Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford ZBA denies rehearing request to split Oak Street lot, finding hardship not shown
Summary
The Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 19 denied Morgan Family Investments’ rehearing request to reduce the required 15,000-square-foot lot size after board members concluded the hardship test was unmet and neighbors urged protection of neighborhood character and privacy.
The Milford Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 19 denied a rehearing request from Morgan Family Investments to divide a parcel on Oak Street (Map 29, Lot 141), rejecting a request to reduce the 15,000-square-foot minimum lot size to about 11,479 square feet.
Attorney Andy Proleman told the board a new Meridian survey completed this week increased the measured size of the proposed lot to 11,479 square feet and that the smaller parcel would meet setbacks, public-water requirements and neighborhood scale. "Our lot now is 11,479 square feet," Proleman said, and he cited letters from Century 21 and DND appraisal services saying the new lot would not depress surrounding property values.
The board’s deliberations focused on the five statutory variance criteria, especially whether denial would cause "unnecessary hardship" and whether the change would be contrary to the public interest. Several members said a recent change to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in town reduced the argument that strict conformance with the zoning ordinance would render the land unusable. But other members emphasized the original zoning minimum was enacted to preserve neighborhood character and limit density.
Multiple abutters urged denial during public comment. "Please do not grant this variance," Gregor Bernard said, describing Dean Street as a "historic" neighborhood whose residents value open space. Neighbors also expressed concern about loss of privacy, the impact of an extra house on a narrow street, and the presence of wildlife on the rear parcel. "To lose that blessing would be a hardship," said resident Harry Clark, referencing deer and other wildlife he regularly sees on the lot.
Board members weighed those neighborhood impacts against the applicant’s claims of comparability and financial hardship. After discussing the individual criteria, the board found the applicant had not established the necessary hardship and that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest. The chair announced the application was denied; the applicant has 30 days from the decision to seek review or appeal.
The board recorded its findings on each variance factor during the meeting and provided the applicant with the usual notice of appeal rights. The board also confirmed members had the option to change prior votes during a rehearing but concluded, in this instance, to deny the requested lot-size reduction.
The zoning board will post written findings to the town record; the applicant said he appreciated the rehearing opportunity and will consider next steps.
