Torrington council tables decision on in‑home daycare after heated neighborhood hearing

Mayor Herb Doby convened the council as the Board of Adjustment on April 21 to hear a conditional‑use permit request from Tammy Fouse to operate an in‑home daycare at 132 Holly Drive.

Dennis Estus, staff, summarized the application and told the council the planning commission had no formal recommendation after a tied process; letters from immediate neighbors had been received and public sentiment at the planning meeting was mixed. Estus said the city’s rules allow up to 10–11 children for approved in‑home daycares but noted the state licensing and square‑footage rules also affect permitted capacity.

Tammy Fouse told the board she has long experience in childcare, has previously been state‑licensed and would initially expect an average of five to eight children while holding a license for up to 10. “I’m not going to put you on the spot, but what five kids, six kids?… Five. I would say anywhere from five to eight is my average,” Fouse said, describing indoor and outdoor space that she said met state standards.

Several local childcare providers and parents urged approval, describing a shortage of licensed child‑care slots. Ashley Hoff, a local provider, said she fields weekly calls from parents seeking care and that many providers are full. Jessica Martin and her husband Jacob — foster parents and local school employees — described past stretches when they had nine children in their home and said limited daycare access creates safety and workforce challenges.

Neighbors who opposed the permit focused on traffic, parking, noise and liability. Donna McMahon, who lives directly across the street, said she and her husband moved to the neighborhood for its quiet character and worried that repeated drop‑offs and pickups would disrupt it. Melvin Faber and other residents described a shared driveway, limited sightlines, steep or sloped approaches and winter ice as specific safety concerns.

Several speakers urged compromise or mitigation steps; Councilman Victran moved to postpone the decision to the May 5 regular meeting so the applicant and neighbors could meet and try to resolve concerns. “The intent of the motion…is to allow the applicant and all of the other concerned parties…to better understand the issues at hand…and to hopefully within that two‑week period find a solution that is amenable to all,” Victran said.

The council voted unanimously to table the application to May 5, 2026. The tabling preserves the applicant’s ability to pursue the permit later and gives residents an opportunity to negotiate parking, drop‑off times or other conditions they might present to the Board of Adjustment at the next hearing.

Next steps: the council will revisit the conditional‑use permit at its May 5 meeting; any neighborhood agreements or proposed conditions should be brought forward prior to that hearing.