Back in 2008, Russian millionaire Valery Kogan and his wife Olga submitted plans to build a whopping 39,000 square foot mega mansion at 18 Simmons Lane in Greenwich, CT. They wanted to demolish the exisiting 19,000 square foot mansion and put up the proposed monstrosity. It was to include eight bedrooms, 26 bathrooms, a gym, theater, lockers, wine cellar, staff quarters, game rooms, a Turkish bath, a Finnish bath and a special room in the basement for grooming dogs. If the plans were put into effect, the house would have had 625,000 cubic feet, making it by far the largest mansion in Greenwich. However, the board denied their plans.

In February 2010, the commission approved a prior plan to renovate the home with its current foundation. But the latest application says a new foundation is needed because the existing one isn’t adequate for the new structure.

The application is the latest in a series of proposals stretching back more than three years to build a supersized mansion at the address. The Kogans won approval in March 2009 to tear down the home and build a new 21,127-square-foot residence with 15 bathrooms after scaling down their original request to build the 39,000 square foot monstrosity.

But the Kogans abandoned efforts to tear down the home in May 2009, citing neighborhood opposition.

So, Valery and Olga are back again and have scaled down their proposed mansion plans even more. They recently resubmitted their newly revised plans to the board. The new (and smaller) mansion will boast just 17,429 square feet of living space (less than the existing house).

CLICK HERE FOR AN ARTICLE ON THE NEW PROPOSED MANSION

CLICK HERE FOR AN ARTICLE ON THE OLD PROPOSED MANSION

 

  • Limedaiquar

    Don’t know how I feel about the new plans: dormer thing in the middle with a flat roof. But if they do indeed get this one approved, then I can’t wait to see it finished. 39,000 sq ft? Good goobily goop.




    0



    0
    • Chance

      17,429 sq.ft




      0



      0
  • Daniel

    So in picture #4, it would have been possible to drive around the entire home? Eh, that seems…wrong.




    0



    0
  • lambskin

    Nyet!




    0



    0
  • Sam

    Wow I actually love the aspect from picture 4! It wont look like any typical Greenwich mansion either, and the fact their building it for themselves means it wont be on the market for 15 years afterwards with a ridiculous selling price. Shame the proposal got denied but im excited to see the smaller finished house




    0



    0
  • Jason

    well I never think building a near 40k sq ft. is needed, I’d say this one is quite well done. I don’t blame nearby residents being apprehensive though. this is a beast on a downright palatial scale! I wonder what it is about the new Russian wealth that they have to build the biggest and most embellished houses around. I guess it’s better than a Persian Palace. that would really get the residents of Greenwich up in arms. Have a look at this hideous Bel Air piece –

    http://www.joycerey.com/property_detail.php?property_ID=188

    Kenny, since you are relatively close to CT- you should consider heading to the Town of Greenwich Building Inspection Office. Construction documents are public record and subject to Open Records requests.




    0



    0
    • Barney

      Hi Jason………Barney here….I used to be a regular contributor to the sites, but got scarce in the past year or so. Just wanted to tell you that I COULD NOT POSSIBLE AGREE WITH YOU MORE about Joyce Rey’s “listing” in California. Now I’ve seen ONE WHOLE HELLUVA’ LOT of TRULY SHIDEOUS McMansions and real mansions, but that MONSTROSITY from the BOTTOM OF HELL ITSELF TAKES THE CAKE! It looks like the GOD-awful, bizzare, nauseatingly overdone, heroin-induced palace from the Second (or third??) Indiana Jones movie with Kate Capshaw and the little Asian boy. I take that back….it DOESN’T EVEN LOOK THAT GOOD. That nightmare has been on the market for AT LEAST four years, and INCREDULOUSLY all that truly horrid furniture and 16th centruy, “Raja” inspired decor’ is STILL THERE. I wonder if she told the Sellers to AT LEAST redecorate just ONE room, pleeeeeeeeease?!?!




      0



      0
  • george

    The reason the first house was turned down is it was oversized for the lot. In the last few years Greenwich passed an ordinance for allowable size. It is based on square footage of the lot times the allowable percentage. The percentage varies with the areas of Greenwich. I do not understand how between the real estate agent, the architect and the builder, not one of them knew of the rule.




    0



    0
    • george

      the formula ps for backcountry sq ft of lot times .0625 or 43,560 X 7[# of acres X .0625 equals 19,057 sq ft max size of house. For close in it’s 43560 X 7 X .09 which is 27,442 sq ft max house.




      0



      0
  • Tay

    The thing is, the original would have been approved if it had been a backcountry lot where there are at least a dozen properties in the 20,000-30,000 plus range, but this lot is south of the parkway and just would not fit in at all on this street. The mansion there before was/is? beautiful and it sucks that they bought it for like $18Mill cause they could have their palace about 5-10 mins north of here in the backcountry or a less strict association.




    0



    0
  • NOVA Ben

    Ugh, I could not possibly care less.




    0



    0
  • GeorgeL

    As for the design, they should try a third time to get it right.




    0



    0