Milford P&Z discusses draft CDD‑2 zoning changes to spur housing; board split on affordability rules

The Milford Planning & Zoning Commission on March 4, 2025 spent most of its regular meeting reviewing a working draft of zoning changes to the CDD‑2 commercial corridor intended to encourage additional housing along Naugatuck Avenue, Bridgeport Avenue and other parts of U.S. 1.

The draft, prepared by the regulation subcommittee and staff, would allow existing single‑ and two‑family houses to become up to three dwelling units "as of right" if they comply with building‑code standards and provide required parking (the draft references parking standards in section 5.1). It would also create a middle tier of multifamily development between small conversions and large projects that now require two acres: new mixed‑use or multifamily buildings could be allowed on smaller lots with a proposed 5,000 square‑foot minimum for certain provisions and an optional affordability bonus to increase height, coverage and unit counts.

Why it matters: The commission framed the drafting work as an early step to increase housing options and support nearby retail without changing single‑family neighborhoods. The subcommittee and staff stressed the proposal is a working draft that would be revised and circulated to regional councils and the public before any public hearing.

Key provisions under discussion

- Conversions: Existing single‑family or two‑family homes could be converted to a maximum of three units within the existing structure, provided required parking is supplied and tandem parking is not counted toward the parking requirement.

- Tandem parking: David, a Planning & Zoning staff member, explained the parking rule in detail: "Tandem parking is when you park 1 car in front of the other. ... In a multi family setting we can't have that because if the people on the First Floor are blocking the people on the Third Floor, that's unworkable." He added that the regulation would prevent tandem spaces from being counted toward the unit parking minimum, though the commission would not attempt to police private arrangements after occupancy.

- Multifamily and mixed‑use new construction: The draft would permit new multifamily buildings on smaller parcels than currently allowed, with an incentive that would let developers increase building height (proposed example: from 40 feet to 60 feet) and building coverage (up to roughly 75%) if a percentage of units is set as affordable. The draft included a working example of a 15% affordability requirement to earn the height bonus and also displayed sliding‑scale options for discussion.

- Lot size and form: Staff supplied a map and lot‑size breakdown showing many parcels in the CDD‑2 are about 5,000 square feet, which informed the subcommittee's choice of 5,000 sq ft as a baseline for some allowances. Bridgeport Avenue would retain ground‑floor commercial uses in the draft; residential would be allowed above the first floor there.

Board debate and points of disagreement

Commissioners were divided on whether small conversions (single‑ or two‑family to three units) should carry affordability obligations. Several commissioners urged removing an affordability requirement for those small conversions on the grounds that the requirement could deter homeowners from converting their units, and that the administrative reporting burden would be disproportionate for "mom and pop" owners. Commissioner John (surname not specified) said, "I think we should make it as easy as possible. And, yeah, no affordable for homeowners expanding." Several others, including Commissioner Joe (surname not specified), supported removing the affordability mandate for small conversions.

Other commissioners pushed the opposite view for larger multifamily projects. Commissioner Robert (surname not specified), who serves as the commission's liaison to the regional council of governments, urged a higher affordability floor, citing examples from neighboring towns: "Camden, 20 Percent affordable housing. Southington, no less than 20%. ... I think that we should be up at 20%, if not more, of affordable housing." Several commissioners expressed support for higher percentages or a sliding scale keyed to project size.

Ownership, scale and enforcement concerns

Several members raised the prospect that allowing denser projects could accelerate acquisition and consolidation of small parcels, producing larger rental apartment projects rather than owner‑occupied for‑sale units. One commissioner warned of an "apartment alley" effect if lots are assembled and redeveloped as multiunit rental buildings. Staff and other commissioners said zoning can regulate use and form but not ownership, and that parking, setbacks and open‑space requirements would limit extreme outcomes.

Chair remarks and next steps

The chairman (name not specified) said the draft is an initial effort and would likely return for additional edits: "This isn't gonna be our first bite at the apple. ... Once the board is satisfied the language is what they want to pursue, it'll be distributed to the various councils of governments and the state ... and then scheduled for a public hearing." The chair later added that the item will be carried to the commission's next regular meeting so the board can continue input and staff can circulate maps and supporting documents.

What remained unresolved

Commissioners had no final votes on the zoning text. Outstanding issues flagged for further work included: whether conversions of small owner‑occupied homes should carry affordability requirements; what minimum percentage (if any) should trigger bonuses for larger projects (examples under discussion ranged from 15% up to 20% or higher); how to incentivize for‑sale housing (condominiums or townhouses) rather than solely rental apartments; and exact thresholds for lot size, setbacks and parking calculations.

The commission asked staff to bring maps, lot‑size breakdowns and draft language back to a future meeting and to circulate materials to commissioners and relevant regional agencies prior to a public hearing.

Ending note: The draft was presented for discussion only; no public hearing was held and no regulatory changes were adopted at this meeting.