Zoning board upholds denial of second-kitchen permit, urges code fix

The Norwalk City Zoning Board of Appeals voted April 16 to deny an appeal by David and Ashley Gold of a zoning enforcement officer’s decision to reject their permit for an interior renovation that included a second kitchen in their single-family home on Shore Haven Road.

The appeal centered on the wording of the city’s dwelling‑unit definition. Applicant David Gold argued the sentence “which includes sleeping, kitchen, eating, and sanitation facilities” should be read to mean “kitchen facilities,” not an explicit one‑kitchen limit. He said the plain‑text reading, supported by a linguistics analysis he submitted, and Connecticut case law favoring narrow construction of restrictions, meant the code does not bar more than one kitchen in a dwelling unit. “The decision to deny our permit application should be overturned,” Gold told the board.

Zoning enforcement officer Tammy Maldonado urged the board to uphold the denial, saying the singular nouns and ordinary reading of the provision support staff’s long‑standing practice of permitting only one kitchen per dwelling unit and that allowing a second kitchen could create enforcement problems and encourage illegal apartment conversions. “That is an additional justification for this definition as it stands alone that the intention of the language is that there’s only to be one kitchen in each dwelling unit,” Maldonado said.

Members weighed two concerns: the textual ambiguity raised by the applicant and the practical risks of creating a precedent that could be used to justify illegal multi‑unit conversions. Board members repeatedly noted that even if the wording is ambiguous, the history of enforcement and the potential for future misuse counsel caution. One member said staff and the common council should correct the language so it explicitly states “one and only one kitchen” if that is the intended rule.

Public commenter Diane Cici, a resident of Olmstead Place, said she sympathized with the applicant’s practical needs and suggested mechanisms such as deed restrictions or an annual affidavit tied to accessory dwelling unit monitoring as safeguards, but she also urged a code clean‑up to avoid future confusion.

After deliberation the board moved to deny the appeal (thereby sustaining the zoning enforcement officer’s determination). The board also asked staff to prepare revised code language for the council that would make the one‑kitchen limitation explicit if that reflects the city’s policy. The board closed the hearing and moved on to other agenda items; next procedural steps include any code amendment proceeding through planning staff and the common council.