Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk zoning board continues Barrett family’s rear‑setback variance after debate over hardship and driveway safety
Summary
Homeowners Mark Barrett and Jillian Majlak asked the board to allow a 10‑foot rear setback (connecting a garage to the house) for a property at 10 Winthrop Avenue; the board pressed for a reduced nonconformity — roughly 12 feet — and continued the hearing to April 16 to allow revised plans.
The City of Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals continued a request by Mark Barrett and Jillian Majlak to allow a reduced rear setback for their property at 10 Winthrop Avenue after an extended discussion about site topography, vehicle maneuvering and how much reduction from the code standard is reasonable.
Staff introduced the application (Item 26-0219-03), noting that a 15‑foot rear setback is required for principal buildings, that an older survey advertised 9.4 feet but a recent survey dated Jan. 24, 2026, measured the garage at 6.7 feet from the rear property line, and that the applicants’ revised plan moves the garage footprint to 10 feet and includes other changes to the connector and roof lines.
Designer George Eloa and homeowner Mark Barrett presented revised plans, saying the redesign reduced bulk and addressed board concerns. Barrett said the intent was to create more space between the house and the neighbor and that the revised plan also produced six letters of neighbor support after in‑person plan reviews.
The board raised two main concerns: whether the slope and topography constitute a hardship and whether the proposed arrangement would create a safety hazard when backing out of a garage near a retaining wall. A committee member summarized the standard test for a variance: applicants must show a hardship; staff said the hardship claim was topographic. Staff also cautioned that the nonconformity is, in part, self‑created by choosing to connect the accessory structure to the principal building.
Homeowner Jillian Majlak described a recent safety concern as part of the applicants’ rationale: “Our cars got tried to get broken into on January 19. We have the tapes. We went to the police department,” she said, noting a desire to secure vehicles by using an attached garage. Mark Barrett also stressed neighbor outreach and support.
Several board members urged the applicants to reduce the variance further. One committee member said, "I have a tendency to approve things when an effort is made to reduce a nonconformity," and multiple members suggested 12 feet as a workable compromise that would lessen the nonconformity while keeping the project feasible. The designer and homeowners described trade‑offs to reach 12 feet, including moving the powder room and reconfiguring circulation, removing an internal staircase (which reduced ADU concern), and possible retaining‑wall adjustments that would affect drainage and construction cost.
After discussion the applicants requested a continuance to revise plans; the board voted to continue the item to the board’s April 16 meeting so the applicants can present adjusted plans that aim to increase the distance toward roughly 12 feet. The board noted that if applicants instead achieve a full 15‑foot setback they could avoid seeking a variance.
The board also approved routine minutes and handled administrative items before adjourning.
