Milford planning board agrees to circulate draft CDD-2 changes with 15% affordable set-aside and density incentives

At a lengthy March 18 meeting, the Milford Planning and Zoning Board debated revisions to proposed CDD-2 zoning regulations and voted to send amended language for circulation that adds a housing set-aside density bonus and related incentives.

The motion, offered by Board member Mister Hirsch and seconded on the record, would amend the draft regulations so that developments providing affordable housing (as defined by Connecticut General Statutes §8-30g) at a minimum of 15% of proposed units — targeted to households at 60–80% of area median income in a split described in the motion — would be eligible for density incentives. The motion specified two principal incentives for qualifying projects: a maximum building height of 50 feet and maximum building coverage of 80 percent. After discussion and a roll-call vote the motion passed by majority.

The board’s debate centered on the percentage set-aside (members discussed 15% vs. 20%), maximum heights for different parts of the district, and how to apply incentives for new construction versus reuse of existing commercial buildings on Route 1 (Bridgeport Avenue) or Naugatuck Avenue. Staff planner David Sulkes explained the regulatory approach and cautioned that many comparative examples from other towns applied to specific parcels or floating zones rather than an entire district.

Multiple board members argued for a minimum set-aside rather than an exact percentage to leave room for projects that may offer more than the threshold. As Sulkes explained, “You can have any language you want. So yeah. I mean, a minimum and and and this is where we got into when we had the discussion about, the challenges of a sliding scale… So setting a minimum 15% and then, you know, if they if they are willing to give more, you know, then that would be that would be great.”

Other members pressed for incentives that would encourage owner-occupied housing as well as rental units; staff clarified the planning board cannot directly regulate ownership form but can adjust zoning standards to encourage certain building types. The board also discussed building heights: several members favored 50 feet as an across-the-board cap for the incentive, while others wanted higher heights along Bridgeport Avenue (Route 1). Ultimately the motion the board adopted set a 50-foot maximum height for the density-bonus incentive that was the subject of the vote. Later in the discussion the board reached informal agreement on separate but related incentives for additions to existing commercial buildings on Route 1 (a maximum height in that scenario of 55 feet and an 80% coverage allowance), but those adjustments were discussed as part of the circulation draft rather than adopted by separate final vote that night.

A roll-call of the vote on the Hirsch motion recorded five votes in favor and two opposed; board members recorded a range of reservations and preferences during the debate but supported sending the language forward for circulation to regional planning councils and state review. Board members and staff said the circulated draft could still be changed after public comment and a formal public hearing.

What the board changed and what remains - Approved for circulation: draft language adding a housing set-aside density bonus with a minimum 15% affordable set-aside (per CGS §8-30g definitions) to trigger incentives. - Incentives tied to the set-aside in the adopted motion: maximum building height of 50 feet and maximum building coverage of 80% for qualifying new construction as described in the motion. - Staff and members discussed (and agreed informally for circulation) separate incentive levels for additions/ conversions of existing commercial buildings on Route 1 (e.g., a 55-foot height incentive and up to 80% building coverage) and to address parking and setback issues; those items will be included in the circulated draft for comment.

Board members and staff repeatedly noted that circulation and the public hearing process will likely produce additional changes; several members asked staff to identify specific parcels, major property owners and city-owned sites that could be used to implement incentives or other carrots (for example, tax incentives or municipal land use) beyond zoning changes.

The board asked staff to revise the draft to reflect the adopted language, circulate it to regional councils and relevant agencies, and return to the board with any comments and a date for a public hearing.