ZBA approves front‑setback variance for new house at 9 Beach Avenue amid neighbor opposition

The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to permit a front‑yard setback of 15 feet where 30 feet is required for a proposed single‑family house with garage at 9 Beach Avenue in the Woodmont neighborhood.

Attorney Kevin Crusaden, representing Ackerman Realty, told the board the revised plan eliminates earlier side‑yard requests and reduces the prior front‑yard encroachment. "The lot is significantly narrow ... it is 55 feet where 80 feet is required, so it's 21% too narrow," Crusaden said, arguing the combination of narrow width and FEMA flood‑zone constraints create burdens not typical for other lots in the R‑12.5 zone.

The application drew both written support and opposition. The board heard letters and emails supporting the project from neighbors Daniel Hurwitz, Laura and Norma Kaplan, Rocco Perfetto and Dr. Shapiro, who said the proposed house "is in keeping with the setback, size, and scope of the other houses on the South Side Of Beach Avenue." Opponents, including Kevin Cleary of 10 Beach Avenue, said the design is too large for the lot and characterized the request as a convenience rather than a hardship: "The variance request strikes me more as a convenience to the landowners," Cleary said.

Crusaden told the board revised plans move the garage further from the street than earlier submissions; the front wall of the proposed garage is shown at 15 feet from the street on the submitted Flanagan survey (dated 12/24). The applicant said the new main structure would be built out of the FEMA flood zone and thus required to be pushed toward the street to meet floodplain, building‑code and state requirements.

Chair Sarah Ferrante and other board members said they were persuaded by the lot's narrowness, the flood‑zone constraint and the applicant's revisions, including removal of side‑yard variances. The board recorded that several neighboring properties already have garages closer to the sidewalk and that the revised placement is not unusually intrusive to the block. After deliberation the board voted to approve the front‑yard variance; the motion passed unanimously.

The board's approval is conditioned on the plans submitted with the certified survey and the applicant's compliance with subsequent Planning & Zoning and building‑department reviews, including coastal site plan review where required for flood‑zone work. Opponents were advised that other remedies, including private drainage agreements, remain available outside the zoning variance.