Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board rejects large variances at 7 Point Lookout East after neighbor opposition
Summary
The board denied a multi‑part variance request on April 8 that would have allowed a substantial second‑floor addition, front and rear setback reductions and a porch projection at 7 Point Lookout East; neighbors cited safety, views and precedent.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on April 8 denied a multi‑part variance for 7 Point Lookout East after prolonged public comment and board discussion.
Attorney Thomas Lynch presented the application on behalf of owners Mark and Michelle Greengarden for multiple variances: reduced front‑yard setbacks (22.9 feet and 26.2 feet requested where 30 feet are required), a reduced rear yard setback (8.7 feet where 25 feet is required) to allow attachment of an existing garage to the main house, a front‑porch projection variance (18.2 feet where 26 feet is permitted) and relief under the expansion of nonconforming structure rules to add a second‑floor addition. Lynch said the current house (about 1,800 sq ft) would grow by roughly 1,200 sq ft, staying under 3,000 sq ft finished, and argued the lot carries two front‑yard setbacks and other site constraints that create hardship. He also said the planned midpoint height of the finished roofline would be about 23 feet, within the 35‑foot limit.
Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition. Peter Grzkovich filed a written objection and said the addition would “dwarf” nearby houses, block views and pose public‑safety risks at a corner with fast approaches. Philip “Buddy” Degenauro, a former zoning board member in another town, cited state guidance saying self‑inflicted hardship is not grounds for relief and argued the application represents an expansion of a nonconforming structure that should not increase. Lynn Iannone said buyers of a corner nonconforming lot assume the constraints and questioned claims of hardship. The public comments cited Connecticut General Statutes regarding variance standards (mentioned in the hearing as “Connecticut General Statute paragraph 8‑6 A3”).
Board members discussed alternatives noted during the hearing — for example, squaring the proposed sunroom so it would not encroach into the setback, adding a portico instead of an enclosed mudroom to connect the garage, and conditioning approvals to prohibit second‑story space over the garage. A motion to approve the application with conditions (including that the garage remain single‑story and that the house midpoint not exceed 23.6 feet) was made and seconded; following further discussion several members explicitly opposed the motion. The motion failed.
Because the board denied the requested variances, the applicants will not be able to proceed with the proposed additions as presented; any further work would require revised plans or new applications. The hearing record includes a revised survey dated January 2025.
