[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5986473,"mediaKeyId","5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8","parentId",5773201,"title","Board OKs small bathroom and deck to accommodate disabled resident at 8–10 Marie Street","audioSeconds",355,"startMs",2457000,"endMs",2812000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8&start=2457&end=2812","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8/thumbnail_2457000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5986473/Milford-City/New-Haven-County/Connecticut/Board-OKs-small-bathroom-and-deck-to-accommodate-disabled-resident-at-810-Marie-Street","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986473-25dd76f60513efaa7f3765e9f65f757f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773591694&Signature=g6aO6YdrXGFdsWdYJAA5IBA2x8yTAZESYLFqigKlgSCPihah9gRD6I0Oz36opf-67kvJvw5186im8lyHKkljJFZ4ZQZO9Re~pw9tsJePGIVKkWtVLM5g0oVjfrP2sUbpghUD397utg4Q2wiDuPWMX8ttoUrldA7PEFTi7t7jDLwLC9KmDKlIuxgCpVHkl~wC06RLj5ZgTDWjalPv9vGVNL-QdZOw4bbAO9XTjtQRKqo1mNTSeBQIOSr7mJgoypXdDqudbb4S8kNsfO2rr8Ul4418HAdx4OU77ctFJfRf5H1yO7s2of6zy0R~hhfWQ5HvxP6PCUrQKExKpVXdBOxCAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Milford City, CT","date","2025-09-12T15:05:37Z","article","The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 9 approved a variance to permit a small first-floor bathroom addition and a deck at 8–10 Marie Street to accommodate a disabled resident.

The applicant, who identified themselves as the purchaser of a duplex to allow their parents to live nearby, said one parent requires single-level living for safety. The owner described the addition as a narrow, roughly 5-foot-by-25-foot single-story extension that would create a full bathroom on the first floor and a rear deck to reduce the need for steps to access outdoor space. The owner provided a doctor’s note describing the physical impairment and said the addition was made as small as practical to meet the medical need.

The property is in an R‑75 zone. The board noted the existing side-yard setbacks and that, after the addition, one side-yard distance would remain roughly 9.65 feet while the other would be reduced to about 5.25 feet where 10 feet and 5 feet are required, respectively. Board members discussed driveway impacts and noted an existing fence and a second driveway that limits the project’s effect on parking and access. No neighbors spoke in opposition during the hearing.

A motion to approve the variance for enlargement/alteration of a nonconforming use carried on a recorded vote with board members present voting in favor. The transcript records the votes as King — yes; Wolf — yes; Sota — yes; Hirsch — yes. The board characterized the work as a modest, necessary accommodation and closed the hearing with no additional conditions recorded.

The applicant cited accessibility needs and described the design as purposely minimal to preserve driveway function and minimize encroachment into the yard. The board approved the request and the applicant was wished luck with the project during the hearing adjournment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board of Appeals 09/9/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A variance to add a ground-floor bathroom and small deck to a multifamily unit at 8–10 Marie Street was approved to provide single-level living for a disabled resident; the board described the change as minimal and necessary.","taxTitle","Milford City, New Haven County, Connecticut","taxId",9787,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986478,"ZBA approves reduced portico plan at 7 Point Lookout East after neighbors objected to earlier scheme",330,2069000,2399000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8&start=2069&end=2399","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8/thumbnail_2069000.jpg","/articles/5986478/Milford-City/New-Haven-County/Connecticut/ZBA-approves-reduced-portico-plan-at-7-Point-Lookout-East-after-neighbors-objected-to-earlier-scheme","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986478-91e6e97631df35be5574e659ef6f851c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773591694&Signature=D1Q~BrVupeZr-0VB2JWgJX1EEMkV22uah1t3jLySzn0hSVro2aVtFEMWU7hGYDQz5DcEyTeyhN9enDht-JVv0m9hJkfLQKNjajgR5gbUoYPqx2OhgFTREm0IXysI-sp8Lyuo0M2Q66Xz14VFgcsTB0GZ05snfpe8P1F2vvzuwjThkNGHbq4Qj1QLy-8XbwsUFO63Ba8-apnuNR-UBfy0DnFInpZtOqGvRghTFwcqanHr6c2U91uz-mtBIR5t59gzbDEw7dL2GwV3zKctb5PE2EFmt1U0H7VrvdeKyOzlaG0FoVTJdy52hMtANSKQLMBW0z6mpb~S4ON6T~w1Ew5Vgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An application to add a modest front portico and make interior renovations at 7 Point Lookout East was approved by the Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 9 after the applicant substantially reduced an earlier, larger plan.

