resident Anne Tennant, told the board the 1995 variance for the property was granted to enable a one-car garage and "rides with this one-car garage," meaning it should not be read as authorization for the kind of vertical expansion proposed. Green argued the lot is not unique in the neighborhood and said the applicant could build a zoning-compliant house without the requested ridge relief.

Tennant and another nearby resident, Mylan Chola, said the primary concern is raising the deck that sits over the garage because it would reduce waterfront sightlines for several neighboring homes. Tennant told the board that photographs provided by the applicant were misleading and asked that the roof deck not be raised further. Chola submitted photos taken from his deck and said the proposed change would impair views for homes north of 27 Ensign Road.

Ziegler spoke to the board and said he reduced his original plan (which included a 30-inch raise) to a 24-inch deck raise to accommodate neighbors while still meeting flood-related construction needs. He also noted the garage opening is low and that modern vehicles have difficulty fitting into the existing space.

Board members debated whether the application reflected a legal "hardship" or an architectural design choice that could be addressed by alternatives such as reducing roof pitch. Several members said they worried about precedent and the potential "domino effect" if the board granted height relief on Ensign Road. After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance for exceeding the 40-foot peak and to make a separate finding that the proposal is not consistent with CCMA goals and would adversely impact coastal resources. The motions were seconded and the board recorded a unanimous vote to deny.

The board—s actions close the public hearing on the application. Minutes from the Oct. 17, 2024 hearing were approved later in the same meeting, officers for 2025 were elected, the tentative 2025 calendar was adopted, and the board adjourned for the holidays.

The zoning application record lists the property in the CD-1S coastal zone, notes a discrepancy between architectural and survey metrics for peak height, indicates the property was built circa 1890, and cites a substantial-improvement threshold (approximately $88,675 based on the appraised value cited in the application materials). The board directed staff to include the CCMA consistency finding in its written decision.