Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury ZBA denies Toll Brothers' request to raise clubhouse height at Regency at Rivington
Summary
The Zoning Board denied without prejudice Toll Brothers' request to exceed the 15-foot height limit for a clubhouse at the Regency at Rivington, after residents raised unresolved construction deficiency concerns; the denial lets the developer return with revisions if desired.
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny without prejudice a request by Toll Brothers to exceed the 15-foot height limit for an accessory clubhouse at the Regency at Rivington development (application 24-15) after hearing testimony from the applicant, detailed board questioning and public opposition from nearby residents.
Jason Gottlieb, director of community planning for Toll Brothers, told the board the amenity building is roughly 3,200 square feet and requested relief to raise the mean roof height to about 19.4 feet to accommodate vaulted interior spaces for the clubhouse and gym. He said the design was required by interior roof pitch and the approved site plan.
Residents and local elected officials urged caution and asked the board to delay action because of what they described as longstanding, unresolved construction deficiencies at neighboring Toll Brothers projects. Emil Bizaid, a resident and member of the city council who said he also represents colleagues unable to attend, told the board there are “outstanding and unresolved issues” with previous Toll Brothers construction and requested a delay so council representatives could provide more detail. Steve Cook, a homeowners-association president, likewise asked the board to postpone a decision until representatives could appear and explain ongoing remediation needs.
Toll Brothers’ representative said those construction complaints were not in his department and asked the board to adjudicate the variance on its merits. Board discussion focused on whether the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated the hardship necessary for a variance and whether the clubhouse could be reconfigured (for example, expanding footprint rather than increasing height) to meet interior space needs.
A motion to deny the height variance was made, seconded and carried in a roll-call voting session; the denial was without prejudice, which allows the applicant to revise and return. The board’s comments indicated some members were sympathetic to the amenity value of a roomier clubhouse but concluded the record did not support the variance as presented.
With the denial, Toll Brothers can revise the plans — potentially by altering roof design or pursuing a different regulatory path — and may return to the board at a future meeting.
