THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE NEXT ZBA MEETING
CHESTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
January 23, 2012
Chester Meeting House
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mark Borton, acting Chairman at 7:44 p.m. Those in attendance
included: Mark Borton, John DeLaura, Carol Horner, Mike Desnoyers, Lisa Tollefson (alternate, seated
for Al Bisackey). Mario Gioco was also in attendance.
BUSINESS
Approval of Minutes – November 21, 2011
Mike Desnoyers made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the 11/21/11 meeting. Mark
Borton seconded the motion. Mike Desnoyers voted “aye” and all other members present abstained.
The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Receipt of New Application
Mr. Peter Kehayias distributed an application for a variance dated March 2011. The “as built” showed
the dimensions of an addition but the dimensions needed to be increased due to the discovery of ledge.
The ZBA reviewed application for completeness. Mark Borton reported that questions 8, 9 and 10 must
be addressed and Mr. Kehayias addressed same.
Lisa Tollefson made motion was made to waive the Chester portion of the application fee per request of
the applicant (the applicant will pay the State fee and postage). Mike Desnoyers seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mario Gioco will determine new postage costs. Once costs are established, Mr. Kehayias will deliver a
check in the appropriate amount.
Lisa Tollefson to receive the application as discussed. John DeLaura seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Public Hearing –
A&G Enterprises, 62 Railroad Ave.
Legal Notice from Town of Chester ZBA, Public Hearing
Chester ZBA will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, 1/23/12 at 7:30 p.m. at the Chester Meeting House
for the regarding the following application: A&G Enterprises. The owner seeks a variance from section
1
71-B required characteristics to construct a building on tax map 10, lot 227, zone WB2, 62 Railroad Ave.,
Chester.
A copy of the application and additional information (tax card, Assessor’s card, deed, adjoining property
map) was distributed to ZBA members.
Don Carlson, Land Surveyor, gave an overview of the documentation presented. The applicant wishes to
construct a 50 x 50 building to replace current structures (sheds/trailer). The proposed location, as well
as alternate locations was discussed. A photo of the existing garage was distributed (exhibit A). Another
photo, showing a different angle was distributed (exhibit B). A photo showing where the building could
be placed was also distributed (exhibit C). A photo of the front of the existing garage was presented
(exhibit D).
The appropriateness of the variance requested 71-B was discussed. The applicant reported that “Judy”
directed him to request a variance of 71-B.
Exhibit E was distributed and read as follows:
“Trial court concluded that because the record was devoid of evidence that the property has little or no
value because of the setback regulation, no hardship has been challenged.
The defendants argue that the test by the trial court is overly restrictive and is not the proper test for
establishing hardship in this case. We agree.
The test defined by the trial court was adopted by Grillo vs. ZBA Supra. This test is used in the extreme
situation where the application of a regulation renders property worthless and that loss of value alone
amounts to a hardship, see Dolan vs. ZBA 156 Ct. 426, 431, 242 a.2, D 713, 1968. Although satisfying
this test is a valid means of establishing a hardship, it is not exclusive.
A variance may be granted if the literal enforcement of a regulation causes exceptional difficulty or
hardship because of some unusual characteristic of property, general statutes 8-6 (3 in Belmap vs. ZBA
155 Ct. 308, 383, 32232 a.2D, 922 from 1967). To support the granting of a variance, a hardship must
arise from a condition different in kind from that generally affecting property in the same zoning district
and must be imposed by conditions outside the property owners control, see Waterfer vs. ZBA 179, Ct.
650, 658, 427a.2d, 1346 from 1980 and Garabaldi vs. ZBA 163, Ct. 235, 238, 303a.2B, 743 from 1972.
Stillman vs. ZBA, 25 Ct. app. 631 and 635, 636 from 1991.”
The ZBA discussed the legitimacy of the hardship presented. Mark Borton described the parameters for
an acceptable hardship. In this case, there is an area within the buildable envelope where this building
could be constructed.
Wetland issues have been addressed.
Steve Carlson reported that the present shed and trailers are an eyesore. He also had concern with
some of the construction vehicles onsite.
2
John DeLaura made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Lisa Tollefson seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
Consideration of Variance
ZBA members discussed and considered the request.
Lisa Tollefson made a motion to deny the variance to section 71-B because the applicant failed to
establish a basis for a legal hardship. John DeLaura seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously. The variance was denied.
ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Election of Officers
While several people volunteered to share the role of Chairman, none of the eligible full members were
interested in becoming Chairman (alone). It was decided to postpone the decision until the next
meeting when both Alex Stein and Al Bisackey can be present to vote.
AUDIENCE OF CITIZENS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Helchowski
Clerk
3