Citizen Portal
Sign In

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.

2938846 · March 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

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.

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.