Zoning board approves temporary one‑bedroom apartment for Garvey family at 88–90 Souhegan Street

The Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment voted Dec. 12 to approve a variance that will allow a one‑bedroom attached apartment to be added to the condominium at 88–90 Souhegan Street, provided the applicants record conditions limiting future conveyance and requiring the space to revert to the primary residence if they no longer occupy it.

Attorney Tom Quinn, representing owners Thomas H. and Jenny L. Garvey, told the board the proposal is a modest, roughly 550‑square‑foot, one‑bedroom apartment that will be attached to the existing Unit 90 and used to house the Garveys’ parents. Quinn said the existing condominium structure does not qualify as a detached single‑family dwelling under the town zoning code, so the project cannot be treated as an ADU and instead requires a use variance under Milford zoning and New Hampshire case law.

“It's a very small‑scale use,” Quinn said, arguing the neighborhood already contains a mix of single‑family, two‑family and multifamily dwellings and that the addition will not alter the essential character of the area. He offered three conditions for board approval: that the apartment not be conveyed separate and apart from the condominium unit; that on conveyance or if the Garveys cease to occupy the apartment as a primary residence the apartment’s status as a separate dwelling shall terminate and the owners shall incorporate the space back into the primary residence; and that notice of the condition be recorded in the Hillsborough County Registry of Deeds and a copy supplied to community development.

The board’s discussion focused on the ADU distinction, enforceability of conditions and how to prevent the apartment from becoming a permanently independent rental unit. Several members said the proposal felt temporary in nature and that the offered title‑recorded caveat and a requirement that the condominium documents reflect the condition provided an acceptable enforcement path. Joan (board member) and others repeatedly asked how the town would verify long‑term compliance; Quinn and board members acknowledged enforcement remains a town responsibility but said a recorded restriction gives prospective buyers and lenders notice.

Chair Andrea Coco read the condition into the record: “The apartment may not be conveyed separate and apart from the existing condominium unit,” and that recordable language will require the owners to take steps to “remove the facilities that render the property a separate and independent living facility” if the conditions triggering reversion occur. Quinn said he will supply a typed version for the record and record the notice at the registry of deeds.

After deliberation the board found the variance criteria were met and voted unanimously to approve case 2025‑19, subject to the conditions read into the record. The board then considered a related front‑setback special exception for the corner lot at 90 South Hegan Street and, after concluding the encroachment is minimal and the site is the appropriate location for the addition, approved that special exception as well. The chair noted there is a 30‑day appeal period for both decisions.

The approvals follow Quinn’s submission of neighborhood context and two letters from local real estate agent James Spellman, who stated his opinion that the project would not diminish surrounding property values. Opponents were not present for either vote; neighbors had been consulted by the applicants, Quinn said.

The next procedural step for the Garveys is to record any required caveat and to secure any necessary lender and condominium‑association approvals before construction and condominium document amendments proceed. If lender or condo‑association approval is not obtained, Quinn said the variance would lapse after the statutory period and the project would not move forward.