Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves addition at 15 George Street after neighbor raises lot‑coverage, drainage concerns
Summary
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance to allow a first-floor addition to a legal two‑family at 15 George Street, finding the proposed work reduces other nonconformities; a neighbor raised concerns about lot coverage and drainage during public comment.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday approved a request to expand a first‑floor unit at 15 George Street, granting a variance under Section 6.20.1 to permit an expansion of a legal nonconforming two‑family residence.
The application, presented by Attorney Thomas Lynch of Lynch, Trim & Boynton on behalf of owner Jennifer Major, sought permission to add roughly 400 square feet to the rear of the building for a master bedroom, closet and bathroom and to replace a noncompliant garage. "The addition itself is completely zoning compliant," Lynch told the board, and the application would remove an existing garage nonconformity, replacing it with a zoning‑compliant garage.
The board’s approval followed questions and public comment about lot coverage and drainage. Neighbor Robert Luizi, owner of 26 Harborside Drive, said he had identified calculation errors in the submitted coverage figures and that, depending on how walkways and paved areas were counted, the property could be close to the 60% maximum. "Without that walkway, the percentage is at 57%, which is very close to the threshold," Luizi said, adding he already experiences drainage issues on his property.
City Planner David Solkus (acting chair during the meeting) read the zoning definition for lot coverage for the record and said walkways are excluded from lot coverage calculations: "Our definition of lot coverage [is] the portion or percentage of a lot occupied or intended to be occupied by all buildings, structures and paved areas other than walkways." Solkus told the board that driveways and other paved areas are included. Lynch said the application is supported by a certified A‑2 survey and that the applicants would work with the neighbor to address potential runoff, offering to add a dry pit or similar mitigation near the walkway.
Board members noted the application reduces other nonconformities: the lot remains a legal nonconforming 7,000‑square‑foot lot in the R‑7.5 zone (7,500 sq ft required), and the project maintains required side setbacks for the addition (11 feet on the north side, 5.3 feet on the south side) while replacing a garage that currently encroaches on setbacks. After discussion the board voted unanimously to approve the variance.
The decision authorizes construction shown on the plans submitted with the certified survey; the board emphasized it relied on the stamped survey numbers in its review. The applicant and nearby neighbor were encouraged to pursue engineering or private mitigation for drainage if needed; the board noted routine building‑department review covers additions but that full engineering review usually applies to new construction.
The board closed the hearing after the motion passed and recorded that the proposal would not change the number of dwelling units on the lot; the property will remain a two‑family residence.
