Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford planning board approves coastal site plan for 15 Elder Street with engineer conditions
Summary
The Milford Planning and Zoning Board on May 5 approved a coastal area site plan for a single-family dwelling at 15 Elder Street, proposed by Alexandra Mock for AMF Limited Partnership, conditioned on the city engineer’s April 30, 2026, comments. The board recorded unanimous support among members voting.
The Milford Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve a coastal area site plan for a single-family house at 15 Elder Street on May 5, accepting the applicant’s mitigation measures while requiring that the city engineer’s April 30, 2026, letter be satisfied as a condition of approval.
Alexandra Mock, representing the owner AMF Limited Partnership, presented the plan for a two‑story home on a 0.13‑acre corner lot at Bassett and Alder Streets. Mock described a 1,910‑square‑foot house footprint, a front driveway leading to a garage, a secondary parking area, and a rear patio. She said the project increases impervious surface by about 2,800 square feet and will use nine culverts (seven at the rear, two at the front), silt fencing, stockpile protections, an anti‑tracking pad, daily road sweeping as recommended by staff, and an ‘‘England infiltration system’’ to detain and infiltrate runoff.
"...so we're going to be doing our best to making sure that everything is in order during the construction activities," Mock said during her presentation.
City staff summarized the application and recommended approval with conditions. A staff speaker noted "no adverse impacts to coastal resources are anticipated" and recommended that the items in the city engineer’s April 30, 2026, letter be made conditions of any approval.
The board debated engineering and inspection items raised in the engineer’s report, including whether a bond would be required; members were advised that any bond requirement would be set and administered by the engineering department rather than the board. The motion to approve, moved by Mr. Kush, included the condition that the city engineer’s letter (cited in the record, pages 15–16, subparagraphs A–E) be addressed to the engineer’s satisfaction.
During the roll call vote, the board recorded support from the members present and the motion carried. Voting members who were recorded as "with the motion" included Mr. Agnesi, Mr. Alley, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Collegian, Mr. Machio, Mr. Mortimer, Mr. Sadi, and Chairwoman Quash.
The record shows two different numeric building heights mentioned in the meeting: the applicant’s presentation referred to a building height of 25 feet (within the 35‑foot allowance), while staff summarized the proposed structure as 29.3 feet in height. The engineering letter items must be satisfied before final permits are issued.
The board also handled routine business, approved minutes, and heard a brief staff report announcing that the municipality engaged a consultant through the Council of Governments to update zoning regulations to comply with state statute "25-1." The meeting adjourned without further action.
Next steps: the applicant must satisfy the city engineer’s April 30, 2026, comments as a condition of approval; any engineering bond, if required, will be administered by the engineering department.
