Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury ZBA pauses decision on 333 Main Street sign after debate over height and lighting
Summary
At its Oct. 10 meeting the Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals heard from the applicant and neighbors on a request to install a taller, halo-lit sign at Brookview Commons (333 Main Street); the board continued the application so the applicant can supply lumen/illumination data.
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals on Oct. 10 continued a request to install a taller, halo-lit identification sign on Brookview Commons at 333 Main Street, saying the board needed more information about lighting and the hardship claimed by the applicant.
Maura Newell Juan, principal architect with 72 Architects, told the board the project’s unique size and configuration require a larger sign for safe vehicular access, saying “a larger and taller sign is required for safe vehicular access.” She said the proposal uses halo/backlit letters integrated into the building and that the design complies with Danbury’s indirect-lighting rules.
Why it matters: board members said the case raises questions that could set a precedent for other new, taller buildings downtown. Several members pressed the applicants to show a legally cognizable hardship rather than asking the city to change signage rules for taller buildings.
Board members asked for lumen and light-pollution metrics and debated whether a sign placed high on a multistory façade could distract drivers. Dan Bertram, a developer supporting the design, argued the sign is appropriate for a modern, taller building and said the sign addresses wayfinding now that the project has a Main Street entrance and a vehicular bridge to the original site. “There are changes in Danbury that I would say warrant signs above 20 feet,” he said in arguing the regulations have not kept pace with recent development.
Opponents included Duane Perkins, who identified himself as a Danbury City Council member and a Main Street resident, who said the proposed 70-foot placement would likely pull drivers’ sightlines upward: “The sign is 70 feet tall. In my opinion, how safe is it to look up away from your line of sight at something that tall?” Perkins also warned that granting the variance could lead to similar requests and create an undesirable precedent.
The applicant offered to provide specific illumination metrics and asked for a continuation so those numbers could be reviewed. The board voted to continue application 24-1333 to the next meeting to allow the applicant to submit lumen/illumination data and any supplemental materials.
The continuation means the board took no final action on the variance request; the applicant may return with the requested metrics and any revised design or conditions for limiting light output.