Attorney Thomas Lynch represented Ochner Place LLC and owners Mark and Michelle Greengard. Lynch said the owners originally proposed a larger renovation in April — including a second story, a bump‑out, and a garage connection — but withdrew that plan after neighborhood objections. “They scrapped that plan and we’re presenting this to you tonight,” Lynch said, describing the new request as a primarily aesthetic front portico similar to one the board approved at a nearby property in 2023.

Lynch said houses on Point Lookout were largely built in the mid‑20th century and that many front‑yard setbacks in the neighborhood are nonconforming; the subject house has a front-yard setback of roughly 23 feet where 30 feet is required. The proposed portico was described on the plan as a small stoop roughly in the 6‑by‑8 to 8‑by‑10 foot range intended to add architectural detail rather than expand usable living area.

Neighbors had attended the earlier April hearing and opposed the larger project, Lynch said; no opposition voices were recorded for the smaller portico plan at the Sept. 9 rehearing. Board members said the revised application was a substantial reduction from the April submission and represented an acceptable aesthetic improvement. A motion to approve the front-porch projection variance and expansion-of-nonconforming-structure relief (as applicable) carried on a recorded vote with board members present voting yes. The hearing was closed with no additional conditions recorded in the minutes.

Survey and application materials were revised and submitted by Jay Dennison, with a revised plan dated Aug. 18, 2025, according to the application paperwork presented at the hearing.","A scaled‑down front portico and interior renovations at 7 Point Lookout East won board approval after the owner scrapped a larger April proposal that drew neighbor opposition.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986485,"Board approves second-floor addition at 81 Prospect Street after neighbor agreement",373,1626000,1999000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8&start=1626&end=1999","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8/thumbnail_1626000.jpg","/articles/5986485/Milford-City/New-Haven-County/Connecticut/Board-approves-second-floor-addition-at-81-Prospect-Street-after-neighbor-agreement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986485-ec99e0cd3005c5bc5575ac9d579637ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1773591694&Signature=h9JKQrrELlO7UvrclivTb90jH8cB9E4DJykXr5DUfWLisVCBBeY8RxqaKv2LeyVzHhk79EGDcYqDncMx8-wkXQpmW1JpAFkmOJaDMpBoYrAGuDy4KUKavxmPtjxKxKa~b8~BoKn4F00zSmd-5KhTx~OjMhrg20mVuArvXj4nf6FNd5iMr9ftajdCC9ahNXRszksANnzQlNtwd8eUANsIGHuK9KDFN4kdNeWwc0oKkhgWSVXe3JDYTtQTlP1pRhBidLEMW58NOsT3mLBX84sMLdruNLEUIDnGSd3J0Y3QWk0gyxDsKUqqHtvGEz1acFiCuJqjVlyJIpTlAXC4-pLqrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 9 approved a variance allowing a second-story addition that follows the existing first-floor footprint at 81 Prospect Street, where the structure currently sits 0.8 feet inside the required side-yard line.

Attorney Vicky Conant presented on behalf of property owner Adam Kribazewski. Conant said the application was continued from an Aug. 12 hearing so the parties could resolve objections raised by an adjacent neighbor, Joe Russo. Following discussions the neighbor provided a written statement agreeing to the revised plan. Conant clarified a typo in the neighbor’s letter: the survey shows the house is 0.8 feet from the property line (about 10 inches), not 0.08 feet.

Conant described the requested work as a second-floor addition above an existing one-story, nonconforming portion of the house and a squaring off of a rear corner to enlarge the kitchen. The second floor would add roughly 600 square feet for bedrooms and a bathroom and would align vertically with existing first-floor walls so the addition does not increase the building’s footprint beyond the previously existing corner conditions.

A board member confirmed there was no change to the application since the continuance and that a neighbor on the other side had submitted a letter of support. Board members said they were satisfied the applicant had worked with adjacent property owners; one member noted the addition was modest and the neighbors were agreeable.

A motion to approve the variance for side-yard setback relief and expansion of a nonconforming structure carried on a recorded vote in which the board members present voted in favor. The transcript records the votes as: King — yes; Wolf — yes; Sota — yes; Hirsch — yes. The board approved the request and no further conditions were recorded in the public hearing minutes.

