Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies oversized accessory building proposal at 911 Normantucket Ave.
Summary
The ZBA denied a proposal March 11 to replace existing outbuildings with a larger garage at 911 Normantucket Avenue after members concluded the plan exceeded accessory-structure size limits and the applicant had alternatives to reduce encroachment.
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals denied a March 11 petition by property owner John Redden (also referred to as Redding in the record) to build a larger garage at 911 Normantucket Avenue.
Redden told the board he is retiring and needs space for several antique cars, describing the existing condition: “I got antique cars. I like working on them, and I need the space in the garage.” The proposed replacement garage footprint was described in the hearing as substantially larger than the zoning regulation’s 600-square-foot accessory-building cap and larger than half the principal-house footprint; the applicant proposed a 26‑by‑50 structure in discussion, which exceeded the allowed dimensions.
Board members and staff explained accessory building rules: accessory structures are typically limited to half the footprint of the principal house or up to 600 square feet under current rules, and multiple garage bays are limited when a property already contains garage bays in another structure. Members suggested design changes — reducing width, pivoting the building orientation, moving the structure toward the rear of the lot, or reconfiguring to sit parallel to the property line — that would avoid the need for variances.
After discussion the board voted on a motion to approve the variance as presented; the recorded votes were: Mister King, against the motion; Mister Sota, against the motion; Mister Montana, against the motion; Mister Einig, against the motion; Chairwoman Ferrante, against the motion. The motion failed.
Staff advised the owner he could submit revised plans that reduce footprint and encroachment and return to the board with a new application.

