Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milford zoning board rejects multi-variance request for 39 Westland Avenue
Summary
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–2 to deny multiple variances for a proposed replacement house at 39 Westland Avenue after neighbors raised concerns about scale, drainage and neighborhood character. The applicant said the project reduces some existing nonconformities and is height-compliant.
The Milford Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–2 on July 14 to deny a set of variances sought for 39 Westland Avenue, a narrow lot where the owners had asked to build a new home in roughly the same footprint as the existing one.
Attorney Thomas Lynch, representing the Fecori family trust, urged the board to grant relief to allow a new residence that he said eliminates several existing nonconformities and adds five on-site parking spaces. “This is a very small lot… the height of the building is zoning compliant. It’s 35 feet,” Lynch told the board, noting the proposal would reduce some nonconformities while increasing building coverage marginally.
The board considered variances including a front-yard setback to 5 feet where 10 are required, a rear-yard setback to 17.5 feet where 20 are required, building area to 60% where 45% is permitted, lot coverage to 79% where 65% is permitted, and reduced front and rear projections. Lynch also presented petitions and letters of support he said included 19 nearby signatures.
Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing objected to the scale and to construction impacts. “The aesthetics… the rest of the houses in that neighborhood are about the same height,” said nearby owner Jonathan Leon, who lives across the street. He raised drainage and parking concerns and urged the board to consider a less intrusive approach used by a nearby home.
Louisa Fecori, one of the homeowners, described personal reasons for renovating and said the project would improve safety and free street parking. “We desire to live in our final chapter of our lives in a peaceful, comfortable setting within reasonable town guidelines,” she said.
Board members who opposed the motion said that although some nonconformities would be reduced, the request represented a substantial increase in mass and three stories where a one-story house currently sits. A member who supported mitigating circumstances noted that permitting retroactive and large variances repeatedly would be problematic; another member said the applicant had presented a compelling case for relief in light of procedural failures in plan routing and permitting.
The motion to approve the variances failed by vote. The board closed the hearing on the item without granting relief.
The applicant and his attorney were advised that stormwater and drainage issues will be addressed in the engineering review and CAM application process with planning and zoning, not by the ZBA. The hearing record includes the applicant’s overlay and submitted surveys for the board’s consideration.
The board moved on to other agenda items following the vote; no member proposed reconsideration at the meeting.
