Litchfield Neighbor Asks Council to Enforce Codes After Variance

Article Summary: A resident of East Edward Street told the Litchfield City Council the Planning and Zoning Board’s unanimous approval of a height variance for a neighbor’s outbuilding is harming her family, and asked the council to enforce existing city codes. The presiding alderperson said he was “a little disturbed” by the structure’s size and location, but the council took no vote — the variance did not require council action.

Height Variance Public Comment Key Points:

The Planning and Zoning Board approved the variance unanimously at its Monday, Sept. 14, 2026, meeting, and the item was not required to come before the full council, Alderperson Sara Zumwalt said.

The resident said the structure sits about 8 feet from a shared property line and told the council the owner has described an intended use as a car restoration business, which she said is not permitted in an S-1 district.

The presiding alderperson said he respects the zoning board but did not understand the decision after reviewing photographs the resident sent him.

The council took no action; the resident was directed to the city administrator, with Zumwalt saying the matter would then have to go back.

LITCHFIELD — A resident of East Edward Street used the public participation portion of the Litchfield City Council’s meeting on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, to ask the council to enforce the city’s own codes against a large outbuilding next door — three days after the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously granted the height variance that allowed it.

The council took no vote. By the account given in the room, it could not: the variance required only zoning board approval.

“It’s More Than Just the Height Issue”

The resident told the council she and her husband share two property lines with the structure, and that the nearer line runs just 8 feet from it along the entire back of her property. “Our family and home is the most affected of all the neighbors,” she said.

“It’s more than just the height issue, which directly affects us by obstructing our light and air flow,” she said. “It’s also the bulk use of their entire lot, which is supposed to be only 30% in an S1 district. But mainly it’s the intended use,” which she said the property owner had described as a car restoration business — a use she said is not allowed in an S-1 district.

She described living with the effects of earlier work at a previous, smaller garage on the property: “We have endured the endless pounding, grinding of metal and fumes from past car restorations, all which are detected beyond our property line into our yard and our closed house.” The new structure, she said, “is closer and double in size.”

“I’m shocked that they have built to this scale or expense without checking codes and ordinances,” she said. “I’m just an average citizen, definitely not computer savvy, and I easily found all the information on the city’s website.” She said a city ordinance restricts the production of noise, vibration, dust or odor detected beyond a property line. “We hear it and feel it inside our home, and you can’t even be in the backyard. The grinding is like a dentist drill.”

The resident also told the council a member of her household with severe autism is acutely affected by the noise and vibration, describing extreme distress from unexpected pounding and saying he can no longer enjoy the backyard or feel comfortable at home. (This news organization is withholding the family members’ names, the exact street address and further identifying detail.)

“I just can’t see how the city can possibly side in favor of one citizen who has clearly disregarded all city codes and ordinances and then by doing so they’re causing a hardship to their neighbor,” she said. “All I’m asking is that you please help us by just enforcing the current city codes and ordinances.”

What the Zoning Board Did Monday

Asked by the chair to explain the board’s reasoning, Zumwalt said the Planning and Zoning Board met Monday and heard from several neighbors “who came and spoke either in favor of, or they didn’t have any problem.”

Discussion at that meeting centered on a window, she said. “There’s a window in the back of the garage that they’re going to relocate to the front of the garage so it won’t be overlooking your backyard. That was part of the motion that they made.” Board members also discussed that the lot is effectively separate and that a house of comparable height could be built there without an issue, she said. “Planning and zoning, it was unanimous to approve the variance.”

Zumwalt said the board did not have information about a commercial use. If the owner “is running a commercial business, that’s entirely different,” she said. The resident replied that she had been barred from raising the use at the hearing because the intended use was said to be unknown, and that the owner himself had since stated it — prompting her to email the mayor the next day.

“You could go back to the zoning board, but that was their unanimous decision on Monday,” Zumwalt said, adding: “All I know is what was said in the zoning meeting and the papers that I read.” She said the question of whether the item had to go before the council had been asked at the hearing, and the answer was no. She directed the resident to City Administrator Breann Vazquez, who she indicated was away, and said the matter would then have to go back.

The presiding alderperson was more pointed. He said the photographs the resident had sent him showed a structure “significantly larger, I think, even than the home itself,” adding, “I don’t really understand this decision.” He said he was “a little disturbed by the size and the scale of that and where it’s located,” and suggested the council may need some kind of discussion about it.

“I respect the planning and zoning commission. They do a wonderful job. We typically agree,” he said. But this decision, he said, looked different after seeing the photographs.

No motion was made and no action was taken.