Fairfield Zoning Board approves most variances, denies shed request after hardship debate

The Fairfield Zoning Board of Appeals on March (public portion) approved most of the variance applications on its docket but rejected a homeowner’s petition to allow a 10x14 shed that would have pushed lot coverage above the town limit.

The board heard ten items during the public portion, including requests for second‑floor additions, dormers, new driveways and garages, and accessory dwelling conversions. After public comment and applicant presentations, the board voted on each item during deliberations. Nearly every application drew questions about lot nonconformities, setback calculations and whether claimed hardships met the statutory standard under Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 8‑6.

The most contested vote involved 33 Middlebrook Place, where homeowners Robert and Patricia Piasik sought a variance for a 10x14 shed that would raise lot coverage from 20% to about 21.4%. Robert Piasik told the board the shed was needed because the house’s finished basement has limited, unsafe egress and he has orthopedic conditions that make internal storage difficult. He said he had canvassed neighbors and submitted signatures in support. The applicant: “I need the shed more than I need a porch given the conditions that I just mentioned,” he said.

Board members split on whether those reasons satisfied the legal requirement that a hardship be tied to the property’s physical characteristics rather than to occupants’ personal circumstances. Committee member (speaker S2) argued, “Our ability to grant variances is based on hardships that are related to the property, not to the occupancy,” and so the board ultimately concluded the application did not demonstrate the requisite property‑based hardship. The motion to approve failed (recorded votes: Harold — yes; Ryan — yes; Jeff — no; Elise — yes; chair — no) and the variance was denied.

By contrast, the board approved multiple applications where members identified clear preexisting nonconformities or minimal changes to existing conditions. Examples include approvals for 131 Colony Street (small second‑floor addition on a 4,999‑sq‑ft preexisting lot), 101 Applegate Road (two‑story addition on a 1937 subdivision lot), 579 Judge Street (second‑floor addition largely within the existing footprint), 43 Helen Street (front porch infill and driveway), 104 Turney Road (additions and detached garage with home office), 35 Concord Street (screened porch where a high‑tide line reduces usable lot area), 328 Sasco Hill Road (second‑floor on an existing detached accessory structure to match character), 333 Roland Road (new two‑car garage with a small multipurpose room above) and the continued docket item at 287 South Benson Road.

Attorney John Fallon, who represented several applicants, told the board in several cases that preexisting nonconformities and, in one instance, FEMA‑driven changes to a property’s usable living area provide a lawful basis for a hardship finding. On 333 Roland Road, Fallon said owners lost roughly 742 square feet of finished basement space to bring the house into FEMA compliance and sought to partially recoup that area with habitable space above a rebuilt garage; the board approved that variance after discussion.

The board closed the public portion, then deliberated and voted on each item in turn. Where an applicant presented post‑submission changes or petitions of neighbor support, members repeatedly cited those outreach efforts in their deliberations.

The board concluded its business after the votes and closed the meeting. Applicants were told they may remain for the executive session or call the zoning office for final decisions and next steps.