After a lengthy discussion and public hearing, Milford City Council denied a request from Carlisle Lane LLC to combine five existing parcels and subdivide the land into 39 townhouse lots and one single-family dwelling on just under five acres of land located on Truitt Avenue, between NW 3rd and NW 6th street. The Board of Adjustments granted 32 variances for the development, but Planning and Zoning ultimately voted to deny the subdivision plan. This could open the way for a 72-unit apartment complex, up to three stories high without the need to come before council.
“This is the same application reviewed a few weeks ago and tabled,” City Planner Rob Pierce said. “Under Section 2, again, are the same waiver requests and a cash in lieu of open space request. A FEMA letter map change will be required prior to major subdivision approval to correct the location of 100-year flood plain based on survey topography. There are some mapping errors within the FEMA which is not uncommon in FEMA maps as they don’t always have accurate topographic information.”
The majority of the waivers requested were to reduce yard setbacks while two were to allow streets to be reduced from 36 feet to 30 feet. There was a request to provide cash in lieu of open space as the property backs up to wetlands which cannot be improved. The developer requested that plot lines be permitted in the floodplain, but emphatically stated there would be no building in the flood plain. The developer also requested that on roads that were narrowed, parking would not be permitted on both sides of the street.
“This is my neighborhood. I grew up right across the brook. Truitt Avenue splits, so I was on one side of the creek, and this is the other side,” Councilman Katrina Wilson said. “I played in those wooded areas near that creek. I ran up and down, being mischievous as we were growing up. In all the years I grew up there, there was never flooding in our yards, never. People who live there now have dry basements. No flooding. I am not saying it cannot happen, but from growing up there and I am 63, there was no flooding. My mother still lives there, so I am very familiar with this property.”
Wilson stated that she had gone out to the property as she had some reservations about the project and saw that, even after a heavy rain, there was no mud or standing water. Wilson recalled jumping the creek, using that land as a shortcut, so she felt she had extensive knowledge of the property.
“Are we able to get trash trucks in there? Are we setting our guys up for failure because they sideswipe a car on a narrow road?” Councilman Michael Stewart said. “Can we get a firetruck in there?
Pierce stated that the road met the code and that there were even narrower streets in town where trash trucks and fire apparatus were able to manage. Councilman Danny Perez stated that he was not against growth, but he felt that the narrow streets would cause problems in the future. During the public hearing, several neighbors spoke in support of the development.
“Everything we have read here seems like a well-planned development that will have a positive on the neighborhood and the city of Milford,” Jennifer McSorley who lives on Truitt Avenue near the development, said. “If this is not approved, the developer has an option for an alternative plan for 72 apartments and we prefer this plan.”
Dan Bond who lives on North Street also spoke in favor of the development as he felt it met the needs of young families who were looking at purchasing housing. Others who live nearby, however, were not in favor of the development.
“You have 39 units, you have two cars and have a garage that holds one car, there really isn’t room for additional cars when your grandmother visits, your uncle visits or you have a teenage son,” Maura Clery, who lives two houses away, said. “You’re going to add 80 cars, two cars per house and if they have a grandmother who lives there, you could be up to 120 cars.
Jennifer Sinelli-Miller, who stated she was a planner, felt there was a need for affordable housing, but she did not feel this plan would provide that. She was also concerned about the proximity to wetlands reminding everyone that Ellicott City had a 100-year and a 500-year flood back-to-back.
“This plan has shortcomings. The lack of parks and recreation areas, the lack of safe areas for kids to play,” former Councilman Mike Boyle said. “This is going to be a family environment. Street hockey will become popular. The issue is they don’t have the open space, and they want to push it off to the city to deal with it. As a former member of the Planning Commission, I ask you to listen to their decision. They voted to deny for a reason.”
Julie Morris, who gave an address of East Street, pointed out that Mullet Run was not a small creek but was a tributary to the Mispillion River. She stated that in 1887, during a hurricane, all tributaries to the Mispillion overflowed their banks and water rose “so high” families fled to their attics.
“Livestock drowned, crops were destroyed, and roofs ripped off,” Morris said. “That history is exactly why our own code treats this area as 100-year flood plain, the wetland. It will affect the quality of Mullett Run and, I mean, what’s our city slogan? I’m not even going to mention it because it’s hilarious. You guys don’t care.”
Morris also accused Mayor Todd Culotta of pulling the development from an agenda a few weeks ago so that he could hold a workshop on affordable housing.
“Culotta wanted you guys to hear this affordable plan act so you would all be like “Oh this is affordable housing,” but it is not,” Morris said. He wanted to brainwash all of you into thinking you would see this as affordable. The developer says this will be like Winsome Knoll in Camden where the market rate is $300,000 to $350,000. To afford a home in that range, you must make between $85,000 to $105,000 a year.”
Morris also claimed that the “threat” of 72 apartments was not possible. She stated that in order to build 72 apartments, the developer would have to go through Board of Adjustments as well as Planning and Zoning due to the wetlands.
After the public hearing, Councilman Jason James asked Pierce if the developer would be able to build the 72-unit building.
“The applicant did provide ahead of time a rendering of what they feel would fit on the property in terms of family housing in the form of apartments,” Pierce said. “It appears that the plan is feasible. As for the trash collection, Brian Jester, refuse supervisor told council that they would have no issue getting trash on the narrow roads.
“However, if we continue to approve narrow streets, we will have to change our current fleet,” Willis Shafer, Public Works director, said. “Right now, we have three side loaders and one rear so we will probably need to add another rear loader.”
Council voted on each request separately. In each vote, council supported the votes to approve and deny along with Planning & Zoning. Council voted 6 to 2 to deny the development with Wilson and James the only affirmative votes.
