Safe Harbor Marina seeks larger storage building; Milford hearing held open after neighbor concerns about height, size and notice

The Milford City zoning board held over a hearing on a proposed new boat storage and maintenance building at 164 Rogers Avenue after residents raised concerns about height, footprint, parking and notice. The applicant proposed tearing down an existing 100-by-100-foot building and replacing it with a 150-by-100-foot structure and related accessory work.

John Paul Garcia, a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor representing Safe Harbor Marina, told the board the existing building has “reached the end of its useful life” and that the new building would allow “wet flood proofing” and a mezzanine to move equipment and materials above base flood elevation. Garcia said the proposal reduces the building’s encroachment on the easterly property line: the existing structure sits about 9.9 and 10.4 feet from the line; the proposed building would be 13.65 and 18.85 feet from the line.

Josh Whitwell, Safe Harbor’s vice president of operations, said the redevelopment is intended to bring the Milford property up to the company’s standards. Whitwell said the new building is for dry storage and maintenance only and “this has nothing to do with the amount of slips that are in the water. That's staying the same.” He added the new building should reduce outdoor storage and therefore increase covered storage capacity.

Residents at multiple points in the hearing opposed the requested variances. Bridal Magnan, who said she serves on the city’s wetlands commission but had recused herself from this matter, said she supports the marina’s investment but “we object to the 50 foot proposed height.” Sean Tazoli of 189 Rogers Avenue and Kurt Moore of 139 Rogers Avenue said a 50-foot structure would be out of character with the harbor and would block views; Moore also questioned mailed notice and posted signage and urged the board to consider neighborhood impacts.

Speakers and board members discussed technical constraints that the applicant said limit where the building can sit. Grant Voight, the marina manager, and Whitwell explained that travel lifts used to move boats have wide turning radii and a 25-foot lift height; larger vessels can have towers approaching 45 feet, which the applicant said requires door and roof clearances. Garcia and Whitwell said the mezzanine and wet-floodproof approach will keep polluting equipment and materials above the base flood elevation (they cited base flood elevation “around 15”).

The record shows specific variance requests: easterly side-yard setbacks to 13.65 and 18.85 feet where 30 feet is required, replacement of a small shed with a similar 20-by-20 structure (applicant said the shed will be repositioned to meet setback), and a request tied to constructing a 50-foot-high building where, under the zone rules discussed at the hearing, a 50-foot height is permitted only if the structure is set back 50 feet from the property line. Board members repeatedly asked whether the building could be reconfigured to reduce height or move further from the property line; neighbors urged rehearing and more outreach.

The board took two actions at the hearing: it accepted the applicant’s concession that the small shed variance can be eliminated by reorienting the shed on the lot, and it voted unanimously to hold the hearing open and continue the application to the August meeting to allow the applicant to revise plans and to meet with neighbors. Mr. Kennedy moved to continue the hearing to August; Bill Sota seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Several neighbors also requested additional project details, including the number of current slips, current and projected parking counts, and how many boats would be stored inside the new building versus outside. Those specifics were not provided at the hearing. Board members encouraged the applicant and neighbors to meet for an informal town-hall style discussion before the next hearing date.

The hearing record includes a letter generally in favor of the application but questioning the proposed building height; public commenters said they received little advance notice and asked staff to confirm posting and mailing. A staff member stated the required mailings and posted signs were completed and provided photo/postmark evidence to the board. The applicant and board agreed to additional outreach and a plan review before the continued hearing.

The item is scheduled to return to the board in August for further review and for the board to consider any revised plans or conditions.