Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Revisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford planning board votes to place Residence R lot‑size change and other zoning updates on March warrant
Summary
After a second public hearing and public comment, Milford’s Planning Board voted to post several ordinance amendments for the March town warrant and separately approved sending a proposed change to the Residence R (Art) District to voters; the board split on the scope of the Art District change.
The Milford Planning Board on Jan. 22 voted to post and publish a package of proposed zoning‑ordinance amendments and separately to place a proposed change to the Residence R (Art) District on the March 2025 warrant.
At a second required public hearing, the board described a multi‑part packet that would: restore the Residence R district’s minimum single‑family lot size and frontage to a former standard (40,000 sq. ft. minimum, 50 feet of frontage); update family day‑care language to comport with a recent New Hampshire RSA change; revise the ordinance definition of junkyards for consistency with state law; remove unit‑count references from the open‑space/conservation district language; and allow reasonable expansion of manufactured‑home parks subject to national fire‑code criteria.
The board read into the record an emailed opinion from absent member Peter Basilear opposing the Residence R change. Basilear warned the change could open a large portion of the town to more subdivision, saying the proposal could “allow[] for the construction of between 5450 and 10900 new homes over time,” language the board flagged as a worst‑case estimate generated by raw acreage divided by 40,000 sq. ft. and then doubled to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Supporters attending the hearing said the change would modestly increase housing supply and help local employers. Andrea Coco, chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, told the board the proposal is intended as a limited, pragmatic step: “This is a way to just alleviate some of the restrictions… and free up some lots,” she said. Other business and EDAC members urged the board to move the measures to voters and let the town decide.
Board debate focused on process and geographic scope. Vice‑chair Janet Langdell and others argued the Art District change was too sweeping as drafted and recommended separating items so voters could decide each amendment on its own. The board followed that approach: it voted to post and publish the family‑day‑care, junkyard, open‑space/conservation and manufactured‑home‑park amendments as a grouped motion, and took a separate vote to post the Art District (Residence R) change.
Votes were recorded by roll call. The grouped amendments motion passed by recorded vote. The separate motion to post the Residence R change also passed, with Langdell recorded as voting no and other members voting in favor. The board asked staff to finalize voter‑guide language by the end of the week and to work with the master‑plan committee and other stakeholders on outreach and explanation.
The board did not adopt substantive edits to the zoning language that night beyond approving the posting; it flagged follow‑up needs including clarifying the Art District boundary and preparing voter‑guide text. The Residence R change will appear on the March warrant for town voters to decide.
