Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies without prejudice plan for three apartments at 5 Clark Street
Summary
After extended questioning about lot width, emergency access and the number of variances requested, the Danbury City Zoning Board of Appeal voted to deny without prejudice an application to build a three-family dwelling at 5 Clark Street. The board encouraged the applicant to consider a revised submission.
The Danbury City Zoning Board of Appeal voted on March 12 to deny without prejudice an application to build a three‑family dwelling at 5 Clark Street, citing concerns about hardship, narrow lot width and emergency‑vehicle access.
The applicant described the lot as long and narrow and said it was created before the R‑3 zone went into effect; he and his representative argued the parcel has constraints that justify relief. A nearby owner submitted a letter praising previous projects by the same developer and asking the board to look at the petition fairly.
Board members pressed the applicant for proof of a site‑specific hardship, noted multiple required variances (including reductions to minimum lot area and lot width, reduced side‑yard setbacks, elimination of certain parking screening requirements, front‑yard parking and grading within five feet of the property line) and questioned whether emergency responders could reach units on a narrow driveway. One board member said he was not comfortable approving ‘‘something like this’’ and suggested the applicant return with a different design.
After discussion staff clarified procedural options: the board can approve, deny with prejudice (which would bar reapplication as submitted) or deny without prejudice (which allows the applicant to reapply). The board voted to deny the application without prejudice and advised the applicant to resubmit and re‑advertise the proposal if he chooses to return.
What the board recorded: The motion to deny without prejudice itemized the relief requested, including reductions in required lot area and width (from about 11,200 sq ft to roughly 9,275 sq ft and from 100 feet to 45 feet, per the motion), reductions in side‑yard setbacks, elimination of required screening for parking, allowance for front‑yard parking, and authorization for grading within five feet of the property line to construct a new three‑family dwelling. The motion was seconded and carried in roll‑call vote.
Why it matters: The denial preserves local procedure while signaling that the board requires clearer demonstration of hardship and safer access arrangements before granting multiple variances for a narrow, intensively used lot. The applicant may return with revised plans or apply for a different change of use.
The board instructed the applicant on resubmittal and re‑advertising requirements and closed the item.
