Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laurel Beach neighbors, applicants clash over large home at 171 Third Avenue; hearing continued
Summary
A heated public hearing over proposed variances for a teardown-and-rebuild at 171 Third Avenue in Milford—Laurel Beach drew dozens of residents and planning debate; the Zoning Board kept the public hearing open to July so applicants and neighbors can negotiate plan changes.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on June 10 kept open the public hearing on a multi-variance application to demolish and replace the house at 171 Third Avenue in the Laurel Beach neighborhood, after more than two hours of testimony for and against the project.
Attorney Thomas Lynch, representing owners Timothy and Danielle Romano, said the property is a preexisting nonconforming lot and that any new house would require variances. Lynch told the board the proposed two-story Colonial with roughly "4,200 square feet" would not "appreciably increase" the site—s nonconformities and that the applicants had made concessions after meetings with the Laurel Beach Association and neighbors.
The issue matters locally because the property sits in a densely built, older beach subdivision where many lots and houses predate current zoning. Proponents argued replacing the existing deteriorated house with a new, modern home would improve the block; opponents said the planned increase in lot and building coverage and a wider house would worsen crowding, reduce privacy and set a precedent for larger builds across Laurel Beach.
Supporters: Timothy Romano, the applicant, described his family—s ties to the street and asked the board to allow the family to build a "forever home" for their children. Contractor and supporters in the audience said the current structure is in poor condition and replacement would benefit the neighborhood.
Opposition: Several nearby residents and the Laurel Beach Association testified in opposition. Attorney Hugh Curran, representing abutter Mary Ellen Curran, cited Connecticut appeals-court precedent discussed at the hearing and argued that widespread lot nonconformity in Laurel Beach cannot by itself establish the "hardship" required for variance relief. Neighbors raised safety, flooding, privacy and historic-pattern concerns, and multiple speakers asked the board to require the new house remain within the existing footprint rather than expand encroachment into side yards and increase lot coverage.
Board action and next steps: Attorney Lynch asked to keep the hearing open to the July meeting to pursue more revisions and talks with the Laurel Beach Association; the board voted to continue the hearing. No variance was granted at the June 10 meeting.
The board emphasized that any revised plans submitted before the statutory advertising deadline must be posted for public review prior to the continued hearing. The application has been on the board—s agenda since February, and neighbors and the applicant were told the July meeting is the next opportunity to present a revised plan or obtain a vote.
