Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Old Saybrook board approves modified O'Halloran setback variances, denies height variance and conditions platform relocation
Summary
The Old Saybrook zoning board approved modified side‑yard variances for Patrick and Sonya O'Halloran on July 8, conditioning approval on relocating a utility platform to the property's north side, and declined to grant a requested height variance after questioning the explanation for the discrepancy.
The Old Saybrook Zoning/Planning Board on July 8 granted modified side‑yard variances for the O'Halloran property (agenda item 25Slash26Dash20) but declined to approve a height variance and conditioned its approval on moving a newly documented utility platform to the north side of the lot.
Attorney Sylvia Rakowska, representing the applicants, told the board the house was built consistent with the architectural plans and that late discoveries of survey and calculation errors — not changes to the building footprint — produced discrepancies in the zoning chart. "Because this original application started in April...based on the statute for your timelines is you need to make a decision today," Rakowska said, pressing for a resolution aligned with the board's statutory deadline.
Why it matters: the property was the subject of a 2024 variance to allow a demolition‑and‑rebuild to meet FEMA elevation and septic requirements on a very small, nonconforming lot. At the July 8 hearing Rakowska walked the board through corrected figures: north setback reported as 6.6 ft (previously documented at 6.5 or 6.3 in older records), south side house setback 6.4 ft with an added utility platform measured at 2.3 ft, and coverage shown as 34.1% versus a variance allowance of 28.7%. The applicant's conservative height measurement was 35.8 ft; the board engineer, Jeff Jacobson, reported a median original‑grade measurement of 35.44 ft.
Board members focused on two points: whether the discrepancies were the result of a genuine calculation/survey error and whether changes to the built house — or to the plans — required denying the request. Chair Malcolm Wilcox said he had "heard no real justification for granting" the height variance, noting the record did not explain why the house ended up almost a foot higher than the original baseline. Rakowska responded that the difference arose from how original grade and siding were measured and that the as‑built elevation reflected the minimum necessary for FEMA compliance.
On the utility platform, the applicant acknowledged the platform (intended to hold mechanicals such as an AC unit and a generator) was not depicted on the 2024 site plan. The team argued attic and deck locations were infeasible for the required equipment and said owners were prepared to reduce the platform span by one foot to lessen the encroachment. Several board members said they wanted the platform moved to the north side of the lot to reduce neighbor impacts.
Motion and outcome: the board approved the side‑yard variance modifications (north and south) but did not grant the height variance; approval was conditioned on relocating the utility platform to the north side or other mitigation acceptable to the board. The motion carried on a voice vote; no oppositions were recorded in the transcript. The public hearing for this application was closed.
What happens next: the board asked staff to verify final coverage calculations and the revised platform dimensions/location before the approval is finalized in the record. The decision reflects the board's balancing of FEMA/elevation constraints, as‑built differences from the 2024 plan, and neighborhood impact concerns.
