Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Expansion Of Nonconforming Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA denies request to build second-floor addition over garage at 52 Chester St.
Summary
A proposal to add a second-floor unit above an existing garage at 52 Chester Street was denied March 11 after neighbors expressed concern and board members found insufficient hardship to justify enlarging a structure that already sat closer to the lot line than authorized by a 1973 variance.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals voted March 11 to deny a request to add a second story above a garage at 52 Chester Street. The proposal sought to keep the garage’s side-yard setback at 1.6 feet where the zoning district ordinarily requires 4 feet (by prior variance) and to permit expansion of a legally nonconforming structure.
Applicant Adrienne Roberts told the board the family needs more living space to accommodate her mother-in-law and described the addition as internal to the existing footprint: “We were just looking to expand our home, to better fit our family, to better our home.” She said the project would place the new living area above the existing two-car garage and be connected internally to the house.
A neighbor, Robert Saleh, who said he owns the adjacent property, opposed the plan and asked the board to “enforce the 4 foot setback.” Board members noted the garage had been permitted by a prior variance in 1973 to sit closer than the standard side-yard setback, then observed the structure’s current location — measured at 1.6 feet — exceeded that earlier allowance. Members raised concerns that the requested work would increase the degree of nonconformity and that alternatives existed, such as building over the main house rather than the garage.
A motion to approve the application was made and seconded; 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.
Board staff and members discussed technical questions in the record regarding the 1973 variance and the file history; the zoning enforcement officer noted older surveys and variances sometimes did not reflect modern survey practices and that the existing structure is legal nonconforming because it has existed in its present location for more than three years.
The applicant may revise the design and return to the board; the board suggested alternatives such as locating the addition over the principal house rather than the garage or reconfiguring the plan to reduce the encroachment.
