The Milford Board of Adjustment voted to grant a five-foot variance allowing an 8-by-6 accessory shed at 18554 Flying Geese Drive in the Milford Ponds development to remain up against the homeowner's detached dwelling.

City planning staff member Pierce told the board the applicant, listed as BOA-149-2025 in the meeting packet, sought relief from Milford City Code provision cited in the staff report that requires accessory buildings be set back at least 5 feet from a principal structure. The record shows the shed sits on a pressure-treated wood platform and is attached to the house at roughly 5–6 inches from the siding.

Kirk Hamza, the property owner, testified that he obtained approval from the Milford Ponds homeowners association before installation and said he did not believe a town permit was required because the shed sits on a floating platform rather than a permanent concrete foundation. Hamza said, “it was a little bit of a surprise to us that we had to do that,” and described anchoring the platform to the ground with four 2-foot anchors and fastening the shed to the platform with 1.5-inch screws spaced about every six inches.

A neighbor who identified herself as Mary Polante spoke in favor of the application, saying she and her husband “are in favor of mister Hamza keeping his shed, where it is actually constructed on the side of his house,” and that the shed did not obstruct their view or use of their property. No speakers were recorded in opposition.

Board member Miss White moved to approve the variance; a board member seconded the motion. Miss White stated she supported approval because relocating the shed after it had been installed would impose a hardship on the owner. Board members who cast recorded votes—Mr. Riley, Mr. Miscola, and Mr. Rizzo—also voted yes, and the motion carried.

The packet included a survey showing the shed on the east side of the house, the HOA approval letter and HOA shed guidance (which the packet noted allows certain structures up to 3 feet from the building), a copy of the violation letter from city code enforcement, and a public notice that had been advertised in the Veil State News on 06/20/2025. The owner indicated the shed is about 7 feet from the rear property line and about 5–6 inches from the principal structure; the planning staff memo referenced the applicable municipal setback requirement as five feet.

The board closed the public hearing and carried the motion to grant the variance. The record notes there were no findings of fact included for review that month.