Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Kitchen Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk ZBA debates second‑kitchen variance for Gold family; board signals denial as submitted
Summary
The Golds requested a variance to add a first‑floor kitchenette at 7 Shorthaven Road. The board split over whether Norwalk’s 2024 zoning language allows multiple kitchens and whether the family’s hardship meets the legal test; the board moved to deny the variance as submitted and outlined appeal and reapplication options.
The Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals spent the largest portion of its Feb. 19 meeting debating a request from David and Ashley Gold to add a first‑floor kitchenette at their single‑family home at 7 Shorthaven Road.
The applicants presented application 26‑0219‑02, arguing the current zoning definition of “dwelling unit” does not clearly limit a single‑family dwelling to only one kitchen and asserting that the layout — with the sole kitchen on the second floor and the dining room on the first — creates ongoing safety and practical difficulties for their household. “Our home's dining room is on the 1st Floor, so we are regularly faced with safety concerns that arise due to the need to carry dishes and hot food and lift weights up and down the stairs,” David Gold told the board.
Staff advised the board that the city is preparing a definition for a wet bar as part of code amendments but that the proposed kitchenette is larger than the draft wet‑bar allowance. Staff also said the Golds’ alternative options could include pursuing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) pathway or seeking a staff interpretation and appeal.
Board members were split. Some members — noting grammatical and drafting irregularities in the 2024 rewrite of Norwalk’s zoning text — said the code could be read to allow a second, limited kitchen facility. Others said the history of prior regulations and the purpose of the zoning language counseled against permitting additional cooking facilities because of the risk that the space could become a separate dwelling unit in the future.
After extended questioning and discussion of hardship standards and precedent, a motion to deny the variance as submitted was made and carried by a majority of the board. Several members advised the Golds of two options going forward: (1) work with staff to request a formal staff determination that could be appealed to the ZBA; or (2) revise and refile the application with additional conditions or a narrower proposal.
The Gold family had submitted letters of neighborhood support; staff noted five letters from nearby Shore Haven Road residents in the record. No public callers spoke in opposition during the hearing portion. The board cautioned that a future application granting a full working stove and separate entrance could raise ADU concerns and would be treated differently.
Next steps for the Golds include deciding whether to pursue a staff appeal/interpretation or to reapply with revised plans and conditions; staff said appeals and reapplications require separate notices and fees.
