Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford board approves special exception for personal training gym at 333 Quarry Road despite parking shortfall
Summary
Milford’s Planning and Zoning Board granted a special exception for a 12,899–13,000 sq. ft. personal-training facility at 333 Quarry Road (DFC of Milford LLC) on Feb. 4 after accepting a parking-study argument that on‑site spaces and shared parking would meet demand; board discussed parking requirements under local zoning.
The Milford City Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 4 approved a special exception to allow a personal-training gym at 333 Quarry Road, a roughly 12,899–13,000 square-foot space owned by DFC of Milford LLC. Attorney Thomas Lynch presented the application on behalf of prospective tenants Steve and Danielle Sotland.
Under Milford zoning, the industrial (ID) zone requires board action to recognize this gym use as a special exception. Lynch told the board the proposed operation would focus on one‑on‑one personal training rather than a large commercial gym: up to five employees, individual weightlifting platforms for up to 10 people at a time, group classes limited to 10 people, and a maximum of roughly 50 members on-site at any one time. Lynch said hours would be about 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the facility would operate primarily by appointment.
The principal area of board discussion was parking. Lynch and a retained consultant, Kermit Waugh, presented a parking analysis using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. Lynch said zoning’s parking calculation for gyms (1 space per 125 sq. ft.) would yield an approximate requirement of 106 spaces for the 12,900-sq.-ft. space. The site, however, has 46 existing spaces serving multiple tenants (an indoor pickleball facility, a martial-arts academy, a CrossFit gym and car storage areas). Waugh’s study, which the applicant submitted, estimated a peak demand of roughly 33 spaces for the gym use and concluded the on-site 46 spaces would be adequate when considering shared parking across tenants. Planning staff noted that ITE-derived numbers differ from Milford’s zoning table and that the board must decide whether the shared-parking provision (section 5.1.8) applies.
Board members asked whether a full traffic study was warranted. Staff and legal counsel advised the board that, because this is a special exception, the board may accept or reject parking/traffic analyses in exercising its discretion; traffic or parking studies can be a basis to approve or deny a special-exception application. The Police Department’s memo was characterized in the packet as neutral.
After discussion the board voted to approve the special exception. The motion, moved by a board member and seconded, passed on roll call. Board members noted they wanted to see the business succeed but voiced continuing concern about cumulative parking demand if all building tenants operate at peak levels; however they accepted the applicant’s statement of use and the parking study in this instance.
The approval allows the personal-training use under the conditions and limitations discussed; future complaints about parking or traffic would be handled under the city’s enforcement and permit processes.
