Varience For Green House

~

CITY

OF DANBURY 155 DEER HILL AVENUE

DANBURY,

CONNECTICUT

06810

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 797-4595

A1arch 26. 1996 Attorney Bobby S. Payne 83 Wooster Heights Rd. Dfmbury. CT 06810

Re:

lvIichael J. Halas flS Agent 28 Pembroke Rd. (#007060) Application #96-19

Dear Attornex Payne: At the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of. Danbury held on Thursday, A1arch 14. 1996, the following decision was rendered: VOTED TO ORANT to A1ichael J. Halas as Agen(, 28 Pembroke Rd. (#007060), Sec. 4.A. 5.f. (4), reduce setback for greenhouse in excess of 1.,500 sq.ft., from 100 ft. to 41 ft. from frbnt property ]jne on Pembroke Rd. and from 100 ft. to 42 ft. on the northerly property line. The following reason was given for this decision: The hardship is the topography of the property as well as the pre-e::d.sting non-conforming use of the property The enclosed Variance Certiflcate must be submitted to the Town Clerk of the City of Danbury for recording in the land records in order for said variance to be in effect. However.. prior to recording, a copy of the legal land description must be attached. Said variance may be filed upon receipt. Once the Varia.nceCertificate is filed in the land records.. a zoning pennit may be required before a building pennit can be issued. If you have any questions regarding the pennit process, please do not hesitate to contact the Zoning Office at 797-4525. Very truly yours,

Cfehud-4-9~ Richard S. J owdy Chainnan RSJ /jrr Enclosure c:

Wayne Skelly. Zoning Enforcement Officer

~ ) ) ) }

Zo

M rage

.

B=rd of Appel\1sMintlt<:s 14,1996

~ «n <.

#96119 -

<"

"..H"

"',.,'u""""""

........

Michael J. Halas as A$ent, 28 Pembroke Rd. (#GO7060), Sec. 4.A.5.f.(4), reduce setback for greenhouse in excess of 1,500 sq.ft., from 100 ft. to 41 ft. from front property line on Pembroke ~. and from 100 ft. to 42 ft. on the northerly property line. (RA-40 Zone)

Atto eY Bobby Payne spoke in favor of this application. He said the reason for this Tequest is to ma k.e the nhouse conform to the current regulations. Without the variance, the greenhouse would have to be located in the middle of a field where crops are now being grown. He said the cllrrent regula.tions impo a hardship on this property but really do not accomplish anything by what they require. He adde that adherence to this regulation will not provide any public benefit, nor would varying it be detri ental to anyone.

i

.

.

.

Chaitiman JOwdy asked if there WI15anyone to speak in opposition to this and one pernon came forward. Attor ey Peter Scalzo representing Dom's Garden Center said his client is not opposed to thi~ variance req t but is opposed to the sale of retail items not grown on the property. Later' n the meeting during the discussion of this m8.tter,Mrs. White a,,~ what JX'intthe opposition was ctually trying to make. Chairman Jowc{ysaid the opposition runs a retail business, seUirIg all kinds of gardening and farm equipment like a small Home Depot, wherea.! the appliCanf has a farm ou.se operation, selling jwt fruit and vegetables. He continued saying that the opposition was conce ned that this variance would allow the applicant to expand his business and a:IIow for more thing to be sold than what was produce4 there. Mrs. Stewart then asked why the applicattt doesn't need use variance to do what he does in this zone, Mr. Skellysaid there's an a~ment to be made for that P t also for the fact that they were doing this prior to zoning. Headdeci that it may be something that h s to be done in the future. Chairman Jowdy pojn~ out that it is not relev4!1tto this Application beGau e they are not looking to do anymore than "the farmhouse". Mr. SkeIlythen said it WaS previ sly indicated on the record that there had been those kind of problems in the past, but they have been leare4 up. Mrs. White asked if the sale of things grown or made on the premises is available to. anyo in this zone. Mr. Skelly said it would },e. Mrs. Stewa.rtpointed out that the greenhouse will make is more in conformance with the defmition of farming. Mrs. Whi~ I15kedwhat the hardship was. rs. Stewart said this use is pre-existing and the greenhouse would Mve to be Iocllte4 in the middl of the land used for farming, which has a tremendous slope that p!Acestopographical constr ints on this. Chairman }owdy said enough had been said and asked for II.motion. DECISION hite made a motion to gra.nt this application for the foHowingrea.sons: The hardship is the topography of the property as well ~ the pre-~istil1$ non-confonning use of the property. .

The m4>tionwas seconded by Mr. Sibbitt and passed unanimously with five AYES(from Mrs. Garavel, Mr. Silibitt,Mrs. Stewart, Mrs. White and Chairman]owdy). \ .

~...

u..

eo

,

+...~.~.

"n.....