Milford City Council sent a request from 609 Walnut LLC to subdivide three parcels into eight in order to construct two single-family and five duplexes. The development would be constructed on North Walnut Street between Northeast Sixth and Northeast Seventh Street. Planning Commission approved the request with a vote of four to two.
“We are proposing to subdivide three existing tax parcels into eight containing two-single family detached dwellings and six single-family semi-detached dwellings,” Mark Davidson, an engineer on the project, said. ‘One parcel has an existing single family detached dwelling that will remain and be located on lot nine. This house has been identified as being constructed in the 1950s according to the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs.”
Davidson pointed out that the project conformed with the Comprehensive Plan and was zoned as R2. It would not require additional streets and it there were city utilities adjacent. Davidson explained that there would be off street parking and individual driveways. The developer requested cash in lieu of open space. During the public hearing, no one spoke in favor of the development, but several neighbors spoke against it.
“My issue is that we have a code for a reason and getting smaller doesn’t make any sense to me,” Susan Kelly, who lives on North Walnut Street near the proposed development, said. “They’re putting a very large house on a very narrow lot, and it does affect the neighbor just to the south of this property. She’s going to be looking right into that house, and it does affect her property value and not in a good way.”
Julie Morris, who has given addresses on Cedar Creek Road and East Street, also spoke against the project, making allegations that developers were lining the pockets of council.
“I wish we could find one developer that doesn’t want to infringe on the neighbors,” Morris said. “But then again, they wouldn’t be developers. I am going to focus on one very specific part of the subdivision, lot 10. At the Board of Adjustments and Planning Commission, there were four families here from Walnut Street. So, congratulations to the municipality. You wore them down. You disheartened them enough because it passed both of those that coming here tonight was too much. One of them even said, “don’t bother because they won’t listen.” And that is sad.”
Morris felt that when the Board of Adjustment approved variances for the project, they used no real criteria.
“They also had real alternatives here. They could have reduced the number of lots by one and met the standards they could, so any reduced width was shared between the two new lots within their own project,” Morris said. “Or, they could have reconfigured the layout, so the narrowest dimension internally and not jammed against a longtime neighbor. Apparently, someone is lining somebody’s pocket on city council.”
Mayor Todd Culotta interrupted Morris, telling her that comments like that were not truthful and since she was under oath, she should not be making general comments that were unfair. He told her to stop making such comments or he would ask her to leave chambers.
“I will reclaim my minutes,” Morris said. “It’s clear that developers have some way with people in the city because you’re not listening to constituents, you are listening to developers.”
Greg Kelly, who lives on Walnut Street near the development spoke after Morris.
“I think we are coming off too strong and I believe part of our problem, the reason the variance was approved, is because some of us are coming off too strong, saying inflammatory things,” Kelly said. “As council members, I ask you to look at that giant house and the house next to it. That house is way bigger than the rest. I am watching all these things go due to personality clashes. I’m starting to feel that’s how it is going because there was no reason to approve this. There is no reason the person who lives there already should suffer. Their property values will definitely go down. The builder will take that money and put it in their pocket, but I don’t think that is anything to do with council, but I am asking you to protect the existing residents in the city, hold your rules and enforce your own rules.”
Karen Duffy, who also lives close to the development on Walnut Street, opposed the design of Lot 10 in the plan. She was not against the duplexes, but felt the home on that lot was far too big. She was also concerned about trucks and construction vehicles impeding the view as people backed out of her driveway.
“As a former member of the Board of Adjustments, I would like to make a comment,” Councilwoman Nadia Zychal said after the public hearing was closed. “This particular variance, what needed to be taken into account was the general character of the neighborhood. If you look specifically at Lot 10, it seems to me that particular build is very large compared to the actual lot.”
City Planner Rob Pierce confirmed that the design met the required setback from other properties of eight feet.
“One of the things that needs to be considered, there are very specific criteria when a variance is approved and one of them is denying would cause a difficulty,” Zychal said. “I don’t see how being considerate of the nature of the neighborhood would cause a difficulty by reducing that one particular build on that one lot.”
Pierce clarified the variance, stating that it was for a lot reduction that would create Lot 10.
“If the lot reduction was not granted, Lot 9 would be around 20,000 square feet or greater,” Pierce said. “It was determined by the board at the meeting that the lot was similar to the neighborhood to the south of this application. There is a 56-foot lot line for this new house and the property to the south has a 60-foot lot line. In the board’s opinion, it wasn’t out of character with the area.”
Culotta asked if council could approve the request with a smaller dwelling. City Solicitor Greg Morris stated that his concern was that the Planning Commission was not presented with that option, so if council wanted to do that, they would need to send it back to the Planning Commission with that suggestion.
Council voted six to two to return the application to Planning and Zoning with the suggestion that the builder reduce the size of the home on Lot 10. Councilwoman Katrina Wilson voted no as she felt the application met all the city requirements.
“I vote no as it meets the requirements,” Councilman Jason James said. “I think Lot 10 is in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
