Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford staff outlines four zoning amendments headed to March ballot; calls for clear voter education
Summary
Town planning staff told EDAC that three zoning amendments (backlots, ADUs, cottage courts) had successful public hearings and a fourth (downtown overlay) will receive additional drafting and a Jan. 22 hearing; staff emphasized fact sheets, short videos and centralized web pages to counter misinformation and help voters understand separate yes/no ballot questions.
Kyle Fennell, the town’s community development director, briefed the Economic Development Advisory Council on Jan. 14 about four proposed zoning warrant articles to appear on the March ballot. “Three of the four proposed zoning amendments had a successful public hearing. They’re ready to post and publish,” Fennell said, and staff highlighted the need to finalize language and public materials for voters.
Fennell described the four items as follows: a backlots amendment that would allow creation of additional single‑family lots via shared driveways (up to four additional lots in some configurations); an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) amendment to align the zoning ordinance with recent state law by creating a new Section 7.17 and clarifying administrative review and size limits; a cottage courts supplemental standard intended to permit modest infill with smaller lots and shared common spaces; and a downtown overlay amendment the planning board asked staff to refine and to re‑notice for a Jan. 22 public hearing to clarify criteria for density bonuses tied to public improvements.
On ADUs, staff and planning board members said the state now allows certain ADUs by right and that the local amendment primarily reorganizes and updates the ordinance language. Planning board members discussed size standards and potential variance paths; under current practice, town code limits ADUs to smaller square‑footage unless a variance or other relief is obtained.
Several EDAC members raised concern about inaccurate social‑media claims circulating in the community — including exaggerated figures about how many homes might be built — and emphasized the need for proactive voter education. The community development office said it will use HOP grant funds to produce single‑page fact sheets for each amendment, short explanatory videos and a single, centralized web page linking to warrant language and frequently asked questions.
Members urged staff and EDAC volunteers to be prepared to direct residents to official materials rather than engage in extended debates on private social pages. Planning and EDAC members also requested clearer numeric examples in ballot language where possible, to help voters understand the practical implications of density and other changes.
Staff noted the articles will be separate yes/no questions on the ballot; voters may approve some and reject others. Fennell asked EDAC for help sharing factual materials and answering questions as they arise in the community.
The council agreed to consider endorsing or supporting education efforts at its next meeting once final warrant language is available.
