Milford Zoning Board approves two variances, denies lot‑coverage request and continues one application

The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals on March 10 approved two variance requests, rejected one and continued another after questioning plans and survey materials.

Michael Romano, owner of 145 Rogers Avenue, asked permission to build a second‑floor addition and upper deck over an existing one‑story living area and to vary a rear yard setback to 21.3 feet where 25 feet is required. Romano told the board the house was built in 1914 and the proposal would not expand the building footprint or increase lot coverage. Mr. Soda moved to approve the variance, and the motion passed with Mr. King, Mr. Soda, Ms. Hirsch, Mr. Eynck and Chairwoman Fronte voting in favor.

The board next considered a lot‑coverage variance at 63 Beach Drive requested by Osman and Marcy Qureshi (presentation read by contractor Jason Bernie). The Qureshis sought relief to permit 72.5 percent coverage where 60 percent is allowed, saying FEMA flood‑plain rules and the home’s pre‑zoning footprint (71.2 percent) create an unavoidable hardship and that the modest additional second‑floor space would allow an aging relative to live with the family. In public comment, Michael Cavell of 17 Atwater Street urged denial, saying the addition would "noticeably reduce the water view," harm property values and that the hardship appeared self‑imposed because the property was repurchased in July 2025 and surveyed in August. Board members raised a recurring concern that a variance "runs with the land" and could enable larger future redevelopment; after discussion, a motion to approve failed with all voting members recorded as opposed.

A smaller projection variance at 96 Cooper Avenue, presented by builder Sebastian Nuderangelo for homeowners Stephen and Kristen Ball, sought modest relief to relocate stairs, add a rear stair and improve off‑street parking. Commissioners praised the minimal nature of the request and its parking and safety benefits. The motion to approve passed unanimously among members who voted.

Attorney Thomas Lynch presented a larger proposal for 6 Francis Street by 6 Francis LLC seeking front‑setback relief to match a prior structure’s nonconforming 9.6‑ft setback and other relief tied to stormwater mitigation. During plan review, commissioners and staff identified inconsistencies between the site plan/survey and the elevation drawings (porch versus finished living space in the setback). The board voted to continue the item to the April meeting and requested clarified plans and corrected materials.

The board also approved the February minutes, noted a heavy April docket and adjourned. Applications that prompted votes were conditioned on the materials filed with each application; where the record lacked an explicit second for a motion, the transcript records only that a second was given.