Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Nonconforming Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves dormers at 23–25 Central Ave., allowing attic conversion in long-standing two-family home
Summary
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to allow dormer additions at 23–25 Central Ave., finding the work does not expand the building footprint or add a new dwelling unit. The house will remain a two-family nonconforming use in an R-5 single-family zone.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals voted on Oct. 14 to approve a variance for owners Walter and Luba Ortoliva to add dormers at 23–25 Central Avenue, a two-family house located in an R-5 single-family zone. The application sought relief under Section 6.2.1 for an expansion related to a preexisting nonconforming use.
Board members said the proposed work does not change the building footprint or increase the number of dwelling units. The applicant said the dormers would add light and make an existing unfinished attic space more usable but would not create a new apartment.
The applicant, identified in the meeting material as the homeowner, told the board the house has been in the family since the 1970s and dates to the 1860s. “I’m not adding an additional apartment. I’m just adding a little light to a dark attic,” the applicant said during the hearing.
David Sulkes, Milford city planner, confirmed the legal issue before the board: the property is a legal nonconforming two-family in a single-family zone and the request is for expansion of that nonconforming use rather than for setback relief. Sulkes said there were no requested setback variances for this application.
Board members asked several questions about whether the attic is currently conditioned and whether the dormers would increase usable living space; the applicant answered that the attic is presently unconditioned and used informally by tenants and that insulating the space is a likely next step.
Board member discussion focused on the lack of setback impacts and the historic nature of the house. There was no public opposition at the hearing. A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded and the board approved the request. The applicant said additional interior work such as a possible bathroom would be a future, separate matter.
The board closed the hearing after voting and wished the applicant well with the project.
