Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues driveway and grade variance at 99 West Street after neighbor raises foundation and safety concerns
Summary
The zoning board continued, rather than voted on, a request for variances to allow a steeper driveway (up to 17%) and excavation near a property line at 99 West Street after neighbors objected to potential foundation impacts and winter safety risks; the applicant was asked to negotiate easements or revise drawings.
The Danbury Zoning Board continued public hearings and deferred a decision on application 25‑1499, a request to permit a steeper driveway grade and excavation near a property line at 99 West Street, after neighbors said the proposal could threaten their property and the applicant said easements and retaining‑wall placement would have to be resolved.
Dines Verbigas, a professional engineer representing the applicant, described the site as "pretty darn steep" with "approximately 9 feet of elevation change," and said that under the proposed design the driveway would climb at a 17% grade past the sidewalk to reduce excavation, with about 80 feet of cut and retaining‑wall work in the cross section. "So the difference, between these 2, percentages minimizes or or helps minimize some of the earthwork that would be required to put in this driveway," Verbigas said.
Several board members raised practical and legal concerns: the proposed retaining wall is shown partly on an adjacent lot, permissions or easements would be required, and the plan as drawn could encroach on a neighbor's property. Neighbor Catherine Jensen, who owns the adjacent property, said she opposed the proposal because it is "too steep" and could be hazardous in snow and could affect her house and tenants. "The driveway is too steep, and it can cause a problem, especially to the main road on West Street when the when the snow time," Jensen said.
A staff member told the board that any road opening requires a city permit and that department review (including engineering and construction services) would still be required. "The road opening would have to be permitted by the city of Danbury," a staff member said, noting that Robert Barone in construction services had already been contacted and that the design is not a guaranteed approval if variances were granted.
Given the neighbor's concerns and outstanding easement questions, the applicant asked to keep the matter open to negotiate with the adjacent owner. On a motion recorded in the minutes (moved by Mister Rivas; seconded by Mister Ribeiro), the board voted to continue the application to allow the applicant time to secure necessary permissions or revise plans. The board suggested the applicant coordinate with staff for a return at an upcoming meeting (possible dates discussed included the October 23 meeting or a later November meeting).
