Milford ZBA approves variance for 6 Warren Drive after neighbors raise privacy, size and runoff concerns

The Milford City Zoning Board of Appeals voted Jan. 13 to approve a variance allowing construction of a new single‑family residence at 6 Warren Drive, but conditioned the approval on corrected survey measurements being added to the record before a building permit is issued.

Thomas Lynch, the applicant’s attorney, told the board the plans were revised after the December hearing to shorten the house by 5 feet, which Lynch said reduced gross living area by about 200 square feet and the structure by roughly 480 square feet. Lynch said the change increased setbacks on one side and at the rear and added two off‑street parking spaces that do not exist at present. "We took your comments to heart and we changed the plans," Lynch said.

Neighbors who spoke opposed the application on grounds of size, privacy and stormwater. Don Percett, who said his property abuts the site, said he "has no objections to a house being built there" but questioned whether a legal hardship existed and suggested a 20‑foot‑wide house could fit without variances. Mark Provenzano asked the board to follow the established criteria for variances and cautioned that side‑yard reductions are not necessarily geographic hardships. Sharon Jocelyn said the proposal threatened "the mental health of our community," raised privacy concerns and worried about runoff going into nearby yards.

Board members and staff focused much of the technical discussion on the submitted survey. Several members said the revised measurements were not consistently shown on the plan and asked the surveyor to add specific dimensions: a 6.8‑foot measurement from "line 5" to the rear of the house and an 18‑foot measurement from "line 3" to the back of the deck. The approving motion specifies that those measurements be added to the survey prior to permit issuance.

Attorney Lynch told the board the proposed house meets zoning height limits, that engineered stormwater controls would be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning board during the CAM (Coastal Area Management) or permitting stage, and reiterated the narrow, nonconforming nature of the lot as the hardship justification.

After deliberation, the board voted to approve the application with the stated conditions. Members whose verbal votes are recorded in the transcript include Chris Wolf, Bill Sota and Dubois voting in favor and Carmina Hirsch voting against; the chair recorded a vote in favor and the motion passed.

The approval is conditioned on the surveyor adding the missing measurements and compliance with the submitted materials; the board closed the hearing after the vote.