Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies Hillandale Road variance after neighbor complaints about stone wall and house size
Summary
Danbury’s Zoning Board of Appeal denied—without prejudice—a variance for 24 Hillandale Road after neighbors and the board raised questions about a stone wall attachment, drainage and whether the built home matches previously described plans; the board urged an as-built survey and consultation with highway/environmental staff.
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeal voted Aug. 14 to deny, without prejudice, a variance application for 24 Hillandale Road after neighbors raised concerns that a new stone wall attached to a neighbor’s wall and that the constructed home is larger than previous representations.
Attorney Charles Lichtenauer, representing MP Homes LLC, told the board the 5th-of-an-acre lot is steep, encroached upon by Hillandale Road and constrained by wetlands, and that prior variances recorded in 2023 authorized a reduced front-yard setback, side-yard setback and slight increase in lot coverage. "As he built the home, he believed he was in standing with all city departments," Lichtenauer said, adding the owner now asks the board to forgive construction done before variances were sought.
Ralph Gallagher, the project engineer, described the driveway grade (about 15–16%) and said retaining walls were used because alternatives would have required moving underground utilities. "The walls are supposed to be 3 feet and no higher," Gallagher said, and he added minor grading could bring any slightly taller portions into compliance.
Neighbors said the on-the-ground result differs from prior descriptions. "He came onto my property and cemented his wall to mine," said Sedalia Ampos, who lives next door and told the board the wall and new upper-level windows harmed her privacy. Neighbor Ken Gucker said the earlier application described a small ranch footprint of about 1,170 square feet but the structure built resembles a much larger house, which he said has caused community frustration.
Board members and staff spent much of the discussion trying to separate two questions: whether the ZBA had properly authorized the setback/footprint the board voted on, and whether the current structure or wall encroachments are enforcement matters for other city departments. Chair Joe Henet told the public the board’s authority is to relieve hardship by granting variances to setback lines, not to police total stories or other permitting the city issues. Staff advised that encroachment disputes and drainage concerns should be clarified with an as-built survey and with the highway and environmental departments.
After debate about drainage risks if the wall were separated and the need for more information from the highway department, a motion to deny the application without prejudice passed on a roll-call vote recorded by the chair. The board recommended the applicant provide an as-built survey and coordinate with highway and environmental staff before returning for further consideration.
The board closed the public hearing on the application and recorded its decision; no timetable for reapplication was set. The denial was procedural—intended to allow documentation and agency review—rather than a final determination on the property’s lawful status.
