ZBA reverses enforcement denial, allows 4-square-foot sign for South Britain spa

The Southbury Zoning Board of Appeals on April 1 voted to reverse a zoning enforcement officer’s denial and allow a 4-square-foot permanent sign for Stephanie’s Serenity Spa and Aesthetics at 617 South Britain Road.

The decision came after attorney Kevin Roach and tenant-applicant Stephanina Lorenza said the sign had been designed to match the South Britain historic district and followed the district commission’s certificate of appropriateness. Roach told the board that the building had been renovated at significant expense and that “the sign is appropriate with the aesthetic of the spa.” Lorenza told commissioners she had invested heavily in the business and that “I put my heart and soul into it.”

Zoning enforcement officer Deondre Nevin explained the basis for the denial, citing the town’s sign rules (regulation 10.7.3) for personal offices and customary home enterprises: “one sign not exceeding 2 square feet on the subject or lot premise,” and that free-standing signs “shall not be illuminated.” Nevin said the application was treated as a new sign and therefore had to meet the 2-square-foot requirement for the R-20 residential district.

Applicants and their attorney countered that a larger sign had existed on the site for years and that other nearby signs in the historic area were larger and, in some cases, illuminated. Lorenza said she had coordinated with the Connecticut Department of Transportation about the sign’s placement and that the sign was intended to be readable from the road so customers could find the new business.

After closing public comment, the board debated enforcement consistency and the visual character of the corridor. Commissioners who announced their votes in favor of reversing the zoning officer’s decision included Kat Smith, Jennifer Wysocki, Chris (board member), Len Labonia, Mark Kane and Lisa Ingram. The board therefore reversed the denial and approved the 4-square-foot freestanding sign on private property.

The board’s vote followed procedural confusion during roll call: an initial motion to uphold the enforcement decision received no affirmative responses and therefore failed; the subsequent motion to reverse carried. The meeting record includes statements from both sides and notes that the historic commission had approved the sign’s appearance. The board did not impose additional conditions beyond the reversal; any lighting must comply with the town’s guidance regarding fixture orientation.

The outcome allows the applicant to retain the sign as presented; the record notes the zoning officer’s explanation of the town regulation and the applicants’ argument about historic-district context and preexisting nearby signage. The board did not announce a separate enforcement or compliance review beyond the reversal.