Planning board continues hearing on proposed rule to allow detached garage ADUs after notice error

The Milford Planning and Zoning Board on June 16 opened a public hearing on a proposed change to zoning regulation section 3117 that would allow detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in garages on parcels of at least 18,000 square feet, but the board continued the hearing to July 7 to correct an incorrect agenda and legal notice.

Attorney Thomas Lynch, representing property owner Christopher L'Oreal of 430 North Street, described the property as roughly 1.75 acres and said the detached garage has long been used as an apartment but that no permit for the conversion was ever found in the zoning office. "Even though this has been used as an apartment for many, many years, the zoning office issued a desist letter," Lynch said, explaining the application seeks a legislative change rather than a variance.

Lynch said the revised regulation would permit detached ADUs in zones R18, R30 and RA where the minimum lot size is 18,000 square feet; he emphasized the application is limited to large parcels (example: his client's parcel of 1.75 acres) and would not change ADU rules in smaller lots. He noted the current local ADU size cap is 800 square feet and said the existing garage apartment on the L'Oreal property is about 475 square feet.

Planning staff presented an impact map and counts showing how many parcels would meet the proposed lot-size threshold: staff reported about 710 R18 parcels, 293 R30 parcels and 945 RA parcels would be eligible to pursue a detached ADU under the change. Staff clarified the analysis counts parcels by size; it does not mean each parcel currently contains a detached structure.

Two members of the public — Paul Jorgensson and Susan Roth — spoke in favor of allowing detached ADUs, citing housing flexibility and options for extended families. Paul Jorgensson said detached ADUs provide convenience for extended family and added that attached ADUs are already permitted in residential zones.

During board discussion, staff and several members said both the agenda and the legal notice for the hearing contained incorrect language, and staff recommended re-advertising and continuing the hearing. "I would recommend leaving it open because I double checked the legal notice and the legal notice was incorrect as well," staff said. Board members agreed the matter should be re-advertised so all voting members can participate; the hearing was continued to July 7, 2026.

The continuation preserves public comment opportunities and allows time to correct notice and agenda text. If re-advertised, the board will reopen the hearing on the scheduled July 7 meeting.