Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury zoning board denies variance to legalize enlarged shed at 27 Barnum Road
Summary
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request to reduce the rear-yard setback from 20 feet to 3 feet so a larger shed at 27 Barnum Road could be legalized. Board members said the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship and staff noted unpermitted work on the property including an illegal basement unit.
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals voted on Feb. 27 to deny a variance that would have reduced a rear‑yard setback from 20 feet to 3 feet, preventing the legalization of a substantially enlarged shed at 27 Barnum Road.
Chair Johanna opened the hearing and the applicant, Victor Barbecho, told the board he had been repairing an existing shed and ‘‘we start doing a little bit bigger’’ and that he had not sought a permit because a shed previously stood on the same spot. Barbecho said the current building measures about 18 by 14 feet and is used to store yard tools and a ride‑on mower. He also said there is no electric or water to the structure.
Zoning staff said the city’s GIS mapping and an on‑site inspection showed an earlier roughly 8‑by‑10 shed in approximately the same location and that the property also had other compliance problems. Tom, a zoning staff member, said inspectors discovered ‘‘a 2nd, unpermitted dwelling unit in the house,’’ and that the applicant has applied to eliminate that unit. Staff and enforcement supervisor Sean said the shed construction prompted the complaint that led to the inspection and that an unpermitted gravel drive to the structure was also cut into the property.
Board members pressed Barbecho on why he expanded the shed without first seeking a permit and whether he had explored alternative locations on the lot that would comply with setback rules. One member noted that placing a structure in the gravel area shown on the submitted site plan would have met setbacks and avoided the hearing. Members also raised concerns about the property’s septic system and the need to preserve a reserve area for leach fields.
During deliberations, several members said the enlargement was avoidable and that the applicant had not demonstrated the legal ‘‘hardship’’ standard required for a variance. Board member Rivas moved to deny the application ‘‘without prejudice,’’ saying the requested reduction ‘‘is not the minimum variance necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property’’ and that ‘‘the hardship was not explained’’ in a manner that would justify the variance. The motion was seconded and the board conducted a roll‑call vote; the motion to deny carried.
After the vote, staff offered to meet with Barbecho to explain options and the permit process; the chair said staff would be available to walk him through steps to correct violations and, if desired, return with a revised application or different placement that complied with regulations.
The denial leaves the shed in its current, nonconforming condition; the board’s action was to deny the variance request rather than order immediate removal. The applicant was told he could meet with zoning staff on Monday to review options for compliance or for a future application. The board adjourned its meeting and said its next regular meeting will be March 13, 2025.
