Julie Morris is a resident of Milford. The following was also sent to the city's Board of Adjustment, in advance of its Dec. 11 meeting.
I am writing regarding application BOA-223-2025, “Reserve at Herring Branch,” which seeks a variance from Milford City Code to increase the maximum permitted building height in the R-3 district from 35 feet to 39.5 feet on tax parcel 1-30-3.00-264.00.
My concern is not only the extra 4.5 feet of building height but the way this project was previously presented to the Planning Commission and the public.
When the Reserve at Herring Branch site plans were reviewed at the Planning Commission level, the engineering “site data” table showed a maximum permitted building height of 50 feet, with the proposed buildings at approximately 47 feet. In other words, commissioners and neighbors were told that this height was already permitted “by right.”
However, the applicable zoning code section for the R-3 Garden Apartment & Townhouse District clearly limits building height to 35 feet. That 35-foot cap is correctly cited in the current staff report for BOA-223-2025. The “50-foot allowed” figure on the earlier plan was wrong.
Because of that error, the Planning Commission never had an honest, fully informed choice between a code-compliant 35-foot, three-story apartment design and a taller, bulkier version, needing a variance.
Instead, the taller buildings were presented as if they complied with the code. The public comment that night was also based on the incorrect assumption that such height was already permitted in R-3.
Now, after the final site plan approval has been issued, the applicant is asking the Board of Adjustment to “fix” that problem by granting a height variance. That feels backward. A variance is supposed to be an exception based on unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty, not a way to cure a misrepresentation in earlier approvals.
Even in the staff analysis, the only “difficulty” described is that the applicant would need to revise the architecture (roof pitch, story heights, etc.) to meet the 35-foot limit. That is not a hardship tied to the land. It is simply a preference for a particular aesthetic and building mass that exceeds what the zoning district allows.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the board either:
Allowing a variance in this situation would effectively ratify an approval process that was conducted with incorrect information about what the code permits. At a minimum, the public and the Planning Commission deserve a clean, transparent opportunity to review any proposed height increase with the true 35-foot standard on the table.
Thank you for considering these comments and for your service to the city of Milford.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
