Westport Zoning Board Faces Complex Land Use and Variance Challenges in Meeting

At the Westport Zoning Board meeting, discussions focused on a variance application for a property on Kahun Lane and a contentious request related to height and frontage requirements for a lookout tower on Old John Reed Road.

01:57One of the most notable discussions centered on the application by Brandon Lord, represented by attorney Peter Solino, seeking a variance for the property on Kahun Lane. This case attracted attention due to its implications for agricultural land use and the historical context of zoning bylaws. The property, spanning 14.25 acres, lacks the required street frontage, making it an unbuildable lot under current zoning regulations. Solino argued that the lot should be considered a pre-existing non-conforming lot, emphasizing that it had maintained its current dimensions since the early 1900s and had not been owned in common with any adjacent properties. The attorney also highlighted the unique shape of the quadrilateral property and the potential hardship on Lord, a farmer, if he was unable to build a home on the land he operates.

34:17The board engaged in a discussion about the legal aspects of the proposed variance, scrutinizing the documentation of the property’s ownership history and its compliance with grandfathering provisions in the bylaws. A point of contention was whether the proposed variance would negatively impact neighboring properties. Solino faced opposition from an attorney representing abutters, who argued that the applicant had not satisfied multiple zoning law requirements and questioned the legitimacy of the hardship claim. Public comments added to the complexity, with some residents supporting Lord’s plans, citing his family’s connection to the area, while others expressed concerns about past non-farming commercial activities on the property.

01:00:32Another issue was the variance request from Patricia and Glenn Ellis for their property on Old John Reed Road, which sought relief from frontage and height requirements for a proposed lookout tower. The petitioners explained that their original building permit application had been denied due to the structure’s height exceeding the 40-foot limit. They revised their plans to reduce the main structure’s height but continued to request a height increase for the lookout tower from 40 to 45 feet. The board scrutinized the necessity of the variance, questioning whether it constituted a legitimate hardship or was solely for aesthetic purposes. The petitioners contended that the lookout tower was essential for accommodating an elevator mechanism and enhancing the structure’s appearance.

01:16:22Further complicating the matter was the property’s location in a flood zone, which required homes to be elevated, affecting height calculations. The board expressed concerns that granting the variance could set a precedent for similar requests in the flood zone, potentially leading to zoning challenges. Despite the abutters signing off on the plans, the board debated the potential impact on the neighborhood and whether the request could be accommodated within zoning regulations without compromising the project’s goals.

01:31:59During the meeting, the board also discussed the implications of the newly enacted 10th edition building code, which required additional height for compliance. This prompted conversations about whether the permit application could be processed under the previous 9th edition, as the application was submitted before the new regulations took effect. The board contemplated whether a finding rather than a variance would be more appropriate, allowing for a smoother approval process.

01:42:05Ultimately, the board allowed the applicants for the Old John Reed Road project to withdraw their height variance request without prejudice, preserving their ability to reapply without restrictions. The board then approved a finding that the property’s 94-foot frontage was not detrimental to the neighborhood, noting that the existing structure was a pre-existing non-conforming use. This decision highlighted the board’s focus on balancing regulatory compliance with practical considerations for property owners.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: