Milford planning board continues 294 High Street 8-30g site-plan hearing; no public comment

Attorney Thomas Lynch and engineer Ronald Wazmer presented a site-plan application on Oct. 21 to the Milford Planning and Zoning Board for a nine-unit residential building at 294 High Street, filed under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g.

The project site is a roughly 16,000-square-foot parcel in the RO (residential-office) zone that currently contains a single-family ranch-style house. The applicant proposed demolishing the existing house and building one multi-story townhouse-style structure with nine dwelling units, each served by a garage space, for a total of 20 on-site parking spaces (9 garage spaces plus 11 surface spaces) and one handicapped van-accessible space. Attorney Lynch said the project’s affordability plan, prepared per the statute, would include three income-restricted units tied to state median-income thresholds.

The site plan and supporting materials underwent departmental review. The city engineer’s memo raised no engineering concerns; the fire department reviewed and approved the plan; and the police department’s memorandum noted five-year accident data showing no recent collision cluster at the site and recommended that plantings along the front be set back or regularly trimmed to preserve sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway. The applicant said the single curb cut would be approximately 200 feet west of the High Street/West Main Street intersection.

Board members questioned grading, driveway slope and snow storage. Engineer Ronald Wazmer said the parcel is relatively flat, that the driveway apron meets the city’s nine-inch rise standard from gutter to back of sidewalk, and that the proposed parking lot grades (about 4–5%) are within city tolerances. He identified a small area behind the dumpster enclosure and beyond surface spaces 10–11 for snow storage and said off-site removal was a fallback during large storms. Wazmer said lighting and landscaping plans meet city regulations and that a shade tree at the frontage could be relocated slightly behind the sidewalk to reduce sight-line impacts.

No members of the public signed up to speak during the hearing. Board members debated whether to require the applicant’s traffic consultant to appear in person to present the traffic study. Several board members asked to have the traffic professional put conclusions on the record. Attorney Lynch said the traffic study (identified in the record as prepared by Steve Ullman) concluded the development would not adversely affect roadway operations and that peak-hour trip counts for a nine-unit development would be minimal, but the applicant agreed to have the traffic professional appear at the next hearing if the board requested it.

The planning board did not close the public hearing. By agreement with the applicant, the board continued the public hearing to the next scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting on Nov. 5, 2025, so the traffic consultant can present and answer questions. No final vote or formal approval was taken at the Oct. 21 hearing.

The planning staff packet for the record includes the applicant’s 8-30g affordability plan, departmental memos (city engineer, police, fire) and a traffic report referenced by the applicant. The board’s future deliberation will depend on any further professional testimony and on any conditions the board elects to impose if it later moves to decision.