Residents and developer spar over proposed twin‑home rezoning at 848 Milford Street

The Watertown Common Council opened a public hearing on rezoning parcels at 848 Milford Street from single‑family residential to two‑family residential on April 28, 2025, drawing several residents and developer representatives to the mic.

The item matters because the rezoning would allow “twin” or side‑by‑side two‑family homes on lots currently zoned for single‑family housing, a change proponents say could expand homeownership options while opponents warned about scale, traffic and amenity shortfalls.

Carl Zarling, Jefferson County supervisor for District 4 and a realtor with Shore West Realtors, told the council he supports twin homes as an affordable, lower‑maintenance option. “These twin homes are frankly, they're they're a pretty great idea,” Zarling said, adding that side‑by‑side units can meet needs for single‑floor living without large homeowners‑association fees.

Several neighbors raised concerns about density, shifting plans and community infrastructure. Eric Kluge, 915 Casey Drive, said the project’s scope has changed repeatedly: “Started off as a 48 home lot, then went to 54, then 54 with twin homes, now 54 with 14 twin homes. So, you know, when's when's enough enough?” Dean Gagliano, 909 Casey Drive, told the council the neighborhood lacks nearby parks and safe sidewalks and urged the city to require play space or safer routes for children if the project proceeds.

Kathy Huggins, a resident who spoke during the hearing, questioned whether newly built homes at the price points discussed would be affordable to current Watertown households: “Those are expensive homes for people that live in Watertown… Who's gonna be buying these? Are they really gonna be members of our community, or are they just gonna be in and out commuters?”

Representatives for the developer said the plan responds to local housing demand. David Worning, director of land development with Grama Mar with Luz Homes, said the company aims for pricing “somewhere in the mid to upper 3 hundreds,” and that twin homes could open ownership to households priced out of single‑family options: “There’s family that families that need homes, and, this may open the door to somebody that couldn't otherwise afford a home.”

Speakers also raised process questions. Several residents said the proposal’s details shifted across review rounds and urged the council to require clearer parking and infrastructure commitments during subsequent planned‑unit development review. Alderman Blankie noted the developer had pulled earlier plans from the Plan Commission agenda in response to public comments, and urged further neighborhood engagement.

No final land‑use decision was taken during the hearing; the rezoning matter proceeded through the city’s public process. The council’s action on the specific rezoning request and any subsequent planned‑unit overlay or site plan approvals will determine final lot layout, parking requirements and park placement.

If the rezoning moves forward, neighbors and council members said they expect the planned‑unit review to be the forum for binding conditions on parking, sidewalks and open‑space placement. The council did not set a timeline for the next administrative step at the close of the public hearing.