Bridgeport zoning board hears dispute over two‑story detached garage at 61 Anchorage Drive

Bridgeport — Stormhaven LLC asked the Bridgeport Zoning Board of Appeals on Nov. 12 to legalize an existing two‑bay detached garage at 61 Anchorage Drive that city staff say exceeds accessory‑structure limits.

Attorney Chris Russo of Russo Rizzio LLC, representing the property owner, said the lot is about 66,000 square feet — well above the N3 zone minimum of 9,000 — and that the detached garage’s footprint is roughly 24 by 28 feet (about 672 sq ft). Russo said the applicant relied on a July 28, 2025 email from a building enforcement officer that advised the owner to “proceed with the alternate garage configuration,” and that detaching the garage preserved the character of the principal dwelling.

City design review coordinator David Codingham (OPED) told the board the accessory structure as built is two stories and totals approximately 1,344 square feet, exceeding the zoning limit of 1.5 stories and the maximum accessory floor area of 650 sq ft under section 3.170.3.f. Codingham said the structure meets applicable setbacks and site coverage requirements, and reminded the board that variance requests must satisfy the criteria in section 11.90.6, including unusual hardship and minimal neighborhood impact.

Neighbors, represented by attorney Laura Indelicotti of Wsy Rosen Questin and Curansky, argued the owner changed plans after obtaining a building permit and then failed to obtain zoning approval before constructing the detached garage. Indelicotti told the board that “a preference of building a non‑compliance of the owner’s own choice is not a hardship under the regulations,” and that the lot’s large size means there are conforming alternatives the owner could have pursued. She also said the structure substantially reduces the neighbors’ waterfront view.

Russo replied that the building permit had been issued and the owner reasonably relied on building‑department guidance to detach the garage; he said forcing attachment would require building a larger principal structure and would increase bulk on the site. Russo emphasized submitted neighbor support and argued that removing an existing nonconforming shed and setting the garage back from property lines reduced nonconformity.

Board members probed options including reducing dormer size to meet the half‑story and dormer‑width limits, attaching the garage to the house, or other design compromises. One commissioner expressed concern that granting a variance would set a precedent allowing contractors to proceed with unapproved work and expect retroactive relief.

Motions to defer the item to December and later to deny the variance were made and seconded during the meeting, but the transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote or an explicit final decision on the variance. Chair Robin Shepard had opened the meeting noting only four commissioners were present and explained that approval requires all four votes when only four members attend.

The board closed discussion on the matter during the meeting. The transcript ends with continuing procedural discussion and no definitive board action recorded to legalize the garage; the parties may pursue zoning remedies or court review if the board later formalizes a decision.