Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner’s request to build taller workshop approved with non‑habitable condition
Summary
The Danbury Zoning Board of Appeal approved a variance allowing a taller detached accessory structure at 134 Chambers Road so the owner can build a 20x20 workshop above wetlands, conditioned that it remain non‑habitable and used only for storage and woodworking.
A resident and homeowner at 134 Chambers Road won approval from the Danbury Zoning Board of Appeal on Nov. 13 for a variance to increase the maximum height of a detached accessory structure, provided the structure remain non‑habitable. The homeowner told the board they sought a taller, 20-by-20 workshop (roof peak about 22 feet 6 inches) to avoid encroaching on wetlands on the parcel.
The chair, Johanna, and multiple commissioners questioned the applicant about use, foundation and visibility; the applicant said the lower level would hold lawn and yard equipment and the upper level would be a hobby wood shop, and confirmed there would be no plumbing or insulation that would make the structure habitable. The applicant told the board engineers had tested the design for wind and safety and that the structure would include regular egress via a staircase.
Commissioners raised a recurring concern: variances run with the land and future owners could seek different uses. Commissioner Rivas proposed — and the board attached — a condition that the structure be permitted only as a workshop/storage space and not for living purposes. The applicant stated agreement with that condition.
After discussion of foundations and proposed precast piers, the board closed the public hearing and approved the motion to grant the variance, citing that the requested change was the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property and would not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. The motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote; no opposition was recorded at the meeting.
Next steps: the applicant may need wetlands approval and must obtain any required building‑department permits before construction.