The application documentation includes a survey by OurPlane dated July 14, 2025. The board closed the hearing after accepting the applicant’s statement that neighbor concerns had been addressed.","The Milford Zoning Board approved a variance to allow a second-story addition at 81 Prospect Street after the applicant resolved a neighbor’s concerns and provided corrected survey information.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5986487,"Zoning board rejects Safe Harbor marina storage building variance after neighbor concerns",1095,219000,1314000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8&start=219&end=1314","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5773201-713657c65357e829c780b2a22d23faa8/thumbnail_219000.jpg","/articles/5986487/Milford-City/New-Haven-County/Connecticut/Zoning-board-rejects-Safe-Harbor-marina-storage-building-variance-after-neighbor-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5986487-464f319f6bdced02582fd33544321969/orig.mp4?Expires=1773591694&Signature=SI0f3dRIUInV3hGoJA72WCcdCJXNzv5bps5Kx~7uPDPSrg0bTFOq79hlBZmYFm8aBCm0eqvNUxzsnivLSXBC3bLH7FB-o4Gb48nnWeWS2qdu3ZPK9zbViAbrzBN3tLc-aqWV6nh5SMzbiGAIJhfCT0UEdqVlrl-JTz~QBArPYn2oy9H-5TeYss392fGb4SDphXJjDPkaRAWKauqk2M848D3FV0SlimZhyVCKq0wdESpkuBdd9deTO7KO3BbkpSJfkttP4th-E8i3qhlx~WN2nF7IdElrQy~XEd5~aI96LPnB3ucYetnIDHGLJyLp3gFXqCVDe~OeQrWBHZ3AGeaYAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Safe Harbor Marinas sought variances and approval to build a 150-by-100-foot boat storage and maintenance building at 164 Rogers Avenue in Milford, but the Milford Zoning Board of Appeals voted the application down on Sept. 9 after hearing neighbor testimony and board discussion. The applicant reduced the proposed building height from 50 feet to 46 feet and said the facility would include a 40-foot service door to accommodate larger boats.

The applicant, Joshua Twiddle, regional vice president for Safe Harbor Marinas, told the board the company met with neighbors in August and revised the proposal based on feedback. “We went back and went kinda door to door with our neighbors…we invited everybody to a town hall meeting, and just kinda laid out the plans and just heard some comments and made some revisions,” Twiddle said. He said the revised building would be set farther from the water and that exterior finishes had been discussed with neighbors to make the building less industrial in appearance.

Neighbors offered mixed comments. Eileen Russell, trustee of a trust that owns property across the street, said Safe Harbor organized an August 16 meeting, presented revised plans and had removed derelict boats and made other improvements, and urged approval. “I can attest to the attention paid to the landscaping and condition of the buildings,” Russell said. Bridal Magnan, a Rogers Avenue resident, also spoke in favor. Kurt Moore, who said he has lived at 139 Rogers Avenue for 51 years, expressed ambivalence and asked the board to weigh the building’s growth and commercialization impact on the neighborhood.

The application sought multiple variances, including reduced easterly side-yard setbacks for the main building (proposed 13.65 and 18.85 feet where 30 feet is required) and for a small shed (19 feet where 30 is required); relief from required buffer distances; and expansion of a nonconforming structure under section 6.3.2. The applicant’s survey was prepared by John Paul Garcia Associates (June 3, 2025). Twiddle said the 40-foot door and a 35-ton travel lift set internal dimensional requirements; he estimated the finished building would accommodate roughly a dozen inside-storage vessels.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve the variances with modifications including the reduced height of 46 feet. The motion received recorded votes of: King — no; Wolf — yes; Sota — no; Hirsch — yes. The chair announced the motion failed.

Board members who spoke noted the lot’s wetlands and topography but expressed differing views on scale and aesthetics. One board member said reduction of height and neighborhood outreach were positive; another said the building “is too industrial looking and doesn’t belong there.” The board did not adopt any direction for staff or require further study; the application failed and no permit was granted.

If Safe Harbor chooses to reapply, the board record includes the June 3, 2025 survey and the revised dimensions the applicant presented at the Sept. 9 hearing. The public record also contains written support letters submitted by some neighbors and the statements made during the public hearing.","Safe Harbor’s request to build a 150-by-100-foot boat storage and maintenance building at 164 Rogers Ave., with reduced height and several setback variances, was denied by the Milford Zoning Board of Appeals after mixed neighborhood testimony and a split vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board OKs small bathroom and deck to accommodate disabled resident at 8–10 Marie Street

ZBA approves reduced portico plan at 7 Point Lookout East after neighbors objected to earlier scheme

Board approves second-floor addition at 81 Prospect Street after neighbor agreement

Zoning board rejects Safe Harbor marina storage building variance after neighbor concerns