Planning board approves 20-unit 8-30g development at 83 East Rutland Road over resident objections

The Milford Planning and Zoning Board on Oct. 21 voted to approve a 20-unit multifamily development at 83 East Rutland Road under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, despite extensive public comment opposing the project on traffic, drainage, wildlife and safety grounds.

Attorney Thomas Lynch represented the applicant, 4 Smiles Property LLC (owned by developer Buddy Field), and described the proposal as a townhouse-style complex of 20 units in seven buildings on a parcel just over one acre in the RA zone. The applicant’s site plan showed 51 parking spaces (20 garage spaces, 20 spaces in front of units and 11 visitor spaces) and included six electric-vehicle charging stations to meet a recently revised municipal standard. The applicant submitted an affordability plan that would reserve six units as income-restricted units tied to state median-income thresholds (three at 80% of state median and three at 60%).

The record included multiple technical reviews. Traffic consultant Kermit Hua presented counts (collected October 2024) and forecasted that the development would produce about 10 trips in the morning peak hour and 11 in the afternoon peak hour; he testified both driveways would operate at acceptable levels of service with adequate sight lines. The city-hired peer reviewer, John Thompson, told the board his independent review found the traffic analysis complete and that both driveways would operate at level-of-service A or B in the analyzed peak hours. The city engineer and Sewer Commission provided approvals or comments in the record; the Sewer Commission issued a sewer permit for the project on June 26. The Milford Inland Wetlands Agency reviewed the development, held a public hearing in July, and issued an approval with conditions; Attorney Lynch said the wetlands permit requires measures such as a box-turtle fence and ongoing monitoring as part of the wetlands approval.

At the public hearing, residents from East Rutland Road and nearby streets voiced concerns about narrow roads, lack of sidewalks, emergency-access constraints, stormwater and erosion near wetlands, possible impacts to private wells and septic systems, and the presence of threatened or endangered wildlife (residents identified eastern box turtle and reported other wildlife in and around the parcel). Several speakers said on-street parking and roadway widths in the neighborhood could not accommodate overflow parking or heavy construction traffic. Neighbors asked for a more extended traffic-count period and for construction management measures, routing restrictions, and assurances about stormwater design and maintenance.

Board members repeatedly noted the statutory standard governing 8-30g applications. Planning staff summarized that the project proposed workforce housing under Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g, replacing a former single-family dwelling, and that department reviews did not identify unresolvable engineering or public-safety impediments in the materials on file. At the meeting, board members heard that the police department and fire marshal had reviewed the plans; Officer Morrow’s memo reported adequate sight lines for the East Rutland driveways and recommended attention to snow storage and sight-line maintenance; Fire Marshal Tim Soutin submitted a memo dated Aug. 6. John Thompson’s peer review supported the traffic study’s conclusions that the development would be a low traffic generator and would not pose a public health or safety risk to roadway operations.

After public comment and rebuttal from the applicant, the board voted first to close the public hearing (motion passed 4–3). Following deliberations, a motion to approve the 20-unit site plan passed on roll call with five votes in favor, one opposed and one abstention. Roll call reflects: Agnes — no; Anderson — yes; Hirsch — yes; Koligian — yes; Macchio — abstain; Mortimer — yes; Satti — yes. The board’s approval was made subject to standard permitting conditions and the conditions imposed by the Inland Wetlands Agency, including the turtle-protection measures and monitoring noted in the wetlands permit.

The application record includes: the applicant’s site and landscape plans; a stormwater and drainage design the applicant said was sized for a 100-year design event (submitted to the city engineer for review); a city sewer permit (June 26); traffic study materials (Oct. 2024 counts); and the city consultant’s third-party review. The board’s action under 8-30g carries the statutory presumption in favor of affordable housing unless the municipality demonstrates substantial public health or safety impacts. The approved plan will move to final permit coordination with city departments and the conditions set by the Inland Wetlands Agency and Sewer Commission will be part of the permitting checklist.