Milford zoning board opens public review of CDD 3 to allow housing and mixed use

At a remote meeting of the Milford City Zoning Board, commissioners opened a public discussion on possible changes to the CDD 3 (Commercial Design District 3) zoning to permit residential and mixed‑use development and to encourage economic development and affordable housing.

The board described CDD 3 as the corridor from the McDonald’s in Devon east toward the area near Post Road and Exit 34 and said the district currently does not permit residential uses. Chair (board chair) summed up the purpose: to solicit public input and to determine whether the zoning should be altered to allow housing and mixed uses.

Why it matters: board members and residents repeatedly framed the discussion around a citywide housing shortage and the need for affordable, walkable development that could support downtown activity. The meeting considered where housing might be permitted in the district, what incentives the city could offer developers, and how to protect existing commercial corridors while adding new housing options.

Board discussion and staff context

David (city planning staff) reviewed topics from earlier meetings, including ideas already discussed for CDD 2 that could inform changes in CDD 3. David said prior discussions covered alternatives to a 100‑square‑foot per‑apartment outdoor‑space requirement (patios, balconies, rooftop gardens) and cluster or mixed‑use approaches for larger parcels.

Board members discussed starting by allowing residential uses in CDD 3 and only then defining what forms of housing would be permitted. Etan (board member) said, “If the zone is currently not zoned for residential, change the reg to allow for residential to be built there.” Several members argued that permitting housing would add options without preventing existing commercial uses.

The board discussed candidate sites, with multiple speakers identifying the former Stop & Shop plaza near Exit 34 as a promising location. One member noted office space above the plaza and vacant commercial space that might be converted to residential. Commissioners also discussed the corridor’s proximity to the train station and public transit as supportive of denser, walkable development.

Height, exceptions, incentives and parking

Board members debated height and incentives. David said the SCD (the mall and Walmart site) allows up to 120 feet in some districts and that hotels in interchange zones have historically been in the 60‑foot range. One board member suggested higher heights north of Post Road could be appropriate, with taller building proposals handled as special exceptions requiring a public hearing.

Multiple commissioners said the city could offer regulatory incentives — for example, greater density or relaxed parking requirements — in exchange for affordable housing commitments. Joe (board member) emphasized that incentives for affordability should remain part of any height or density bonus: “there has to still be that incentive, to have some affordability component.”

Paul Jorgensen, a resident, urged including a mix of unit sizes to create options for starter homes as well as other household types.

Public comments

Residents who spoke supported permitting mixed use and “gentle density” in parts of CDD 3. Theresa Eek, a Milford resident and member of All In For Milford, said she and the group had held more than 30 community gatherings and that residents repeatedly request “deeply affordable housing, green spaces [and] walkability.” Eek said of the Stop & Shop parcel: “This could be perfect. This could be like a prototype of mixed use residential, like, living space.”

Sarah Bromley and other residents recommended “gentle density” approaches such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small infill conversions and reusing underutilized commercial buildings. Charles Montalbano described the board’s work as “local control in a good way,” referencing state housing law pressures discussed at a regional event.

Divergent views and clarifications

Some board members urged preserving the corridor’s commercial role and cautioned against reducing commercial capacity. Etan expressed a preference for promoting owner‑occupied housing and senior housing at the Stop & Shop site; David and others noted that zoning can designate a specific residential use (for example, 55+ housing) but cannot force ownership models. Joe cautioned against labeling renters as transient and urged providing a range of housing types to meet market demand.

Several speakers asked the board to avoid applying a CDD 2 standard that places parking behind buildings to the Stop & Shop parcel; Joe said that provision exists in the CDD 2 text and should not automatically be carried over to CDD 3.

Next steps and direction

The board did not take any formal action. Commissioners agreed to continue the conversation and to place CDD 3 zoning changes on a future agenda. The board asked David (city staff) to compile ideas in a spreadsheet, to coordinate outreach to stakeholders (including developers and land‑use experts), and to seek one or two outside presenters to offer design and development perspectives. Chair (board chair) closed the meeting by saying the discussion would continue at the board’s next meeting and then adjourned.

Ending: The meeting produced no ordinance or vote; it was an information‑gathering session that produced direction to staff to assemble options and stakeholder input for future drafting of zoning language.