Planning Board hears public feedback on draft 'Envision Milford 2035' master plan

Milford Planning Board Chair Doug Knott opened a public hearing on Jan. 20 for the draft master plan, Envision Milford 2035, and invited consultant Steve Whitman of Resilience Planning to present the document that will guide land‑use and investment decisions through 2035.

Whitman told the board the plan is intended as a long‑range, living document grounded in data analysis, public engagement and community visioning. "Milford's amazing sense of place continues to foster a resilient, inclusive, and forward thinking community that balances growth with the preservation of its mill town roots," Whitman read from the draft vision, stressing the plan’s role in informing future zoning, capital planning and public investments.

The consultant outlined five themes and sample actions: community and natural character (advancing Milford’s 2024 conservation goals and exploring historic‑preservation incentives), downtown vibrancy and the local economy (an inventory of commercial/industrial sites), infrastructure and asset management, housing affordability and variety (including consideration of a backlot zoning provision) and a multi‑generational community (adoption of a complete‑streets policy). Whitman also proposed creating an implementation committee to prioritize actions and report on progress outside the planning board’s regular agenda.

Public commenters generally praised the outreach and data in the draft but pressed the board for more specificity. "I had hoped for some more specificity so that there were items that we could measure…encourage through the EDAC or other measures," said Mike Thornton of North River Road, urging measurable targets such as a concrete commercial/residential tax‑base ratio by 2035. Thornton warned that passive language ("consider," "explore") can permit inaction and leave implementation to whoever has the loudest voice.

Committee member Susan Smith defended the process, saying the plan "really does reflect what people in the town who felt strongly enough to participate are looking for," and noted the housing appendix and existing‑conditions report contain detailed data.

Technical and editorial fixes surfaced in public comments. Suzanne Fournier, a master plan committee member, pointed to missing words and formatting errors on pages 8, 13 and 21, and asked staff and the consultant to restore language (for example, a previously listed action to "expand prime wetland protection") and check a bolded text box where words had shifted off the page.

Several residents, including Chris Labonte and Claire Holston, pressed for a clearer definition of "affordable housing" in the plan. Whitman and staff agreed affordability requires multiple, context‑sensitive definitions and said the housing‑needs appendix and the housing opportunity planning (HOP) grant analysis supply data that will inform implementation and zoning changes.

The planning board discussed timing. Members and staff tentatively set a follow‑up public hearing in March to allow incorporation of edits and requested that consultants supply an updated draft before posting. Whitman said he would work with Community Development Director Kyle Fennell and Town Planner Terry Dolan to provide a revised version.

Next procedural steps: no votes were taken on the master plan at the Jan. 20 hearing; the board set a target for a March adoption hearing and asked staff to prepare corrected text and clarified language on affordability and wetlands before republishing.