Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 26 018 South Cornell topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor objections and unpermitted work prompt zoning board to table Solano variance request
Summary
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals tabled a complex variance application for 8 South Cornell Road after hearing that the house was enlarged without full permits, neighbors cited safety and privacy impacts from a retaining wall and deck, and the applicant pledged to submit a remedial plan.
Myra Ramirez Solano, the owner of 8 South Cornell Road, told the Danbury Zoning Board of Appeals she hired a contractor who she says handled permits and construction but did not submit all required permits and did not pay subcontractors, leaving the property with an unpermitted second‑story addition, a deck conversion and retaining walls. “We hired him and we paid him what he asked,” Solano said, describing how she and her husband trusted the contractor and later discovered gaps in permitting and unfinished work.
The board’s deputy director of building, Tim Rosati, said city staff received a complaint in July 2024 and inspected the site in October 2024. Rosati described a cease‑and‑desist order issued after staff found a two‑story addition, retaining walls encroaching on neighbor property, grading within five feet of a lot line and drainage pipes discharging onto an adjacent lot; he also summarized permit activity, noting a half‑bath permit filed 02/29/2024 and issued 05/07/2024 and a separate application submitted 03/06/2025 to legalize the existing work that remained on hold pending a zoning variance and survey.
Neighbors Arthur and Linda Stockton told the board the work removed a long‑standing line of privacy plantings and left an unfinished retaining wall near their shed that risks erosion and could be hazardous to children. “We want our privacy back,” Arthur Stockton said, and urged the board to insist on concrete plans to protect safety and property lines.
Board members focused on whether the application satisfied the mandatory legal standard for a zoning variance — a showing of hardship tied to the property rather than mistakes by a contractor. Sean Herdy, the city’s zoning enforcement officer, reminded the board that if the required hardship is not demonstrated the board must deny the application, or they may deny without prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply after remedying issues. Several members said the case was more complicated than a typical setback request because the work involves multiple encroachments and nonconforming construction.
After discussion, a board member moved, and another seconded, to table application 26‑018 and continue the public hearing. The board voted to continue the hearing and directed the applicant to work with city staff to provide a revised site plan and a specific remediation plan showing where a retaining wall and steps will be placed inside the Solano property line, whether the deck and steps will be modified, and how privacy plantings and drainage will be addressed. The board advised the applicant that tabling—rather than denying with prejudice—would allow her to return with engineering, survey and plan details but offered no guarantee of approval.
The case was continued so the applicant can meet with planning and zoning staff and submit precise, engineered plans and an updated survey showing the proposed wall, deck changes and any drainage or fencing remedies.
What’s next: the board continued the public hearing; Ms. Solano must return with a revised plan that demonstrates compliance or a lawful hardship before the board will consider approval of the requested variances.
