Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Exception Vs Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Milford ZBA pauses decision on 24 Spalding Street conversion, seeks legal opinion

Town of Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment · March 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The ZBA continued consideration of Rayum Realty’s request to convert a nonconforming two-family building to three units at 24 Spalding Street and asked town legal counsel to clarify whether the application should be decided as a special exception under section 2.03.01c or as a variance.

The Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 19 continued a matter involving Rayum Realty’s request to convert an existing nonconforming two-family building at 24 Spalding Street into a three-family unit and asked for a legal opinion on whether the application should proceed as a special exception or as a variance.

Attorney Chris Swinjarski, representing the applicant, asked the board to treat the change as a special-exception matter under the ordinance provision for alterations to nonconforming structures (2.03.01c). "That provision is very clear," Swinjarski said, and he urged the board to apply it rather than require a variance. Town staff advised that the proposed three-unit outcome may not be an allowed use in the Residence-A zone and could therefore require a variance.

Board members questioned whether adding a third unit would change the "nature of the use" and thereby trigger multifamily rules — including potential site-plan review, fire-code changes, and parking or sprinkler requirements — which in turn could affect whether the board has authority to treat the application as a special exception. Several members said converting a grandfathered two-family into a three-family could be treated differently in ordinance language and that the procedural path affects which standards apply and which departments must be involved.

Because board members viewed the legal interpretation as outcome-determinative, the board voted to request a legal opinion, continue the matter and reconvene consideration at its April 2 meeting. Swinjarski acknowledged his appellate rights if the board ultimately treats the matter as a variance rather than a special exception.

The board will notify the applicant and the public of the continuation and the date when legal counsel provides guidance.