Milford Board of Adjustment OKs two downtown variances

Noah Zucker
Posted 1/15/21

MILFORD — The city’s Board of Adjustment granted a slate of variances to a number of projects in its meeting this week. Two were applications related to new homes being built in Milford’s …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already a member? Log in to continue.   Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Milford Board of Adjustment OKs two downtown variances

Posted

MILFORD — The city’s Board of Adjustment granted a slate of variances to a number of projects in its meeting this week.

Two were applications related to new homes being built in Milford’s Downtown Development District.

One was for Paola Pacheco Vazquez, who plans to build a new two-story, single-family, detached home on the sight of a condemned building at 114 Marshall St.

“We made the purchase about two years ago, and it was an old house. We did the demolition, and now, we would like to build something new,” Ms. Pacheco Vazquez said.

She and her family will live in the new structure. The family plans to keep the existing garage, which is still standing in the backyard.

Ms. Pacheco Vazquez was granted two variances. One allows her to build over 37% of the lot, instead of the requisite 30%. The other lets her build about 3 feet beyond the side yard setback line, which have historically been required to be 8 feet on that lot.

Still, Rob Pierce — Milford’s planning and economic development director — pointed out that the new structure will be more in line with the modern zoning code than the former structure was.

On the other side of the river, Tim Foster hopes to tear down the structure that currently stands at 207 N. Church St. and replace it with a two-story, single-family home.

“The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure on the property to construct a new single-family, detached dwelling,” Mr. Pierce said.

For his plan, Mr. Foster needed to be granted three variances. One would allow him to cover 31.6% of the lot instead of the requisite 30%, and the other two would allow him to build closer to his front and rear property lines than the current code permits.

“I like the fact that you’re giving off-street parking,” said Chairman Brendon Warfel. Currently, there is no off-street parking on that lot.

The board also denied Liborio Milford LLC and D.R. Horton, two firms working together on building the new Simpsons Crossing subdivision, their variance request to build homes that are the same size as others on three of its corner lots, which are smaller than a standard lot.

Liborio owns the properties east of U.S. 113 and is having D.R. Horton, a national contractor that specializes in tract homes, build out the subdivision. They had wanted to use the same design on every lot, which would have minimized the cost for both the builder and the buyer.

But Nadia Zychal, the board’s vice chair, denied the request because she didn’t want to set a precedent where Liborio and D.R. Horton would consistently be able to build large homes on undersized lots.

Mr. Warfel agreed.

“My only concern on this is for setting a precedent for the rest of this whole development,” he said.

Ms. Zychal said that if they were to grant this variance, it would be a “detriment to the city.”

Milford resident Jennifer Cinelli-Miller, who criticized the board at several points throughout the meeting, was in agreement with the board on this case.

“These property owners purchased this property with knowledge of the site plan,” she said. “To come back and say they can’t build a house the correct size for this lot is not an undue hardship on the builder.”

She said that because homes in the subdivision are selling for such high prices, the developers would still make plenty of money if they positioned some homes on two lots, something she said has already happened with many structures there.

Ms. Zychal and Mr. Warfel voted the variance request down but encouraged the developers to come back to the board with a reworked plan for these corner lots.

The two voted on the issue alone because David Wilkison, the remaining board member, was absent from the meeting Thursday.

featured
Members and subscribers make this story possible.
You can help support non-partisan, community journalism.

x
X